Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease

DRCEEPHD

>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>From: Orac orac@mac.com
>Date: 11/17/03 9:24 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <orac-AA9465.21242317112003@host9.newsfeeds.com>
>

>Well said! The reason the "germ theory" has stood up is that there are
>mountains of scientific evidence that support it and that there has not
>been a similar set of evidence to refute it.

Sorry guys, you still have it wrong.

Golden Rule One: He who has the gold makes the rules.

Pasteur had the gold. He forced other competing theories to his germ theory to
be ignored. I do believe that his biographer was correct when he reported that
Pasteur said: " Bernard is correct. The bacteria are nothing. The soil is
everything." Pasteur was revealing to the world that his germ theory of
disease was concocted and false. Sad, isn’t it, that modern docs still
believe his lie.

Modern medicine has the gold. Can you imagine the medical monopoly giving a
grant to someone to prove that the germ theory of disease is actually a great
big lie? Can you believe that any researcher would dare to try and publish
that truth? Would any scientific journal allow that truth to be published?
Absolutely not. No researcher who likes a paycheck, wants a good reputation,
and wants to be allowed to publish will ever touch this truth. Therefore you
hear nothing, see nothing, and read nothing about the truth.

Homeopathy is not a theory of disease. It is a theory on how to treat disease.
In allopathy, modern medicine, it is the "principle of the opposite." If you
have diarrhea, the doc will give you a large dose of something to constipate
you. If you have constipation, the doc will give you a large dose of something
to give you diarrhea. The homeopath works on the "law of similars." If you
have diarrhea, the homeopath will give you a very, very small dose on a herb
which in a larger dose would give you diarrhea. In this manner he is attempting
to aid the body is whatever elimination or healing effort it is making.
Strange thing is that people can recover their health under both opposing
theories. Perhaps, both are false since both cannot be correct.

The information provided by Be’champ is available to all. If you can’t
read French or Comp. Rendus, at least read his books. Ignorance is not bliss
in this case.

Dr. C.

David Wright

In article <20031118210119.08468.00000439@mb-m24.aol.com>,
DRCEEPHD <drceephd@aol.com> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>>From: Orac orac@mac.com
>>Date: 11/17/03 9:24 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <orac-AA9465.21242317112003@host9.newsfeeds.com>
>>
>>Well said! The reason the "germ theory" has stood up is that there are
>>mountains of scientific evidence that support it and that there has not
>>been a similar set of evidence to refute it.
>
>Sorry guys, you still have it wrong.
>
>Golden Rule One: He who has the gold makes the rules.
>
>Pasteur had the gold. He forced other competing theories to his germ
>theory to be ignored. I do believe that his biographer was correct
>when he reported that Pasteur said: " Bernard is correct. The
>bacteria are nothing. The soil is everything."

What biographer? I'm betting that so-called quotation is as phony as
a false leg.

>Modern medicine has the gold. Can you imagine the medical monopoly
>giving a grant to someone to prove that the germ theory of disease is
>actually a great big lie?

No, and they probably won't give any grants to prove that your mental
disorders are caused by brain rays from Mars. But that doesn't mean
that the germ theory is wrong, or that you're not nuts.

>Can you believe that any researcher would dare to try and publish
>that truth? Would any scientific journal allow that truth to be
>published?

Sure, if they could back it up. Nobel Prize, there they come.

>Homeopathy is not a theory of disease. It is a theory on how to
>treat disease.

And a broken one. There are no replicated studies showing homeopathy
to be any better than placebo. What a surprise, given that all of its
remedies are either water or sugar.

>Strange thing is that people can recover their health under both
>opposing theories. Perhaps, both are false since both cannot be
>correct.

Perhaps people get better in spite of zero-effect homeopathic
"remedies."

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Russ

DRCEEPHD wrote:

> Bacteria are of two types. Those internal and beneficial and those external
> and deadly.
>
> The deadly, external type area the cause of gangrene and other fatal diseases
> related to bacteria. The friendly, internal type, are those which surface and
> then dissipate with your recovery ( since they are at least partially
> responsible for your recovery ).

Interesting. So the theory proposes that bacteria and other
microorganisms actually have a function inside the tissues, rather
than just 'inside' the GIT?

