Today's Forum Topics
Set as homepage
|
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
 |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
20-11.-2003, 06:27 AM
|
#31 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>From: wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) >Date: 11/19/2003 5:32 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <3iKub.31124$j77.4255@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com> > >In article <1d1mrvko9o88bqurkcm1proo31l4bd04p2@4ax.com>, >Peter Bowditch <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote: >>jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote: >> >>>>From: wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) >>>>Date: 11/18/2003 8:34 PM Pacific Standard Time >>>>Message-id: <MpCub.22467$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 I really wish you debunkers would get updated. http://www.homeopathic.org/controlled.htm Jan |
|
20-11.-2003, 06:33 AM
|
#32 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net >Date: 11/19/2003 12:34 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <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. Some people find belittling to be humorous, other don't. There iis no need to make a post personal just because you disagree. We have far too much of this here. >(I changed my response header, just for this message, since you seem to not >like it) Thanks. Please continue. Jan |
|
20-11.-2003, 11:05 AM
|
#33 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 07:56:58 -0500, Orac <orac@mac.com> wrote:
>Homeopathy is quackery. Period. Just from the laws of physics and >chemistry alone, its main principle of dilution is indefensible. And, dear Mr. Orac, MANY of the so highly acclaimed homeopathic medicaments are fraud, ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN RULES... ;O) See details in http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_amp.htm Regards, Aribert Deckers -- Wichtiger Hinweis für Forums-Moderatoren, Webmaster und Arbeitslose § Strafanzeigen gegen MLM-er § http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amaadmin.htm |
|
20-11.-2003, 11:05 AM
|
#34 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
On 19 Nov 2003 20:05:55 GMT, jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>We found that homoeopathy Homeopathy is fraud. Regards, Aribert Deckers -- Wichtiger Hinweis für Forums-Moderatoren, Webmaster und Arbeitslose § Strafanzeigen gegen MLM-er § http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amaadmin.htm |
|
20-11.-2003, 11:05 AM
|
#35 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
On 19 Nov 2003 20:27:23 GMT, jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>http://www.homeopathic.org/controlled.htm Homeopathy is fraud. Regards, Aribert Deckers -- Wichtiger Hinweis für Forums-Moderatoren, Webmaster und Arbeitslose § Strafanzeigen gegen MLM-er § http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amaadmin.htm |
|
20-11.-2003, 11:37 AM
|
#36 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
In article <qp4orv0spqfdddhb6rqbk9mrgs1vb91mve@4ax.com>,
Happy Oyster <happy.oyster@ariplex.com> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 07:56:58 -0500, Orac <orac@mac.com> wrote: > > >Homeopathy is quackery. Period. Just from the laws of physics and > >chemistry alone, its main principle of dilution is indefensible. > > > And, dear Mr. Orac, MANY of the so highly acclaimed homeopathic > medicaments are fraud, ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN RULES... ;O) > > See details in > http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_amp.htm It would help if I could speak German... -- Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you | inconvenience me with questions?" |
|
20-11.-2003, 11:58 AM
|
#37 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
Jan wrote:
> Some people find belittling to be humorous, other don't. It's not humurous because it's belittling, but because it's Lovecraftian. -- 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 |
|
20-11.-2003, 12:03 PM
|
#38 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>From: Russ shadz@ozemail.com.au >Date: 11/19/03 12:19 AM Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <3fbafd4e$1@duster.adelaide.on.net> > >DRCEEPHD wrote: > >> Bacteria are of two types. Those internal and beneficial and those >external >> and deadly. >> >> The deadly, external type area the cause of gangrene and other fatal >diseases >> related to bacteria. The friendly, internal type, are those which surface >and >> then dissipate with your recovery ( since they are at least partially >> responsible for your recovery ). > >Interesting. So the theory proposes that bacteria and other >microorganisms actually have a function inside the tissues, rather >than just 'inside' the GIT? > True enough. But what is the source of the bacteria? My whole concept of this is based upon what Be’champ wrote and published in the scientific literature. The external bacteria, if given entry to the tissues, are always fatal to the organism. The internal bacteria arise from even smaller organisms he called microzymas. Once the need for the beneficial bacteria was overcome, the bacteria regenerated to their former identities and size, that is, back to the microzyma. Hence, we "recover" from a disease. Otherwise a bacterial disease would always be fatal just as it can be with gangrene. >What would you say occurs after abdominal surgery, when normally >friendly bacteria from the large intestines infect the wound? The same thing that happened to my mother following abdominal surgery. She died. The bacteria on our skin are not interal, nor friendly bacteria. The bacteria in our GI tract are not interal, nor friendly, yet they are absolutely necessary for our survival. The bacteria are on one side of our membranes and we are on the other side. This is true of the membrane called the skin and the one called the GI tract. Dr. C. |
|
20-11.-2003, 12:10 PM
|
