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

Gut flora



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 29th 10, 03:01 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
dr_jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 293
Default Gut flora

On 9/28/10 9:48 PM, carole wrote:

"dr_jeff" wrote in message
...
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.


WHO FOOD ADDITIVES SERIES NO. 5
http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm


From that report: Very small amounts of silica are normally present in
all body tissues but there is no evidence that they play any
physiological role.

The Importance of Silicon
http://www.ultimatesg.com/22mayjarrowsilicon.html
"Silicon is a trace mineral required for the formation of healthy
connective tissue, bone, skin, hair and nails. Silicon is essential for
collagen formation, healthy arteries and regulates calcium deposition in
bones.* BioSil's active silicon is an essential partner of calcium for
bones, glucosamine for joints


http://www.ultimatesg.com/ is an advertising site for nutritional
supplements. In other words, unreliable.

Absorption is Key. Dietary sources of silicon such as those found in
food, horsetail and colloidal gel (silica) products are very poorly
absorbed because of their insoluble, polymerized forms. For absorption
to occur, dietary silicon must be first converted to Orthosilicic Acid
(monomeric silicic acid), the bioavailable form found in BioSil™.

Why is BioSil™ Different? BioSil™ (Si[OH]4) is 20,000 times more soluble
than silica(SiO2 — found in horsetail and colloidal gels) and 2.5 times
more bioavailable than other forms of silicon!

The superiority of silicon as concentrated, choline-stabilized
orthosilicic acid from BioSil™ has been proven in a peer reviewed
scientific study comparing three different forms of
silicon. The results of the comparative, cross-over, double-blind
clinical trial demonstrated that the stabilized monomeric form of
silicon (stabilized orthosilicic acid – as found in BioSil™) is far
superior to colloidal silica and horsetail extract. In fact, of the
three experimental groups, only BioSil™ offered a bioavailable source of
silicon; the other forms of silicon (horsetail and colloidal gel) were
no better than placebo1.

Scientific References
1. Arch Dermatol Res. 2005 Oct;297(4):147-53. Epub 2005 Oct 26. Effect
of oral intake of choline-stabilized orthosilicic acid on skin, nails
and hair in women with photodamaged skin. Barel A et al.


So? There were just 50 people in the study, 25 in the control and 25 in
the experiment group. There was at most a 20% change in the roughness,
at most. Big deal.

2. Calcif Tissue Int. 2006 Apr;78(4):227-32. Epub 2006 Apr 13. Partial
prevention of long-term femoral bone loss in aged ovariectomized rats
supplemented with choline-stabilized orthosilicic acid. Calomme M et al."


I will be sure to throw some sand on the train tracks in NYC for the
rats keep strong bones.

THis is the best you can do? One small study and one rat study?

What a waste of electrons.

Jeff
  #22  
Old September 29th 10, 03:26 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
carole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Gut flora


"dr_jeff" wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 7:51 PM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 6:50 PM, carole wrote:
"Bob wrote in message

...



Really? The pharmaceutical industry does not determine which journal
articles are published. Further, with the internet, they can't surpress
anything.


don't kid yourself, the mass media, the medical journals, and school
textbooks are tightly controlled.


The conspiracy theory rears its ugly head.

Rather, modern medicine and science require that hypotheses and theories
be supported with evidence.


And for that very reason, they derail alternative therapies on cooked up
reasons before they get the chance to do any studies.


There's NCCAM - National Center for Complementary and Alternative
Medicine, part of the National Institutes of Medicine. Though they spent
about $1 billion in research on conjecture-based medicine (alternative
medicine), they have yet to find any evidence that any alternative
medicine works better than placebo.


Apparently the NCCAM is in charge of the NCCAM, which is like putting the
fox in charge of the chicken coup.
There is no independence.



The reason why research on alternative therapies are derailed is that
there is no scientific reason to believe that they work and no evidence to
support them.


Don't you know how old man rockefeller gave massive donations to medical
schools in exchange for them teaching pharmaceutical medicine?


You know about the four humours? That is what today's allopathic
medicine
will look like in 100 years.

There is a great book called, "Doctors" by Sherwin Nuland. He talks
about
the origins of the four humours.

The four humours are a classic example of ignorance of how the body
works.
That you support this ancient and disproven idea says volumes about your
inability to understand science and medicine.


Go back and read for comprehension dr jeff.