What would you say occurs after abdominal surgery, when normally
friendly bacteria from the large intestines infect the wound?


Russ.

Jan

>From: wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright)
>Date: 11/18/2003 8:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <MpCub.22467$Xu.11299@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>

> There are no replicated studies showing homeopathy
>to be any better than placebo.

Do note the word *replicated*, that was added after the debunkers were proven
worng in saying there was no studies.

Ho hum.

Jan

Matthew Cline

DRCEEPHD was touched by the minds of the terrible Old Ones, and imparted unto
us these blasphemous ravings:

> Golden Rule One: He who has the gold makes the rules.

> Pasteur had the gold. He forced other competing theories to his
> germ theory to be ignored.

Could you cite where it's documented that he used money, power or influence to
stifle opposing theories? I'd be interested in reading them.

> I do believe that his biographer was correct when he reported that
> Pasteur said: "Bernard is correct. The bacteria are nothing. The
> soil is everything."

There seems to be some debate as to whether he really said this; however, it
doesn't matter, one way or another. If new evidence were found that, on his
deathbed, Einstein renounced the theories of relativity, physicists would be
baffled, and then get on with their jobs, not wondering even for a second if
the theories of relativity were correct or not. Similarly, modern medical
scientists don't care about any deathbed retractions of Pasteur (except
insofar as they are interested in the history of science).

> Modern medicine has the gold. Can you imagine the medical monopoly
> giving a grant to someone to prove that the germ theory of disease
> is actually a great big lie?

Or maybe they wouldn't give such a grant because they *believe* the germ
theory, and think that trying to disprove it would be a waste of time. If
someone asked a group of astronomers for a grant to prove that the sun orbits
the Earth, the astronomers would refuse, not because they would be afraid
they'd lose their funding, but because they would consider it to be a
complete waste of money.

Besides, the homeopaths can fund their own studies about the germ theory.
They've already conducted their own experiments to try to prove that
homeopathy works, so why not studies on the germ theory?

> Homeopathy is not a theory of disease. It is a theory on how to
> treat disease. In allopathy, modern medicine, it is the "principle
> of the opposite."

Allopathy is not the whole of modern medicine. Modern medicine includes
things like nutrition, proper exercise, surgery, the use of insulin to treat
diabetes, the use of interferon to treat cancer, manipulating hormone levels
via "the pill" to prevent a woman from becoming pregnant, vaccinations, and
more. (I'd include antibiotics, but homeopaths might consider them to be the
"opposite" of bacteria, and thus part of allopathy)

> The homeopath works on the "law of similars." If you have diarrhea,
> the homeopath will give you a very, very small dose on a herb which
> in a larger dose would give you diarrhea. In this manner he is
> attempting to aid the body is whatever elimination or healing effort
> it is making.

This would make sense if the homeopath was saying "OK, the body is trying to
cleanse itself via diarrhea, so I'll give you an even *bigger* case of
diarrhea so your body can cleanse itself even *more*." However, the
homeopath won't give you a very, very small dose of something which could
cause diarrhea, or even a microscopically minuscule dose, but water which
contains *none* of the herb at all. The homeopath will give you water which
has been diluted to such an extent that none of the original substance is
left; what remains is the "memory" of the substance, or it's spiritual
imprint, or some such. This homeopathic remedy will then somehow aid the
body which is experiencing diarrhea, but *not* by increasing the degree of
diarrhea experienced; this doesn't really seem like a "law of similars" to
me.

> The information provided by Bechamp is available to all. If you
> can't read French or Comp. Rendus, at least read his books.
> Ignorance is not bliss in this case.

I've read http://www.unhinderedliving.com/germtheory.html; is it a good
summary of Beauchamp's ideas? If so, I'm unimpressed.

--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Advanced SPAM filtering software: http://spamassassin.org

Peter Bowditch

jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:

>>From: wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright)
>>Date: 11/18/2003 8:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <MpCub.22467$Xu.11299@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>
>
>> There are no replicated studies showing homeopathy
>>to be any better than placebo.
>
>Do note the word *replicated*, that was added after the debunkers were proven
>worng in saying there was no studies.
>
>Ho hum.
>
>Jan

I'm happy if the word "replicated" is left out. The statement is still
true.

