A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Allopathy Inc personality traits



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 18th 10, 05:27 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
carole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Allopathy Inc personality traits


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


"Bob Officer" [email protected] 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  
Old October 18th 10, 07:06 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
carole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Allopathy Inc personality traits


"Bob Officer" [email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 03:27:58 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
"carole" wrote:


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


"Bob Officer" [email protected] 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  
Old October 19th 10, 12:36 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
dr_jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 293
Default 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  
Old October 19th 10, 12:47 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
dr_jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 293
Default Allopathy Inc personality traits

On 10/18/10 2:06 PM, carole wrote:
"Bob Officer"[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 03:27:58 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
wrote:


"Bob Officer"[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:14:35 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
wrote:


"Bob Officer"[email protected] 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  
Old October 19th 10, 01:14 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
Peter Bowditch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,038
Default 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  
Old October 19th 10, 02:51 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
john[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 822
Default 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  
Old October 19th 10, 02:53 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
john[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 822
Default 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  
Old October 19th 10, 11:22 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
carole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Allopathy Inc personality traits


"anoldfriend" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:06:37 -0400, carole wrote
(in article m):


"Bob Officer" [email protected] wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 03:27:58 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
"carole" wrote:


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


"Bob Officer" [email protected] 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  
Old October 19th 10, 11:35 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
carole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Allopathy Inc personality traits


"dr_jeff" wrote in message ...
On 10/18/10 2:06 PM, carole wrote:
"Bob Officer"[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 03:27:58 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
wrote:


"Bob Officer"[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:14:35 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
wrote:


"Bob Officer"[email protected] 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  
Old October 19th 10, 11:44 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
carole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 03:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.