I have. I suggest you do the same. The conjecture of the humours (I say
conjecture, because there is no evidence for them) is utter rubbish. It
may have made sense based on what was known about the body in the 1500s,
but based on what we know now, it is rubbish.


As I said, in 100 years your allopathic medicine will look as stupid as the
four humours looks now.


Enough said. You're ideas are not worth my time.


You obviously can't handle the truth.
Last thing we need in mha is another pharmaceutical stooge.

--
carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806)




Jeff



  #23  
Old September 29th 10, 05:53 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
carole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Gut flora


"dr_jeff" wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 7:51 PM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 6:50 PM, carole wrote:
"Bob wrote in message

...



Really? The pharmaceutical industry does not determine which journal
articles are published. Further, with the internet, they can't surpress
anything.


don't kid yourself, the mass media, the medical journals, and school
textbooks are tightly controlled.


The conspiracy theory rears its ugly head.

Rather, modern medicine and science require that hypotheses and theories
be supported with evidence.


And for that very reason, they derail alternative therapies on cooked up
reasons before they get the chance to do any studies.


There's NCCAM - National Center for Complementary and Alternative
Medicine, part of the National Institutes of Medicine. Though they spent
about $1 billion in research on conjecture-based medicine (alternative
medicine), they have yet to find any evidence that any alternative
medicine works better than placebo.

The reason why research on alternative therapies are derailed is that
there is no scientific reason to believe that they work and no evidence to
support them.



The Government Is Lying to You about Alternative Cancer Treatments
http://www.burtongoldberg.com/page43.html
"Like many American taxpayers, until recently I believed that the Office of
Alternative Medicine (OAM), within the National Institutes of Health in
Washington, D.C., was there to provide citizens with information about
alternatives in disease treatment.

When I recently inquired what OAM had on alternative cancer treatments, I
was shocked to discover that all they offer is party-line conventional
methods courtesy of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) which seems to exist
solely to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on unproductive research and
the suppression of effective alternatives.

Until earlier this year, OAM sent out a free copy of the "Cancer" chapter
from our Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide to those who needed
information on alternative cancer treatments. This has stopped abruptly. Now
OAM sends out a 3-page statement that dismisses "unconventional" treatments
as being essentially worthless and unproven. Here's what their "Cancer
Facts" sheet says: [see website] ........

The OAM was set up a few years ago at the instigation of a few
well-intentioned members of Congress. Granted, they gave OAM only a few
million dollars to work with to investigate the claims and successes of a
burgeoning medical field, but the project was launched with a good measure
of enthusiasm, integrity, and promise.

However, the fatal mistake was placing OAM within the NIH. This is like
asking the fox to guard the chicken coop. How can NIH, dedicated to
conventional methods, objectively oversee the investigation of alternatives?
What NIH can oversee quite skillfully is the adulteration, perversion, and
ruin of a publicly-funded office that was supposed to fairly inform the
taxpayer about new and alternative treatments for disease.

From what I've heard through the Washington grapevine, the OAM has been
sanitized and made submissive by NIH, so that it is now an obedient and
unproductive bureaucracy. People who know about alternative medicine are
being forced out while people who are indifferent to it or lack any working
knowledge of it are pushed to the forefront. Projects are being derailed,
funds are wasted, and public information activities are staffed by people
unsympathetic to alternative medicine."


ie the fox watching the hen house.


--
carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806)



  #24  
Old September 29th 10, 07:18 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
carole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Gut flora


"dr_jeff" wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 9:48 PM, carole wrote:




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.


WHO FOOD ADDITIVES SERIES NO. 5
http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm


From that report: Very small amounts of silica are normally present in
all body tissues but there is no evidence that they play any physiological
role.


Are you stupid, or maybe you just can't read?
Note - silica, silicon, and sililic acid are interchangeable.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm

Chicken

"Day-old deutectomized cockerels were kept in a trace element controlled
environment and fed a synthetic low silicon diet. The diet of the test
groups was supplemented with sodium metasilicate (Na2SiO3ś9H2O) at a level
of 100 mg/kg. 114 chickens were in the control groups and 114 chickens in
the test groups. Growth rates and the appearance of the animals were
evaluated at two- to three- day intervals. The animals were killed at the
end of a 25- to 35- day period. Gross pathology and histological
examinations were carried out on the organs of each chick. Differences
between the chicks on the basal and silicon-supplemented diets were noted
after one to two weeks.

