"Bob Officer" .@. wrote in message ...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:14:35 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
"carole" wrote:


"Bob Officer" .@. wrote in message ...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:55:43 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
"carole" wrote:




What you're describing john sounds like the patriarchal culture, where the macho men reign by secrecy, authoritarian regimes,
hierarchical systems and brute force.

However, that doesn't sound like science at all. All the science that counts is published in publicly available journals,
often
available at libraries or over the internet for free. The abstracts (summaries) of the articles are almost always available
for
free.

Ah yes, but Jeff, only certain health research is considered worthy of funding.

Yes, research which shows promise.

No, research which doesn't threaten big pharma.


Who decides what is and what isn't worthy of funding?

Well I guess you would actually look at avenues which haven't been
explored. After all how many times do you spend money to find the
evidence doesn't support Iridology or some other already explored
avenue shown to be a failure?

That was a rhetorical question bob.

It didn't look like one, Carole. I actually thought it was a
sarcastic question but a good one. I gave a good answer.

Since we know the structure of the iris is fixed in a person to the
extent it can be used for identification using iris scans, It pretty
much places the practice of iridology into the area of
pseudoscience...well not even really pseudo science, but pure
bull****.

We don't know that the iris is fixed bob. When the health is deteriorating the irises get murkier with more overlay of signs of
toxins, the lesions get darker, there may be more nerve rings, probably more clumping of fibres. However, under a healing regime the
lesions are said to get lighter in color and eventually can disappear.


How many times does one spend time, money and effort to explore
avenues which have proved fruitless, Carole? How many times does it
have to be pointed out to you that, Claims based only on post hoc
fallacies (like your cell salt cures) fall apart under the most
simple examination and questioning.

This isn't the fault of the therapies bob, but of the researchers.


1. where is the evidence you had a fungus infection. (slides)
2. where are the evidence you no longer have fungus growth (slides)
3. where are the control subjects in the double blind test using a
placebo. (I would even accept a simple masked test at this point)

You see how quickly your claim fails the most simplistic of razors.

Not really bob. The beauty of my system is that anybody can test it for themselves and there is no substitute for firsthand
experience.
We all know there is massive suppression of alternative remedies, so a person is literally forced to investigate these things for
themselves anyway.


--
Carole
www.conspiracee.com
"The members of skeptical societies often operate from a faith, a faith known today as scientism, which is the worship of science,
believing its methods to be the only valid path to knowledge." --Wade Frazier, The Medical Racket.
http://www.ahealedplanet.net/medicine.htm