If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Allopathy Inc personality traits
"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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Allopathy Inc personality traits
"Bob Officer" .@. wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 03:27:58 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, "carole" wrote: "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. yes we do. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/TechReports/UCAM-CL-TR-635.html http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_det...csnumber=38750 http://www.irisbase.com/ - non-functional http://google.com/patents?id=KRkpAAAAEBAJ http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/jgd1000/irisrecog.pdf http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jgd1000/patrec.pdf http://www.cbsr.ia.ac.cn/users/zfhe/publications.html http://iris.nist.gov/ICE/ICE_2005_Re...0March2006.pdf According to a book that I have called The Science and Practice of Iridology by Bernard Jensen, where he consistently talks about iris changes caused by both disease and healing. 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. and the Research and evidence to back this claim is where, so I can examine these data set? That's right they claim is all based on here-say, and what is now a considered a falsified assumption. The body of evidence and data is sufficient that the assumption upon which iridology is based is false. Yes bob, we all know about conventional statistics and how reliable they can be. It is a well known fact that many people as they get older develop murkier irises with discolouration and acid overlays, not to mention the scurf rings and arcus senilis (the arc of senility) - you know that while arc that goes between 11 and 1 oclock on the iris. 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. No if an avenue is shown to false, or the claims falsified, as in iridology how many times do you revisit blind canyons of beliefs which are contradicted by evidence? I wouldn't believe it was false by anything told to me by an allopath for starters, and wouldn't believe everything told to me by a failed iridologist either because the healing effects depend on the methodology used to achieve it. If the method is no good, no healing = no iris change. If you pick up a rock and drop it 1000 times measuring the rate of fall and you come up with a rate for acceleration, how many more times to continue to test the rate? You're the expert on rocks bob. 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. That isn't how science and evidence works. The condition might have past or faded without cell salt intervention. That's why double blind test are conduction to couple the effect and cause and solution. I don't care how science or evidence works because I do it my own way. That's the beauty of using a tool called science, when you are done the results are available for anyone to test or examine. Except when the data is manipulated which happens often enough. See Fraud in Drug Testing at http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/...ch/drug2a.html The ugliness of your result is it simple your say-so, without evidence or any real result. (it is called empty hand waving) No the ugliness of your science is that people have to rely on "experts" and "reliable sources" which aren't often either expert or reliable. We all know there is massive suppression of alternative remedies, so a person is literally forced to investigate these things for themselves anyway. No we don't, Carole. that is multiple fallacy statement, (post hoc + agrement from popularity fallacy) When you start off with a declarative (we all know / all right thinking people / the smart people say it is red light that the rest of the statement is also fallacious in nature and should be examine carefully. There is massive suppression of alternative remedies. Its not called "The Medical Racket" for nothing. The Developing American Medical Racket http://www.ahealedplanet.net/medicine.htm The rest of your statement is an argument is more defective in logic. If it is suppressed how do you know about it? If it is suppressed why are the book stores and book sellers shelves lined with books on alternative (conjecture based) medicine? You wish. You see Carole, you statements fall apart when examined, because being illogical and poorly constructed fallacies. No they don't. Get you money back on the IQ test which you took, it must have been defective, and Carole, you are no "Mastermind". How's the alzheimer's going? -- 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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Allopathy Inc personality traits