At the twenty-third day of the study the average weight for the low silicon
group was 76 g compared to a weight of 116 g for the supplemented group (p
0.02). The average daily weight gain for the control groups was 2.57 g and
that of the test groups reached 3.85 g (p 0.01).

The animals on the basal diet were smaller and all their organs appeared
relatively atrophied as compared to the test chickens. The leg bones of the
deficient birds were shorter, of smaller circumference and thinner cortex.
The metatarsal bones were relatively flexible and the femur and tibia
fractured more easily under pressure than those of the supplemented group.
Thus the effect of silicon on skeletal development indicates that it plays
an important role in an early stage of bone formation (Carlisle, 1972)."



--
carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." —William Pitt (1759-1806)



  #25  
Old September 29th 10, 08:37 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
Peter Bowditch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,038
Default Gut flora

"carole" wrote:

Note - silica, silicon, and sililic acid are interchangeable.


In which universe?

--
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
  #26  
Old September 29th 10, 10:52 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
dr_jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 293
Default Gut flora

On 9/28/10 9:48 PM, carole wrote:

"dr_jeff" wrote in message
...
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.


WHO FOOD ADDITIVES SERIES NO. 5
http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm


This reference says that silicon has no known physiological function.

The Importance of Silicon
http://www.ultimatesg.com/22mayjarrowsilicon.html
"Silicon is a trace mineral required for the formation of healthy
connective tissue, bone, skin, hair and nails. Silicon is essential for
collagen formation, healthy arteries and regulates calcium deposition in
bones.* BioSil's active silicon is an essential partner of calcium for
bones, glucosamine for joints

Absorption is Key. Dietary sources of silicon such as those found in
food, horsetail and colloidal gel (silica) products are very poorly
absorbed because of their insoluble, polymerized forms. For absorption
to occur, dietary silicon must be first converted to Orthosilicic Acid
(monomeric silicic acid), the bioavailable form found in BioSil™.

Why is BioSil™ Different? BioSil™ (Si[OH]4) is 20,000 times more soluble
than silica(SiO2 — found in horsetail and colloidal gels) and 2.5 times
more bioavailable than other forms of silicon!

The superiority of silicon as concentrated, choline-stabilized
orthosilicic acid from BioSil™ has been proven in a peer reviewed
scientific study comparing three different forms of
silicon. The results of the comparative, cross-over, double-blind
clinical trial demonstrated that the stabilized monomeric form of
silicon (stabilized orthosilicic acid – as found in BioSil™) is far
superior to colloidal silica and horsetail extract. In fact, of the
three experimental groups, only BioSil™ offered a bioavailable source of
silicon; the other forms of silicon (horsetail and colloidal gel) were
no better than placebo1.

Scientific References
1. Arch Dermatol Res. 2005 Oct;297(4):147-53. Epub 2005 Oct 26. Effect
of oral intake of choline-stabilized orthosilicic acid on skin, nails
and hair in women with photodamaged skin. Barel A et al.

2. Calcif Tissue Int. 2006 Apr;78(4):227-32. Epub 2006 Apr 13. Partial
prevention of long-term femoral bone loss in aged ovariectomized rats
supplemented with choline-stabilized orthosilicic acid. Calomme M et al."


This is from the sellers of silicon. The so-called scientific references
were for either two small groups or rats. The one with small groups
found a small decrease in the roughness of skin. So this is the best you
can do. How sad.

Jeff
  #27  
Old September 29th 10, 10:57 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
dr_jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 293
Default Gut flora

On 9/29/10 12:53 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 7:51 PM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 6:50 PM, carole wrote:
"Bob wrote in message

...



Really? The pharmaceutical industry does not determine which journal
articles are published. Further, with the internet, they can't surpress
anything.

don't kid yourself, the mass media, the medical journals, and school
textbooks are tightly controlled.


The conspiracy theory rears its ugly head.

Rather, modern medicine and science require that hypotheses and theories
be supported with evidence.

And for that very reason, they derail alternative therapies on cooked up
reasons before they get the chance to do any studies.


There's NCCAM - National Center for Complementary and Alternative
Medicine, part of the National Institutes of Medicine. Though they spent
about $1 billion in research on conjecture-based medicine (alternative
medicine), they have yet to find any evidence that any alternative
medicine works better than placebo.

