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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|