On 10/18/10 11:03 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message ... On 10/17/10 10:55 PM, carole wrote: wrote in message ... On 10/17/10 6:12 PM, 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. Who decides what is and what isn't worthy of funding? What do you, "but"? We don't have the funds to support every possible research project, let alone enough qualified people. Much of the US funding is paid for by the the American people, through their government, who determines who gets the funding and which projects are funded. Most of the funds are awarded by peer-review in which experts in the particular field determine which grant proposals are approved and funded. Some funds are awarded by the directors of the various institutes. This is done so that riskier, but possible more profitable, research can be done. Drug companies and device makers do some of the research. And, some private foundations pay for some research, like the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and American Cancer Society. In most of the these cases, the awards are made by peer-review, also. The process isn't perfect. For example, over $1 billion has been wasted on testing useless "alternative medicine," which is better called "conjecture-based medicine" or con-med. In every case, the alternative medicine not been found to be any better than placebo. The system is corrupt and designed to only support pharmaceutical drugs. garbage deleted Today we have patriarchal society where male values dominate and infiltrate every aspect of society. However, it is beginning to change as move women into top jobs where decisions are made and policies are formed. Being male or female has nothing to do with science. Ideas and evidence rule. Not necessarily. Good ideas with supporting evidence is what wins the day. The system is far from perfect. But it beats the money-making alternative medicine system any day. No it doesn't which is why allopathic medicine is America's number 1 cause of death. No, allopathic medicne is not America's #1 cause of death. Stupidity is. Like beleiving in con-med (conjecture-based medicine or con-med). |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Allopathy Inc personality traits
On 10/18/10 2:06 PM, carole wrote:
"Bob Officer".@. wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 03:27:58 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, wrote: "Bob Officer".@. wrote in message ... On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:14:35 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, wrote: "Bob Officer".@. wrote in message ... On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:55:43 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, 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. yes we do. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/TechReports/UCAM-CL-TR-635.html http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_det...csnumber=38750 http://www.irisbase.com/ - non-functional http://google.com/patents?id=KRkpAAAAEBAJ http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/jgd1000/irisrecog.pdf http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jgd1000/patrec.pdf http://www.cbsr.ia.ac.cn/users/zfhe/publications.html http://iris.nist.gov/ICE/ICE_2005_Re...0March2006.pdf According to a book that I have called The Science and Practice of Iridology by Bernard Jensen, where he consistently talks about iris changes caused by both disease and healing. Evidence please. A self-serving book doesn't count. 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. and the Research and evidence to back this claim is where, so I can examine these data set? That's right they claim is all based on here-say, and what is now a considered a falsified assumption. The body of evidence and data is sufficient that the assumption upon which iridology is based is false. Yes bob, we all know about conventional statistics and how reliable they can be. It is a well known fact that many people as they get older develop murkier irises with discolouration and acid overlays, not to mention the scurf rings and arcus senilis (the arc of senility) - you know that while arc that goes between 11 and 1 oclock on the iris. So? Prove that this makes iridology accurate. 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. No if an avenue is shown to false, or the claims falsified, as in iridology how many times do you revisit blind canyons of beliefs which are contradicted by evidence? I wouldn't believe it was false by anything told to me by an allopath for starters, and wouldn't believe everything told to me by a failed iridologist either because the healing effects depend on the methodology used to achieve it. If the method is no good, no healing = no iris change. The iris doesn't change because of disease. If I am incorrect, provide good evidence that I am wrong. If you pick up a rock and drop it 1000 times measuring the rate of fall and you come up with a rate for acceleration, how many more times to continue to test the rate? You're the expert on rocks bob. That doesn't follow the conversation. It only shows that you don't have a clue about what we're talking. 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. That isn't how science and evidence works. The condition might have past or faded without cell salt intervention. That's why double blind test are conduction to couple the effect and cause and solution. I don't care how science or evidence works because I do it my own way. Then you have no place in misc.kids or misc.kids.health or sci.med. That's the beauty of using a tool called science, when you are done the results are available for anyone to test or examine. Except when the data is manipulated which happens often enough. See Fraud in Drug Testing at http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/...ch/drug2a.html And, you can still test and examine the evidence. And, you can do your own tests. So, you think iridologists are 100% honest and only want to help people? The ugliness of your result is it simple your say-so, without evidence or any real result. (it is called empty hand waving) No