| Paul T. Holland 2005-04-02, 4:24 pm |
| lololol
been reading your stuff for years c, and you are as mired in conspiracy as
ever! what you have always failed to integrate into your screed(s) is the
very simple postulate that 'some' bacteria are enormously beneficial, and
'some' are harmful
pretty much like the book you tout; indeed, a thoughtful and balanced diet
has long been proven to improve human health, and can also retard
deleterious effects from exposure to that which might harm us - like virii
and bacteria not integrated into the human metabolism.
that does not however in any way mean that 'all' such can be beneficial or
benign - that you make the choice to ignore the very well documented
studies and trials that have advanced human knowledge is indicative not
that such are 'false' but rather that 'you' suffer from both hubris and
myopia
just like that book, which fails to take the myriad differing causes of
arthritis into account, you fail to accept that diet is not a universal
panacea. an extremely important component for good health - but hardly
universal in benefit.
you present once again the false statement that the establishment finds no
correlation between diet and disease - totally ignoring (perhaps
deliberately?) the virtual avalanche of past and on-going studies around
the world that show exactly that - with the proviso that 'some' disease is
as a result of poor diet - and 'some' from an outside agent such as those
pesky little critters that you maintain have nothing to do with it...
just because you say >the creed that medical moguls argued and enforced
that "there is no scientife data to connect any disease and diet" doesn't
make it true...there have always been multiple disciplines working to
improve the human condition coming from differing viewpoints. it is folk
like yourself who carry things to an extreme...just like 'some' of the
medical professionals
as to >How many years of medical research was wasted looking for the
beri-beri germ which turned out to be a
vitamin deficiency disease?...well, certainly centuries fewer than the time
spent following shamans who espoused disease to 'spirits'...all human
knowledge has been evolutionary - you are stuck about one hundred years in
the past.
leprosy, tuberculosis, lyme, gonorrhea, syphilis, rabies, polio, and the
list goes on - which one will you expose yourself to - under controlled
circumstances - to prove your thesis?
why waste your time preaching to the apostates who don't appreciate your
'phd' here in newsgroups and forums? go up to the real world show and prove
those dastardly 'experts' wrong...
after all, by now you must certainly be in such perfect health that you
would make an excellent subject who can once and for all dispel the clouds
of misinformation that the rest of us are living under...
or, is it more like, why let simple facts get in the way of your belief?
drceephd2@netscape.com wrote:
> Harvey R. Stone wrote:
>
> book
> Parker
> was
>
> Now you are suggesting that a problem with the publisher nullifies the
> truth of any book published by it? Nice try.
>
> certain
>
> It is not a proven fact that bacteria causes most ulcers. It is a
> medical opinion which can, and does, change about every 20 years.
> Incidentally, spirochete bacteria were found in the lining of the
> stomach and reported in a peer reviewed journal in 1897. The bacteria
> were correctly dismissed as the cause of any ulcer any more than flies
> on garbage caused the garbage.
>
>
> yes
> after more
> proving the
>
> The results and the scientific studies were make and printed before
> either of us were borm. Research the "old" data when both the drug
> theory of disease (allopathy) and the non-drug theory of disease
> (orthopathy )were available to be learned, taught, and practiced.
>
> shown by
>
> The power of the medical monopoly does reign supreme. You know very
> well that the medical moguls argued and enforced the creed that "there
> is no scientife data to connect any disease and diet" and anyone who
> disputed that was drummed out of business and possibly jailed. Every
> disease must have a causative agent that there must be a drug given to
> effect a cure is the philosophy. How many years of medical research
> was wasted looking for the beri-beri germ which turned out to be a
> vitamin deficiency disease?
>
> what they
> they
>
> We do not have a health industry...it is a disease industry.
> We do not have health insurance...it is disease insurance.
> Doctors do not heal...they merely cure. To cure a disease with
> medicines means the same as trying to poison the sick into getting
> well.
> and
>
> This is not my statement.
>
> what is
> immune
> the
> these
> these
> claim
> the
>
> what is this?
> boils
> to an
>
> You did not produce one study, scientific or otherwise, to dispute what
> I have said and all the MDs before us have said.
> Produce studies whereby Campbell's work was repeated with arthritic
> patients and found not to work.
>
> DrC PhD
|