"Bob Officer" [email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:14:18 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, Peter
Bowditch wrote:

"carole" wrote:

WHY PLEOMORPHISM IS UNKNOWN TO MODERN MEDICINE

It's unknown for the same reason that miasma and humours are unknown
to modern medicine, which is that medicine has moved beyond such
ancient, meaningless ideas.

It is known to modern history when medical students brief study the
history of medicine. This beleifs are not supported by Evidence or
data. They were outright conjecture even back when the concepts/ideas
were 1st written about. When you read these old papers they use a
great deal of guessing because they had no data and no way to get
data. No microscopes and the only way to record what the saw was
drawings and written word.

I know what you mean bob. There are lots of different theories out there and some take on a life of their own despite the fact they
aren't true.
I can see how that can happen and does happen no doubt.


I spoke to a dermatologist once. He said the two major advancements
in technology which helped the medical field. 1.the microscope 2. the
photograph. (Even the X ray is just a specialized type of
photograph.)

You can speak to anybody about anything. For argument's sake, some people might tell you not to trust anybody ...is that right or
wrong?


Every year, when I go in for my Melanoma checkup the doctor uses a
set of 100 photographs made 15 years ago and compares what he sees
with the photographs, looking for any changes in the nevi.

Some people will not replace what they think is science for what is
really is. Science is just a tool or system for testing knowledge.

Science is just a word used to describe whatever is supposed to be the highest standard to testing of various phenomena, as opposed
to hearsay, speculation and gut instinct.
Many people push their half-baked theories because they make sense in some way that is meaningful to them, but they can be debunked
by science (supposedly) if they are wrong.


Items which fail the tests are considered conjecture if they fail to
met the standards of evidence. If falsified they are recorded as
history but not forgotten.

The only problem is that science is sometimes biased itself - so what you end up with is the scientific studies which become no more
reliable as conjecture..


Some people would call it being suppressed, but then why would
history record the events if they were suppressed?

There are many possibilities - you'd have to give specific cases and then we could come up with a list of possible reasons to work
on.

--
Carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Becker then goes on to explain that researchers are not allowed funding for certain topics. ... We have been greatly deceived. We
have been led to believe that modern theory is supported by experiments, but we have not been told that the experiments that can
disprove modern theory have been denied from being conducted." -Roger Anderton (author)