the ugliness of your science is that people have to rely on "experts" and "reliable sources" which aren't often either expert or reliable. No, the beauty of science is that anyone can access the papers at the library or over the internet and read the research reports. Any theory can be changed if there is enough support for the new theory. Even the theory of gravity was changed. We all know there is massive suppression of alternative remedies, so a person is literally forced to investigate these things for themselves anyway. No we don't, Carole. that is multiple fallacy statement, (post hoc + agrement from popularity fallacy) When you start off with a declarative (we all know / all right thinking people / the smart people say it is red light that the rest of the statement is also fallacious in nature and should be examine carefully. There is massive suppression of alternative remedies. Its not called "The Medical Racket" for nothing. And there is almost no support for the vast majority of them. Would you take your car to a mechanic who says he thinks that pushing in a pedal twenty times fixes the clutch without any evidence? Then why would you believe a iridologist? Oh, because you are easily fooled into believing in con-med (conjecture based medicine). The Developing American Medical Racket http://www.ahealedplanet.net/medicine.htm Do you think every conjecture-based medicine (con-med) person is based in science, honest and trust-worthy? I don't. Only a fool would think that con-med people are all honest. The rest of your statement is an argument is more defective in logic. If it is suppressed how do you know about it? If it is suppressed why are the book stores and book sellers shelves lined with books on alternative (conjecture based) medicine? You wish. In other words, you can't answer the question. You see Carole, you statements fall apart when examined, because being illogical and poorly constructed fallacies. No they don't. Actually, they do. Too bad you're too stupid to see it. Get you money back on the IQ test which you took, it must have been defective, and Carole, you are no "Mastermind". How's the alzheimer's going? Nice comeback. You should print it out so you don't forget it. Jeff |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Allopathy Inc personality traits
"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. -- Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Allopathy Inc personality traits
"carole" wrote in message d.com... her article was a bit wordy for me male psychopaths outnumber females eight to one. as psychopathy is a new discovery, I still think Patriarchy is reign by male psychopaths. Some female ones get used, eg Rice, Albright, Hilary and psychopathy may be covert reign by reptilians |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Allopathy Inc personality traits
"Peter Bowditch" wrote in 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. RAOFL! Pleomorphism, the correct germ theory, would kill vaccination http://whale.to/v/pleomorphism.htm and it is telling that Pasteur was a fraud and plagarist http://whale.to/v/pasteur.html "We must infer that at least some and probably all three of those Russian peasants died because of Pasteur's vaccine, as did uncounted people later on....Only one thing is su ever since Pasteur developed his "vaccine," the cases of death from rabies have increased, not diminished."--Hans Ruesch "Through a physician in Brittany, Nonclercq came across a thick tome on the history of a medicine in which she read that, on his death bed, Louis Pasteur had declared: Claude Bernard war right... the microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything." What Pasteur omitted was that his confession had been based not on single insightful statement by France's leading physiologist, Bernard, but by Antoine Béchamp, the man with whom he had been locked in struggle for decades."--Christopher Bird "Orthodox virology omits toxicology, and is thus void. Toxicological causation is obvious and toxicology is avoided by the media like the plague. Forget the intellectual, scientific intrigue of virology. Without toxicology, virology is a mind-trap. Virology is the deadly virus. Orthodoxy could claim that a "virus" has any number of fearful characteristics, but those characteristics are meaningless if the victims are poisoned. Without poisoning, perhaps the virus is a nutrient. Perhaps there is no virus. Most likely, the "virus" is harmless human nucleic acid, rearranged as a response to poisoning, and thus always a test for said "virus" would be positive during periods of poisoning." Swine Flu 2009 by Jim West |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Allopathy Inc personality traits