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Jan

>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net
>Date: 11/18/2003 9:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <jyDub.5120$0Q2.3711@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>
>
>DRCEEPHD was touched by the minds of the terrible Old Ones, and imparted unto
>us these blasphemous ravings:

PLONK!

Matthew Cline

Russ was touched by the minds of the terrible Old Ones, and imparted unto us
these blasphemous ravings:

> Interesting. So the theory proposes that bacteria and other
> microorganisms actually have a function inside the tissues, rather
> than just 'inside' the GIT?

Every living cell in the body (except for red blood cells) contain
mitochondria, which convert acetic acid into ATP, the energy source for the
rest of the cell. Mitochondria look like bacteria, and even have their own
DNA, which looks like bacterial DNA. It seems that when animal life was
first forming, it formed a symbiotic relationship with a certain kind of
bacteria. Millions of years later, it's become so specialized and attached
to the animal cells it lives in that it never appears outside of animal
cells, and so isn't considered to be a separate organism any more.

> What would you say occurs after abdominal surgery, when normally
> friendly bacteria from the large intestines infect the wound?

According to Beauchamp and his supporters, the surgery damaged some of the
cells in the wound so badly that they died. These dead cells are then eaten
by the bacteria, in the same way that bacteria cause the decay of dead tissue
outside of a living body; the infection is thus the process of decay going on
inside the body. Once all the dead cells have been eaten by the bacteria,
they will go away, and the infection will cease.

--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Advanced SPAM filtering software: http://spamassassin.org

Matthew Cline

Jan wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>>From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net
>>Date: 11/18/2003 9:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <jyDub.5120$0Q2.3711@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>

>>DRCEEPHD was touched by the minds of the terrible Old Ones, and imparted
>>unto us these blasphemous ravings:

> PLONK!

*All* of my replies say that, no matter what message I'm replying to (even
replying to my own messages); I'm not singling out DRCEEPHD as someone who's
raving or saying blasphemous things. It's a reply header written in the
style of a Lovecraftian horror story, and meant to be amusing. Other people
have reply headers like "The whole world listened in hushed silence as
DRCEEPHD said", or "Did DRCEEPHD really say the following? Tune into Fox
News at 11 to find out!"

(I changed my response header, just for this message, since you seem to not
like it)

--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Advanced SPAM filtering software: http://spamassassin.org

Orac

In article <20031118210119.08468.00000439@mb-m24.aol.com>,
drceephd@aol.com (DRCEEPHD) wrote:

> Homeopathy is not a theory of disease. It is a theory on how to treat
> disease.
> In allopathy, modern medicine, it is the "principle of the opposite." If
> you
> have diarrhea, the doc will give you a large dose of something to constipate
> you. If you have constipation, the doc will give you a large dose of
> something
> to give you diarrhea. The homeopath works on the "law of similars." If you
> have diarrhea, the homeopath will give you a very, very small dose on a herb
> which in a larger dose would give you diarrhea. In this manner he is
> attempting
> to aid the body is whatever elimination or healing effort it is making.
> Strange thing is that people can recover their health under both opposing
> theories. Perhaps, both are false since both cannot be correct.
>
> The information provided by Be’champ is available to all. If you can’t
> read French or Comp. Rendus, at least read his books. Ignorance is not bliss
> in this case.

Homeopathy is quackery. Period. Just from the laws of physics and
chemistry alone, its main principle of dilution is indefensible.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Orac

In article <MpCub.22467$Xu.11299@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote:

> In article <20031118210119.08468.00000439@mb-m24.aol.com>,
> DRCEEPHD <drceephd@aol.com> wrote:
> >>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
> >>From: Orac orac@mac.com
> >>Date: 11/17/03 9:24 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >>Message-id: <orac-AA9465.21242317112003@host9.newsfeeds.com>
> >>
> >>Well said! The reason the "germ theory" has stood up is that there are
> >>mountains of scientific evidence that support it and that there has not
> >>been a similar set of evidence to refute it.
> >
> >Sorry guys, you still have it wrong.
> >
> >Golden Rule One: He who has the gold makes the rules.
> >
> >Pasteur had the gold. He forced other competing theories to his germ
> >theory to be ignored. I do believe that his biographer was correct
> >when he reported that Pasteur said: " Bernard is correct. The
> >bacteria are nothing. The soil is everything."
>
> What biographer? I'm betting that so-called quotation is as phony as
> a false leg.

