Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease

D. C. Sessions

In <AVEvb.19022$iT4.2356343@news20.bellglobal.com>, Happy Dog wrote:

> "DRCEEPHD" <drceephd@aol.com> wrote in message
> \> Very directly. The germ theory of disease requires that one germ cause
> one and
>> only one disease
>
> Bullshit.

e.g. herpes zoster, type A streptococcus, ...

--
begin signature.exe
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

Ilsa9

Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net
>>Non-existent? So are you saying that when, say, you take a blood/tissue
>>sample from someone suffering from syphilis, and look at it under a
>>microscope, you won't find any spirochaete bacterium?
>

Chalupa Boy Charles (drceephd@aol.com):

>The spirochaete bacterium did not cause the supposed syphilis even if it may
>exist in a specimum.. Mercury poisoning is the main cause all the supposed
>symptoms of syphilis.
>

Here it is folks. Charles believes that STD's aren't sexually transmitted. In
his universe, people somehow get exposed to mercury shortly after having sex
with someone already afflicted with mercury in their genitals.

Can it get any dumber than that?

David Wright

In article <KQFvb.874$qm7.474@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
Matthew Cline <matt_newz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>DRCEEPHD was touched by the minds of the terrible Old Ones, and imparted unto
>us these blasphemous ravings:
>
>> If you read the work of one Nobel prize winner, Dr. Rosenow,
>
>So far as I can determine, he was only a Nobel prize *nominee*, not a winner.

He was not a winner. I check the Nobel Prize web site.

I assume Chuck ("Dr" Cee) got confused (his usual state) because
Rosenow's name almost invariably appears on web sites along with
the name of actual winner Otto Warburg.

What's particularly interesting about Rosenow is that if you look him
up in google, you get quite a few hits, but when you look at those
hits, you discover that most of them are the same -- just a couple of
variations on one or two themes. A few claims that Rosenow was able
to get bacteria to transform into different forms by changing their
environmental conditions. All of this supposedly published in 1914.

-- 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)

DRCEEPHD

>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>From: wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright)
>Date: 11/22/03 2:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <02Pvb.28473$sO4.12270@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>

> A few claims that Rosenow was able
>to get bacteria to transform into different forms by changing their
>environmental conditions. All of this supposedly published in 1914.

There is nothing supposedly about it.

Rosenow proved that the monomorphic concept of bacteria was false, providing
another nail in the coffin needed to bury the germ theory of disease for anyone
interested in the truth and not the grand deception that is modern medicine.
At least Western or American medicine.

Dr. C.

DRCEEPHD

>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net
>Date: 11/22/03 4:17 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <KQFvb.874$qm7.474@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
>

>> If you read the work of one Nobel prize winner, Dr. Rosenow,
>
>So far as I can determine, he was only a Nobel prize *nominee*, not a winner.

You may be correct. However, he did research, published that research, and did
prove that bacteria are pleomorphic and not monomorphic. This adequately
disproves the germ theory of disease at the scientific level. Now....if we can
only get down to the level of medicine.

Dr. C.

DRCEEPHD

>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>From: "D. C. Sessions" dcs@lumbercartel.com
>Date: 11/22/03 12:03 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <i97391-tdj.ln1@news.lumbercartel.com>

>The "120" is a religious reference to the age that Moses died.
>
Not quite.

In Genesis man's days are to be 120 years.

Secondly, by the rule of sevens, if you multiply 7 times 18 ( the usual age of
sexual maturity for humans ) you get 126, the predicted age for the lifetime of
a human.

Dr. C.

DRCEEPHD

>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net
>Date: 11/22/03 3:47 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <_oFvb.35041$nC2.11499@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>

I will make a few comments because to answer completely would take too much
bandwith.

>The theory of contagious diseases would require the second part (specific
>germs being unalterable), but the theory of contagious diseases isn't the
>same thing as the germ theory of disease

Let's not confuse contagion with the germ theory of disease. Either the germ
theory of disease is valid or it is not. If the germ theory of disease is
false, then so is the concept of contagion.