"anoldfriend" wrote in message ... On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:06:37 -0400, carole wrote (in article m): "Bob Officer" .@. wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 03:27:58 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, "carole" wrote: "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. yes we do. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/TechReports/UCAM-CL-TR-635.html http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_det...csnumber=38750 http://www.irisbase.com/ - non-functional http://google.com/patents?id=KRkpAAAAEBAJ http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/jgd1000/irisrecog.pdf http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jgd1000/patrec.pdf http://www.cbsr.ia.ac.cn/users/zfhe/publications.html http://iris.nist.gov/ICE/ICE_2005_Re...0March2006.pdf According to a book that I have called The Science and Practice of Iridology by Bernard Jensen, where he consistently talks about iris changes caused by both disease and healing. So who do we believe, Bernard Jensen or Joshua David Mather Sr.? http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...nfessions.html I can't recall ever seeing this confession before. Who was/is Joshua David Mather Snr? -- Carole www.conspiracee.com "For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no secret is revealed. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. I am asking your help in the tremendous task of alerting the people." --President Kennedy |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Allopathy Inc personality traits
"dr_jeff" wrote in message ... On 10/18/10 2:06 PM, carole wrote: "Bob Officer".@. wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 03:27:58 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, wrote: "Bob Officer".@. wrote in message ... On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:14:35 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, wrote: "Bob Officer".@. wrote in message ... On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:55:43 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, 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. yes we do. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/TechReports/UCAM-CL-TR-635.html http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_det...csnumber=38750 http://www.irisbase.com/ - non-functional http://google.com/patents?id=KRkpAAAAEBAJ http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/jgd1000/irisrecog.pdf http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jgd1000/patrec.pdf http://www.cbsr.ia.ac.cn/users/zfhe/publications.html http://iris.nist.gov/ICE/ICE_2005_Re...0March2006.pdf According to a book that I have called The Science and Practice of Iridology by Bernard Jensen, where he consistently talks about iris changes caused by both disease and healing. Evidence please. A self-serving book doesn't count. The very first example where legend has it that in 1837, Von Peczely captured an owl and inso doing broke its leg, which showed up in the iris of the owl as a black line which gradually disappeared as the leg healed. 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. and the Research and evidence to back this claim is where, so I can examine these data set? That's right they claim is all based on here-say, and what is now a considered a falsified assumption. The body of evidence and data is sufficient that the assumption upon which iridology is based is false. Yes bob, we all know about conventional statistics and how reliable they can be. It is a well known fact that many people as they get older develop murkier irises with discolouration and acid overlays, not to mention the scurf rings and arcus senilis (the arc of senility) - you know that while arc that goes between 11 and 1 oclock on the iris. So? Prove that this makes iridology accurate. Prove that allopathic medicine is accurate. 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. No if an avenue is shown to false, or the claims falsified, as in iridology how many times do you revisit blind canyons of beliefs which are contradicted by evidence? I wouldn't believe it was false by anything told to me by an allopath for starters, and wouldn't believe everything told to me by a failed iridologist either because the healing effects depend on the methodology used to achieve it. If the method is no good, no healing = no iris change. The iris doesn't change because of disease. If I am incorrect, provide good evidence that I am wrong. According to iridology the iris changes due to toxemia, and the amount of disease is directly proportional to the amount of toxemia. -- Carole www.conspiracee.com "The common objection 'I don't believe in conspiracies' need not be taken seriously, since every meeting behind closed doors is a conspiracy. All diplomacy, foreign policy, business decisions and political strategies are done in this way. Conspiracies happen every day." -Peter Myers |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Allopathy Inc personality traits
"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message ... "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. Yes, medicine has now moved to $300,000 cancer treatments that may or may not prolong life. It has moved to lifelong dependency on expensive drugs, transplants which cost $15k pa for anti-rejection drugs, and mass vaccinations at $10+ a pop which is a nice little money spinner when you multiply it by the total population. Yes, it certainly has "moved ahead" for some. -- Carole www.conspiracee.com "When the people are afraid of the government, that's tyranny. But when the government is afraid of the people, that's erty." -Thomas Jefferson. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Personality profile for most Pharma zealots | john[_5_] | Kids Health | 3 | October 15th 10 11:05 AM |
Homeopathy vs allopathy - Part 2. | [email protected] | Kids Health | 32 | September 9th 06 03:24 PM |
Homeopathy vs allopathy. | [email protected] | Kids Health | 8 | August 11th 06 06:49 PM |
Miss Personality | bookers | Pregnancy | 2 | February 21st 05 02:46 AM |