The reason why research on alternative therapies are derailed is that
there is no scientific reason to believe that they work and no evidence to
support them.



The Government Is Lying to You about Alternative Cancer Treatments
http://www.burtongoldberg.com/page43.html
"Like many American taxpayers, until recently I believed that the Office of
Alternative Medicine (OAM), within the National Institutes of Health in
Washington, D.C., was there to provide citizens with information about
alternatives in disease treatment.

When I recently inquired what OAM had on alternative cancer treatments, I
was shocked to discover that all they offer is party-line conventional
methods courtesy of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) which seems to exist
solely to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on unproductive research and
the suppression of effective alternatives.

Until earlier this year, OAM sent out a free copy of the "Cancer" chapter
from our Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide to those who needed
information on alternative cancer treatments. This has stopped abruptly. Now
OAM sends out a 3-page statement that dismisses "unconventional" treatments
as being essentially worthless and unproven. Here's what their "Cancer
Facts" sheet says: [see website] ........

The OAM was set up a few years ago at the instigation of a few
well-intentioned members of Congress. Granted, they gave OAM only a few
million dollars to work with to investigate the claims and successes of a
burgeoning medical field, but the project was launched with a good measure
of enthusiasm, integrity, and promise.

However, the fatal mistake was placing OAM within the NIH. This is like
asking the fox to guard the chicken coop. How can NIH, dedicated to
conventional methods, objectively oversee the investigation of alternatives?
What NIH can oversee quite skillfully is the adulteration, perversion, and
ruin of a publicly-funded office that was supposed to fairly inform the
taxpayer about new and alternative treatments for disease.

From what I've heard through the Washington grapevine, the OAM has been
sanitized and made submissive by NIH, so that it is now an obedient and
unproductive bureaucracy. People who know about alternative medicine are
being forced out while people who are indifferent to it or lack any working
knowledge of it are pushed to the forefront. Projects are being derailed,
funds are wasted, and public information activities are staffed by people
unsympathetic to alternative medicine."


ie the fox watching the hen house.


This is from an advertisement for a book. A real out of date book. OAM
was replaced by NCCAM 12 years ago. You fall for advertising hook, line
and sinker.

Jeff

  #28  
Old September 29th 10, 11:00 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
dr_jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 293
Default Gut flora

On 9/28/10 10:26 PM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 7:51 PM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 6:50 PM, carole wrote:
"Bob wrote in message

...



Really? The pharmaceutical industry does not determine which journal
articles are published. Further, with the internet, they can't surpress
anything.

don't kid yourself, the mass media, the medical journals, and school
textbooks are tightly controlled.


The conspiracy theory rears its ugly head.

Rather, modern medicine and science require that hypotheses and theories
be supported with evidence.

And for that very reason, they derail alternative therapies on cooked up
reasons before they get the chance to do any studies.


There's NCCAM - National Center for Complementary and Alternative
Medicine, part of the National Institutes of Medicine. Though they spent
about $1 billion in research on conjecture-based medicine (alternative
medicine), they have yet to find any evidence that any alternative
medicine works better than placebo.


Apparently the NCCAM is in charge of the NCCAM, which is like putting the
fox in charge of the chicken coup.
There is no independence.


That there is no independence can be said of your thoughts. This is
directly from an advertisement for a book that is very out of date. OAM
hasn't existed for 11 years.

The reason why research on alternative therapies are derailed is that
there is no scientific reason to believe that they work and no evidence to
support them.


Don't you know how old man rockefeller gave massive donations to medical
schools in exchange for them teaching pharmaceutical medicine?


You know about the four humours? That is what today's allopathic
medicine
will look like in 100 years.

There is a great book called, "Doctors" by Sherwin Nuland. He talks
about
the origins of the four humours.

The four humours are a classic example of ignorance of how the body
works.
That you support this ancient and disproven idea says volumes about your
inability to understand science and medicine.

Go back and read for comprehension dr jeff.


I have. I suggest you do the same. The conjecture of the humours (I say
conjecture, because there is no evidence for them) is utter rubbish. It
may have made sense based on what was known about the body in the 1500s,
but based on what we know now, it is rubbish.


As I said, in 100 years your allopathic medicine will look as stupid as the
four humours looks now.