Either that, or it's taken completely out of context.

Perhaps our homeopathy advocate can give a verifiable source for this
alleged Pasteur quote.


> >Modern medicine has the gold. Can you imagine the medical monopoly
> >giving a grant to someone to prove that the germ theory of disease is
> >actually a great big lie?
>
> No, and they probably won't give any grants to prove that your mental
> disorders are caused by brain rays from Mars. But that doesn't mean
> that the germ theory is wrong, or that you're not nuts.

Heh heh. Our homeopathy advocate appears to be using the fallacy that
scientific theories are no better than opinions, and that any one is
just as valid as any other.


> >Can you believe that any researcher would dare to try and publish
> >that truth? Would any scientific journal allow that truth to be
> >published?
>
> Sure, if they could back it up. Nobel Prize, there they come.

Quite true. Nobel Prizes are usually given to scientists who challenge
the existing paradigm AND PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THEIR MODELS
AND THEORIES. Sadly, homeopaths seem to forget about the second part of
that requirement.

[Snip]
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

David Wright

In article <1d1mrvko9o88bqurkcm1proo31l4bd04p2@4ax.com>,
Peter Bowditch <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
>jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>
>>>From: wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright)
>>>Date: 11/18/2003 8:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <MpCub.22467$Xu.11299@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>
>>
>>> There are no replicated studies showing homeopathy
>>>to be any better than placebo.
>>
>>Do note the word *replicated*, that was added after the debunkers were proven
>>worng in saying there was no studies.
>>
>>Ho hum.
>>
>>Jan
>
>I'm happy if the word "replicated" is left out. The statement is still
>true.

Not quite -- there have been a couple of studies where the homeopathic
remedy did better than the placebo. But, "replicated" is key here,
because there are all kinds of studies (conventional medicine is laden
with them) where something initially looked to be effective, but
subsequent studies failed to find any benefit.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Marko Proberto

"Matthew Cline" <matt_newz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:xWFub.34199$rP7.5565@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> Jan wrote:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
> >>From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net
> >>Date: 11/18/2003 9:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >>Message-id: <jyDub.5120$0Q2.3711@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>
>
> >>DRCEEPHD was touched by the minds of the terrible Old Ones, and imparted
> >>unto us these blasphemous ravings:
>
> > PLONK!
>
> *All* of my replies say that, no matter what message I'm replying to (even
> replying to my own messages); I'm not singling out DRCEEPHD as someone
who's
> raving or saying blasphemous things. It's a reply header written in the
> style of a Lovecraftian horror story, and meant to be amusing. Other
people
> have reply headers like "The whole world listened in hushed silence as
> DRCEEPHD said", or "Did DRCEEPHD really say the following? Tune into Fox
> News at 11 to find out!"
>
> (I changed my response header, just for this message, since you seem to
not
> like it)

Only Jan is allowed to used blasphemy in JanWorld.

Ilsa9

>Jan wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>>>From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net
>>>Date: 11/18/2003 9:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <jyDub.5120$0Q2.3711@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>
>
>>>DRCEEPHD was touched by the minds of the terrible Old Ones, and imparted
>>>unto us these blasphemous ravings:
>
>> PLONK!
>
>*All* of my replies say that, no matter what message I'm replying to (even
>replying to my own messages); I'm not singling out DRCEEPHD as someone who's
>raving or saying blasphemous things. It's a reply header written in the
>style of a Lovecraftian horror story, and meant to be amusing. Other people
>have reply headers like "The whole world listened in hushed silence as
>DRCEEPHD said", or "Did DRCEEPHD really say the following? Tune into Fox
>News at 11 to find out!"
>
>(I changed my response header, just for this message, since you seem to not
>like it)
>

Matt, in Jan Drew Speak, PLONK means "I, Jan Drew, am a simple minded,
scientifically illiterate bigot and I am pretending to killfile you".

She has never really killfiled anyone, she just lies about doing it and will
eventually slip-up and reply directly to the people she "PLONKS".

If you are curious as to the mentality of Jan Drew, do a google search on her
with the phrase "go check the teeth" or the word "jew".