On 9/28/10 7:49 PM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 6:48 PM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/27/10 7:53 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/27/10 5:25 AM, carole wrote:




If they do work, show us the science.

The problem is dr no doc I have developed my thinking through
alternative
avenues and my own experience. No help whatsoever from your "scientific
sources".

You've got that right, although I wouldn't call what you do, "thinking."
And you're right about not developing it through scientific sources.
Instead, you developed it through unreliable, unproven sources.

You draw your conclusion, I'll draw mine which is that medical science
has
been rigged to support pharmaceutical solutions firstly through massive
donations to medical schools by the Rockefeller foundation, then through
operations like AMA and other pharmaceutical backed organisations that
like
to destroy any opposition to their business with disease.

And since when do you do any thinking ...unless you refer to your
absorbing
and regurgitating?

Why do you think that some diseases are cured by nutrients (eg scurvy,
beri
beri) and some not? Could it be that all disease is deficiency disease,
if
not, why not?


But you want me to change my whole orientation and begin to give you
scientific evidence.

Gee, you're posting to sci.med, short for science.medicine. That should
give you a hint that using science is appropriate in the newsgroup.

Well gee to you mate, you're posting to misc.health.alternative - so same
back at ya.


If scientific evidence worked for me I wouldn't have had to figure out
all
my health solutions out for myself.

That's a stupid comment. You've no clue about science or medicine.

Well derr, I do you know. What I know is that they ignore little
complaints
and call people hypocondriacs until something full blown and deadly turns
up.
then they use chemo, radiation and surgery to do further damage.


I have spent years working this stuff out and have come to the
conclusion
that scientific medicine is geared to suit the pharmaceutical business
with
disease rather than cure anybody of anything. Yes, there are some good
people working in the system is hopelessly broken and corrupt.

You're wrong. There is no better way than science to understand how the
body works or nature works.

Rubbish.


So what I have figured out so far is that the soil theory is more
important
than the germ theory, homeopathy, nutritional remedies and detoxing are
good.

Yeap, you just demonstrated you have no clue. Giving water (homeopathy)
to
cure a disease doesn't work. Nor do "soil theory," "nutritional
remedies"
or "detoxing" work.

Homeopathy isn't water goon.
You're clueless about alternative remedies - why do you post to this ng?


They are good for the liars selling them.

Your allopathic medicine is the crap.


Nutritional remedies can cure disease from microbes, bacteria, fungi
and
parasites.

No, it can't.

Yes it can idiot.


Scientific evidence is a skeptic tool, designed to screen out anything
not
approved by the pharmaceutical cartel.

No, scientific evidence is a science designed to screen out things that
don't work or are not true.

Scientific medicine uses skeptics to do its dirty work. It removes any
evidence that alternative works then gets the skeptics to debunk it.
I have heard that the illuminati don't ever get their hands dirty but use
front men or organisations to do their dirty work. This would be a prime
example -- skeptics debunking alternative medicine.


Not the dumbed-down crap that treats deficiency diseases with drugs
and
waits until diseases reach crisis stage before being able to offer a
solution.

Please describe what these "deficiency diseases" are, give some
examples,
and explain how the nutritional cures work. Don't forget to back your
claims with science.

One deficiency disease is underarm odour which is a deficiency of
silica.

That is a stupid statement.

Only in the eyes of the stupid.

Silica is sand. Sand doesn't smell. There is no need for silica in the
human body. Please provide evidence if I am incorrect, including properly
performed studies.

Silica, silicon, silicon dioxide, siliclic acid - any of these ring a bell?


Silica is also beneficial for bone growth and arterial health, amongst
other
things.

Silica is harmful and can cause inflamation if inside the body. It is
not
absorbed by the body.

Get a clue errol. Studies have shown that silica is a vital nutrient, go
do
some homework in pubmed or one of your research books.

I did. It is a toxin. That's about it.

How about silicon dioxide?

Bottom line is that silicon is not a nutrient for humans. If I am
incorrect, show me *good* evidence.

Therefore underarm odour is indication of a health problem.

Go walk into a middle school or a high school after gym. If what you
say,
the entire gym class would be about to die.

Not about to die, but with a silica deficiency yes.

There is no such thing as silica deficiency, unless you are a Intel-based
computer.

This is a trick question right?
You are going to accuse me of using the word "silica" instead of "silicon
dioxide" right?

No, because silicon is not a human nutrient.

Sorry, better people than you have tried it, and bob the moron too.

Nice name calling. THat's your best (actually only) argument.

Jef