#39 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net >Date: 11/19/03 1:08 AM Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <tNDub.5182$eW2.109@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> > >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. Are you sure that the enzymes convert vinegar, acetic acid into ATP? First I heard of this. Sugar yea, but vinegar? >Mitochondria look like bacteria, and even have their own >DNA, which looks like bacterial DNA. This is in complete agreement with Be'champs theories. The microzymas are the building blocks of the cells and possess their own DNA and life force. Be'champ was able to successfully culture the critters back to life out of 200 million year old chalk deposits. As far as normal processes go, they are IMMORTAL!!! Kinda neat, don't you think? >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. I don't think you have read or understand one thing that Be'champ and his followers researched and published. Dr. C. |
|
20-11.-2003, 12:27 PM
|
#40 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net >Date: 11/19/03 12:52 AM Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <jyDub.5120$0Q2.3711@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> >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 Go to healthresearchbooks.com. Buy a copy of Pasteur or Be'champ by E. Hume ( I think ). She was Be'champs biographer and had access to him and his notes. Also buy "The blood and its Fourth anatomical element" by A. Be'champ. You will find that Pasteur refused to allow his workers to learn or use Be'champs microscopic techniques. You will also learn that Pasteur would not allow Be'champ to publish using the word "microzyma." This stuff still goes on in "peer reviewed" literature. >There seems to be some debate as to whether he really said this; however, it >doesn't matter, one way or another. The heck it doesn't matter. A death bed confession is accepted in a court of law. Our whole medical system would have to be overhauled. Our esteemed doctors would have one hell of a lot of appologizing to do for all the babies and adults that they killed in the name of Louie Pasteur. > >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. This is probably true. However, Be'champ did disprove it and it is in the literature. They should at least reinvestigate the man's work and then discredit it or the germ theory of disease. >Allopathy is not the whole of modern medicine. Modern medicine includes >things like nutrition Yuk, yuk, yuk. Modern medicine has always said " there is no scientific connection between diet and disease." Just how much nutrition do you think a drug pushing doc has ever been taught? >surgery Yeah, the blood sacrifice to their God. >the use of insulin to treat >diabetes, I would rather state it as " the improper use of insulin to treat diabetes thus converting people to being insulin addicts." >vaccinations More voodoo medicine. >The homeopath will give you water Not all the "remedies" are just water. Some do have herbal contents. >I've read http://www.unhinderedliving.com/germtheory.html; is it a good >summary of Beauchamp's ideas? If so, I'm unimpressed. I visited the site and your link does not work. I found nothing of interest there. Dr. C. |
|
20-11.-2003, 12:29 PM
|
#41 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
In article <20031119211059.28460.00000581@mb-m14.aol.com>,
not-a-DRCEEPHD <drceephd@aol.com> wrote: >>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease >>From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net >>Date: 11/19/03 1:08 AM Eastern Standard Time >>Message-id: <tNDub.5182$eW2.109@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> > >>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. > >Are you sure that the enzymes convert vinegar, acetic acid into ATP? First I >heard of this. Sugar yea, but vinegar? > >>Mitochondria look like bacteria, and even have their own >>DNA, which looks like bacterial DNA. > >This is in complete agreement with Be'champs theories. The microzymas are the >building blocks of the cells and possess their own DNA and life force. >Be'champ was able to successfully culture the critters back to life out of 200 >million year old chalk deposits. As far as normal processes go, they are >IMMORTAL!!! > >Kinda neat, don't you think? Kind of a neat example of self-delusion. I don't suppose it could be that Bechamp was culturing much more recent bacteria that had managed to colonize his sample? -- 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) |
|
20-11.-2003, 12:33 PM
|
#42 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
In article <20031119212735.28460.00000589@mb-m14.aol.com>,
not-a-DRCEEPHD <drceephd@aol.com> wrote: >>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease >>From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net >>Date: 11/19/03 12:52 AM Eastern Standard Time >>Message-id: <jyDub.5120$0Q2.3711@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> > >>Could you cite where it's documented that he used money, power or >>influence to tifle opposing theories? I'd be interested in reading >>them > >Go to healthresearchbooks.com. Buy a copy of Pasteur or Be'champ by E. Hume ( >I think ). She was Be'champs biographer and had access to him and his notes. >Also buy "The blood and its Fourth anatomical element" by A. Be'champ. > >You will find that Pasteur refused to allow his workers to learn or use >Be'champs microscopic techniques. You will also learn that Pasteur would not >allow Be'champ to publish using the word "microzyma." This stuff still goes on >in "peer reviewed" literature. > >>There seems to be some debate as to whether he really said this; however, it >>doesn't matter, one way or another. > >The heck it doesn't matter. A death bed confession is accepted in a court of >law. Our whole medical system would have to be overhauled. Our esteemed >doctors would have one hell of a lot of appologizing to do for all the babies >and adults that they killed in the name of Louie Pasteur. It doesn't matter, Chuck. If Newton had repudiated his theory of gravitation on his deathbed, I suppose you'd have us believe that apples would have started falling upwards. >>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. > >This is probably true. However, Be'champ did disprove it and it is in the >literature. They should at least reinvestigate the man's work and then >discredit it or the germ theory of disease. While they're at it, they should probably reinvestigate the phlogiston theory of combustion and the geocentric model of the universe. <"Dr" Cee's usual insane trashing of modern medicine snipped> -- 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) |