>Also, having not read Rosenow's works, I don't know if his experiments used
>extreme environments to induce bacterial transformation, or mild
>environments.

Rosenow simply changed the bacteria's food source proving that depending upon
the available food supply, the bacteria could and would transform into a type
that could exist on that food. First comes the food, then the specific
bacteria not the reverse.

> How could we ever concoct a flu vaccine two years before the virus
>> exists?
>
>I don't understand exactly what you're getting at.

It is a matter of production and delivery. If modern medicine waited for the
flu to show up, identified the culprit virus, then began to culture the virus
and produce the vaccine, they would be at least two years behind since it would
take that long to produce it.

>> You may be right. One thing is needed. Blood, and lots of it.
>
>Eh? You mean that, for one person to be infected by several different forms
>of bacteria at the same time, they'd need lots of blood,

No, blood is the medium of choice for what we call pathogenic bacteria.

>Huh? What I said that a virus can *reproduce* only once it's gotten it's
>genetic material into a living cell.

The virus cannot reproduce. Only the living cell can. The living cell can
reproduce not the virus.

Show me where any data has ever been published whereby viral particles can
reproduce outside the living cell.

Secondly, show me where the data is published that these dead viral particles
can cross our membranes and get into us. I suggest thatg they would be
digested like any other material cantaining DNA.

>Of course, the scientists could be lying, and making up all these
>observations
>out of whole cloth.

The experiments are done to fit the theory. The conclusions are made to fit
the theory. All of this is done in a lab and not in the real world. The
experiments and the conclusions do not fit the model for the real world.

>I thought the mitochondrion were supposed to be immortal.

Nope. Just the microzymas.

>Eh? I've seen videotapes of living cells dividing and doing other things.
>What are you talking about?

You can see cells easily with a microscope. You cannot see living processes by
obvserving dead cells as is the usual case. The microzymas are not visable by
our normal microscopic techniques.

You have never see a live virus, have you, nor a videotape of it because it
cannot be done.

> He bombarded gold foil with alpha particles, and deduced the
>existence of atomic nuclei from how the alpha particles were deflected.

He deduced correctly. Modern medicine has not.

>> The study of living cells and cellular processes lies beyond our
>> scientists. It takes too much time and money, not to mention
>> intelligence and ability.
>
>How should they go about doing it?
>
>

First, prove that they can repoduce the published work of Be'champ. If they
can't do that, they are incompetents and none of their work can be trusted.

>If current medical researchers are goof balls, how can you use anything they
>they say as "good proof" for your statements?
>

I have no problem with their tissue staining techniques. It is their
conclusions that make them a goof ball. The have the truth before them and
they cannot see it.

Dr. C.

D. C. Sessions

In <20031122160755.00739.00000784@mb-m28.aol.com>, DRCEEPHD wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>>From: "D. C. Sessions" dcs@lumbercartel.com
>>Date: 11/22/03 12:03 AM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <i97391-tdj.ln1@news.lumbercartel.com>
>
>>The "120" is a religious reference to the age that Moses died.
>>
> Not quite.
>
> In Genesis man's days are to be 120 years.

Verse?

> Secondly, by the rule of sevens, if you multiply 7 times 18 ( the usual age of
> sexual maturity for humans ) you get 126, the predicted age for the lifetime of
> a human.

Let's see a show of hands on those who accept Chuckie's
idea of sexual maturity. (Here's a hint: the Jewish
and Muslim age of majority is 13 for boys. For girls
it's even younger.)

--
begin signature.exe
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

D. C. Sessions

In <20031122160426.00739.00000783@mb-m28.aol.com>, DRCEEPHD wrote:

> You may be correct. However, he did research, published that research, and did
> prove that bacteria are pleomorphic and not monomorphic. This adequately
> disproves the germ theory of disease at the scientific level. Now....if we can
> only get down to the level of medicine.

Rather telling that the most recent account you can
dig up is almost a century old, despite millions of
high-school and college biology students doing Petri
dish work ever since.