Gee, I hope so. The reason why is medicine and science continue to learn
and evolve. While chemotherapy and other cancer therapy saves thousands
of lives every year, including over half of all people who get cancer,
I hope that it will look primative as the four humors does now in 100 years.

Enough said. You're ideas are not worth my time.


You obviously can't handle the truth.
Last thing we need in mha is another pharmaceutical stooge.


No, what you have is someone who can think independently.
  #29  
Old September 29th 10, 11:03 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
dr_jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 293
Default Gut flora

On 9/29/10 2:18 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 9:48 PM, carole wrote:




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.

WHO FOOD ADDITIVES SERIES NO. 5
http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm


From that report: Very small amounts of silica are normally present in
all body tissues but there is no evidence that they play any physiological
role.


Are you stupid, or maybe you just can't read?
Note - silica, silicon, and sililic acid are interchangeable.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm



From this reference: "The available data on orally administered silica
and silicates, including flumed silicon dioxide, appear to substantiate
the biological inertness of these compounds."

Chicken

"Day-old deutectomized cockerels were kept in a trace element controlled
environment and fed a synthetic low silicon diet. The diet of the test
groups was supplemented with sodium metasilicate (Na2SiO3ś9H2O) at a level
of 100 mg/kg. 114 chickens were in the control groups and 114 chickens in
the test groups. Growth rates and the appearance of the animals were
evaluated at two- to three- day intervals. The animals were killed at the
end of a 25- to 35- day period. Gross pathology and histological
examinations were carried out on the organs of each chick. Differences
between the chicks on the basal and silicon-supplemented diets were noted
after one to two weeks.

At the twenty-third day of the study the average weight for the low silicon
group was 76 g compared to a weight of 116 g for the supplemented group (p
0.02). The average daily weight gain for the control groups was 2.57 g and
that of the test groups reached 3.85 g (p 0.01).

The animals on the basal diet were smaller and all their organs appeared
relatively atrophied as compared to the test chickens. The leg bones of the
deficient birds were shorter, of smaller circumference and thinner cortex.
The metatarsal bones were relatively flexible and the femur and tibia
fractured more easily under pressure than those of the supplemented group.
Thus the effect of silicon on skeletal development indicates that it plays
an important role in an early stage of bone formation (Carlisle, 1972)."


From a 40-year old study. Big deal.
  #30  
Old September 29th 10, 02:05 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
carole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Gut flora


"dr_jeff" wrote in message
...
On 9/29/10 2:18 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 9:48 PM, carole wrote:




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.

WHO FOOD ADDITIVES SERIES NO. 5
http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm

From that report: Very small amounts of silica are normally present in
all body tissues but there is no evidence that they play any
physiological
role.


Are you stupid, or maybe you just can't read?
Note - silica, silicon, and sililic acid are interchangeable.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm



From this reference: "The available data on orally administered silica and
silicates, including flumed silicon dioxide, appear to substantiate the
biological inertness of these compounds."

Chicken

"Day-old deutectomized cockerels were kept in a trace element controlled
environment and fed a synthetic low silicon diet. The diet of the test
groups was supplemented with sodium metasilicate (Na2SiO3ś9H2O) at a
level
of 100 mg/kg. 114 chickens were in the control groups and 114 chickens in
the test groups. Growth rates and the appearance of the animals were
evaluated at two- to three- day intervals. The animals were killed at the
end of a 25- to 35- day period. Gross pathology and histological
examinations were carried out on the organs of each chick. Differences
between the chicks on the basal and silicon-supplemented diets were noted
after one to two weeks.

At the twenty-third day of the study the average weight for the low
silicon
group was 76 g compared to a weight of 116 g for the supplemented group
(p
0.02). The average daily weight gain for the control groups was 2.57 g
and
that of the test groups reached 3.85 g (p 0.01).

The animals on the basal diet were smaller and all their organs appeared
relatively atrophied as compared to the test chickens. The leg bones of
the
deficient birds were shorter, of smaller circumference and thinner
cortex.
The metatarsal bones were relatively flexible and the femur and tibia
fractured more easily under pressure than those of the supplemented
group.
Thus the effect of silicon on skeletal development indicates that it
plays
an important role in an early stage of bone formation (Carlisle, 1972)."


From a 40-year old study. Big deal.



So if this information has been known for 40 how do you explain the lag in
having it known to the medical establishment?


--
carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." —William Pitt (1759-1806)





 




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.