|
20-11.-2003, 12:45 PM
|
#43 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
DRCEEPHD was touched by the minds of the terrible Old Ones, and imparted unto
us these blasphemous ravings: > My whole concept of this is based upon what Bechamp wrote and > published in the scientific literature. The external bacteria, if > given entry to the tissues, are always fatal to the organism. Since people get plenty of cuts, which can allow external bacteria entry to the blood, yet most don't die from those cuts, I assume that Bechamp's includes an immune system that fights external bacteria, and that death only occurs when the immune system isn't strong enough to fight off those bacteria? And that the immune system simply ignores the measles virus, streptococcus bacteria (strep throat), and other microorganisms associated with non-fatal diseases? > The internal bacteria arise from even smaller organisms he called > microzymas. Once the need for the beneficial bacteria was overcome, > the bacteria regenerated to their former identities and size, that > is, back to the microzyma. Hence, we "recover" from a disease. So then, wouldn't giving antibiotics to someone suffering from, say, tuberculosis or syphilis make the disease even *worse*, by killing off the beneficial bacteria? Or are those cases of external bacteria? Also, how exactly are non-fatal viruses beneficial? -- 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 |
|
20-11.-2003, 01:10 PM
|
#44 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
Not quite true. There is hearsay rule exception allows a death bed
statement to be introduced in Court. There are restrictions however. The speaker must be aware of his impending death. He must die as a result from the same. The statement must be related to his death. Ie I'm dying, I know it. "Rocko shot me!" He then expires from the gunshot wound. This statement could be repeated in the subsequent trial of Rocko. j. your alleged Pasteur statement is meaningless. > The heck it doesn't matter. A death bed confession is accepted in a court of > law. Our whole medical system would have to be overhauled. Our esteemed > doctors would have one hell of a lot of appologizing to do for all the babies > and adults that they killed in the name of Louie Pasteur. > |
|
20-11.-2003, 01:15 PM
|
#45 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net >Date: 11/19/03 9:45 PM Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <ZUVub.34273$7L3.30498@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com> > >Since people get plenty of cuts, which can allow external bacteria entry to >the blood, yet most don't die from those cuts, The cuts may give external bacteria entry into our tissues. If enough cellular damage is done and enough bacteria gain entry, you may get an "infection". This is the body's way of fighting the bacteria. This is where antibiotics are most useful. Apply them externally....not internally. Antibiotics are anti life. Both your life and that of the bacteria. > I assume that Bechamp's >includes an immune system that fights external bacteria, Yes, but contrary to your belief a pure blood system would have very few circulating white blood cells. The more polluted your blood and poisonous your lifestyle and dietary, the more white blood cells are required to fight off bacteria and chemical poisons. Individuals who have been successful at cleansing their tissues and blood would be diagnosed with AIDS for the low level of circulating white blood cells ..> that death only >occurs when the immune system isn't strong enough to fight off those >bacteria? Death occurs when the needs of the body require it. The physical body dies and returns to the earth. The microzymas go on living. They survive after our physical death. >And that the immune system simply ignores the measles virus, The virus is an excuse for the doctor that you are sick and he has no bacteria to blame it upon. Think of disease as dis-ease. The body is not at ease. It needs to clean house to keep you alive. Your diseases are the efforts of a vital body to prolong life by cleansing the body of accumulated poisons and toxins. >streptococcus bacteria (strep throat), Bacteria in the throat are external to the body. Depending upon what the body is exzuding, different bacteria may grow and proliferate on it using the exzudate as food. Your exxudates determine what, if any, external bacteria may show up. Internal diseases where bacteria are present have beneficial bacteria at work assisting the body in its housecleaning. >So then, wouldn't giving antibiotics to someone suffering from, say, >tuberculosis or syphilis make the disease even *worse*, by killing off the >beneficial bacteria? Or are those cases of external bacteria? Taking antibiotics internally gives the body three choices. If the administered poison ( the antibiotic ) is not too strong, the body will persist in keeping you alive another day and the disease will go on. If the poison is strong enough, the body will be forced to stop the healing effort and neutralize the poison to save your life. However, once you stop the poison, your disease may come back even worse than before. Lastly, if the poison is really bad, the body will curl up its toes and you die. >Also, how exactly are non-fatal viruses beneficial? Again, bacteria do not invade the body and cannot invade the body to cause disease. The virus is an excuse that we have no bacteria to blame your illness upon. No scientist has ever seen the first live virus. They are always dead organic matter with a partial DNA strand. Dead organic matter cannot come to life and make you sick any more than your next hamburger can come back to life and make you a cow...or a bull if you wish. Dr. C. |
Linear Mode