--
begin signature.exe
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

WB

On 22 Nov 2003 03:05:44 GMT, drceephd@aol.com (DRCEEPHD) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>>From: WB no_one@nowhere.net
>>Date: 11/21/03 9:22 AM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <8n7srv08jfi4cn6g4a0k25n4jsoiu7osak@4ax.com>
>
>>You forgot about the liver, gallbladder, pancreas...?
>
>Not quite. the liver, gallbladder, and pancreas are a part of our digestive
>system, but they are connected via ducts. They are internal to us and
>connected to the digestive "pipe" via ducts.
>
> It is also interesting that each organ has its own protective membrane
>including the above organs, the heart, the brain and the central nervous
>system. One has to wonder why this is true and necessary?
>
>Dr. C.

Why?
It's the way mammals are built.
Ectoderm, Mesoderm, Endoderm.

Food contained within the 'gut' may be indeed
anatomically external to the body however,
the serosa/adventitia is endodermal and part
of the organism

The brain is largest part of the central nervous system.

WB
--


Take out the G'RBAGE to reply
wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com

WB

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:46:04 GMT, wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote:

>In article <KQFvb.874$qm7.474@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
>Matthew Cline <matt_newz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>DRCEEPHD was touched by the minds of the terrible Old Ones, and imparted unto
>>us these blasphemous ravings:
>>
>>> If you read the work of one Nobel prize winner, Dr. Rosenow,
>>
>>So far as I can determine, he was only a Nobel prize *nominee*, not a winner.
>
>He was not a winner. I check the Nobel Prize web site.


Maybe he meant whiner...

8-]]

WB
--


Take out the G'RBAGE to reply
wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com

WB

On 22 Nov 2003 21:36:16 GMT, drceephd@aol.com (DRCEEPHD) wrote:

>>> You may be right. One thing is needed. Blood, and lots of it.
>>
>>Eh? You mean that, for one person to be infected by several different forms
>>of bacteria at the same time, they'd need lots of blood,
>
>No, blood is the medium of choice for what we call pathogenic bacteria.


The Clostridia raise their little hands to object.

WB
--


Take out the G'RBAGE to reply
wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com

David Wright

In article <20031122160118.00739.00000782@mb-m28.aol.com>,
DRCEEPHD <drceephd@aol.com> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>>From: wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright)
>>Date: 11/22/03 2:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <02Pvb.28473$sO4.12270@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>
>
>> A few claims that Rosenow was able
>>to get bacteria to transform into different forms by changing their
>>environmental conditions. All of this supposedly published in 1914.
>
>There is nothing supposedly about it.
>
>Rosenow proved that the monomorphic concept of bacteria was false,
>providing another nail in the coffin needed to bury the germ theory
>of disease for anyone interested in the truth and not the grand
>deception that is modern medicine. At least Western or American
>medicine.

Sure, Chuck. If it were that easy to show, this would be a standard
experiment in bacteriology classes.

-- 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)

David Wright

In article <20031122160755.00739.00000784@mb-m28.aol.com>,
not-a-DRCEEPHD <drceephd@aol.com> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>>From: "D. C. Sessions" dcs@lumbercartel.com
>>Date: 11/22/03 12:03 AM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <i97391-tdj.ln1@news.lumbercartel.com>
>
>>The "120" is a religious reference to the age that Moses died.
>>
>Not quite.
>
>In Genesis man's days are to be 120 years.
>
>Secondly, by the rule of sevens, if you multiply 7 times 18 ( the
>usual age of sexual maturity for humans ) you get 126, the predicted
>age for the lifetime of a human.

That's what we like about you, Chuck -- you're so consistently wrong
on such a wide variety of topics. It's quite unusual today for a boy
or girl to reach sexual maturity as late as 18 (especially girls).

And if 126 is the "predicted age for the lifetime of a human" (ghastly
use of the language there), how come there are no confirmed cases of a
person reaching that age?

-- 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)