Does this place serve any purpose?



[email protected] (David Wright) wrote in news:fSfYb.22905$3Y6.11955
@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Carole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"DRCEEPHD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>
>>> Get a clue. You know nothing except what your brainwased mind
>>> allows you to believe. I do not believe that you have ever read
>>> and studied the work of Be'champ or Enderlein.
>>> And what about Rosenow who proved once again in 1914 that
>>> bacteria are pleomorphic and not monomorphic as your germ theory of
>>> disease demands? This Nobel Prize winner proved beyond scientific
>>> doubt that staph germs and strep germs were one and the same. All
>>> you had to do was change their food. You will find that data in
>>> the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Your Journal. Your
>>> data. And you are ignorant of it.
>>>
>>> DrC PhD.
>>
>>And people don't believe in conspiracies!! What do you call this?
>
> We call it "Dr" Cee spouting gibberish. Among other things, Rosenow
> didn't win a Nobel. If "Dr" Cee can't even get that right, what are
> the odds the rest of his tirade is accurate?
>


If his track record is an indicator of future performance, the odds are
almost zero.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.
 
I personally prefer Dr. "C"'s hysterical story about the "Doctor." in
Denmark who ordered all the animals killed [not sure about Fluffy(s) or
Fido(s) though]. With the result that absolutely nobody in that
country was a victim of the world-wide 1918 Influenza Epidemic because
they were Vegetarians. That posting was Priceless.
 
>Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>From: "Carole" [email protected]
>Date: 2/17/04 1:01 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>

>Sorry, I'm accustomed to Drceephd usually being right and didn't check.

Thank you for your confidence in me. However, I do make mistakes like all
humans.

>Of course it was Dr. Otto Warburg was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1931 and
>again in 1944 for discovering the cause of cancer. But Rosenow did a lot of
>the groundwork.

>So if the cause of cancer is lack of oxygen to the cells, and Warburg got a
>Nobel prize for discovering it,

Unfortunately, Warburg did get a Nobel Prize, but his work on cancer was not so
rewarded. This is one reason why the medical monopoly has been able to cover
up his data and hide the truth about cancer while they plunder us with the need
to search for a cancer "cure" and ply us with worthless and harmful treatments.

Cancer comes in two types. Natural and Induced. With the natural type,
Warburg's work holds to be valid and you can recover by restoring the oxygen
balance within the body.

With the induced type, Warburg's research will not provide relief. Here, the
DNA has been altered and some form of outside intervention will be required to
overcome the rouge cells that we call cancer.

DrC PhD

The doctor of the future will give no poisonous medicine in the vain attempt to
poison the sick into getting well.

The doctor of the future will interest the patient in the care of the human
frame, in diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease, and a medical
theory which will not include bacteria, viruses, retro-viruses, prions. or
auto-immunine excuses as the cause of any disease.

That would at least bring allopathic medicine, Western medicine, up to the
level of scientific medical data available in 1870.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Peter Bowditch <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Carole" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:eek:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "Carole" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "DRCEEPHD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> > > Get a clue. You know nothing except what your brainwased mind
> >> > > allows you
> >> > to
> >> > > believe. I do not believe that you have ever read and studied the
> >> > > work of Be'champ
> >> > or
> >> > > Enderlein.
> >> > > And what about Rosenow who proved once again in 1914 that
> >> > > bacteria are
> >> > > pleomorphic and not monomorphic as your germ theory of disease
> >> > > demands?
> >> > This
> >> > > Nobel Prize winner proved beyond scientific doubt that staph germs
> >> > > and
> >> > strep
> >> > > germs were one and the same. All you had to do was change their
> >> > > food.
> >> > You
> >> > > will find that data in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Your
> >> > > Journal.
> >> > Your
> >> > > data. And you are ignorant of it.
> >> > >
> >> > > DrC PhD.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > And people don't believe in conspiracies!! What do you call this?
> >> >
> >> > Carole
> >> > http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/media.htm
> >>
> >> I call it paranoid conspiracy-theory drivel, actually. And I call
> >> DRCEPHD ignorant and unable to back up his own claims, given that there
> >> is no Nobel Prize winner named Rosenow in medicine, biology, or any
> >> other discipline for which Nobel Prizes are given. Don't believe me?
> >> Check out http://www.nobel.se/ and search for Rosenow's name in the list
> >> of Nobel Prize winners. And I call you gullible, given that you didn't
> >> bother to check his claim for accuracy before coming to his defense.
> >> This is particularly sad, given that the post to which you responded is
> >> pretty old, and it was pointed out by me and others in responses to the
> >> post that Rosenow never won a Nobel Prize for the work described or for
> >> any other work.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
> >> |
> >> |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
> >> | inconvenience me with questions?"
> >
> >Sorry, I'm accustomed to Drceephd usually being right and didn't check.
> >Of course it was Dr. Otto Warburg was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1931 and
> >again in 1944 for discovering the cause of cancer. But Rosenow did a lot of
> >the groundwork.
>
> "for his discovery of the nature and mode of action of the respiratory
> enzyme"
>
> >So if the cause of cancer is lack of oxygen to the cells, and Warburg got a
> >Nobel prize for discovering it, how come conventional treatment is chemo,
> >slash and burn instead of upping the oxygen level in the cells?
>
> "for his discovery of the nature and mode of action of the respiratory
> enzyme"
>
> >That's the conspiracy and as usual you miss the point.
>
> "for his discovery of the nature and mode of action of the respiratory
> enzyme"
>
> The respiratory enzyme is not cancer. As usual, you miss the point.

What's really sad is that it's SO easy to check these things. The Nobel
Committee has a website that lists all the Nobel Laureates all the way
back to 1900 and tells what each one won the Nobel Prize for. The
information is just a click away, and yet people like Carole and Dr. C
keep spouting the same incorrect assertions again and again.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I personally prefer Dr. "C"'s hysterical story about the "Doctor." in
> Denmark who ordered all the animals killed [not sure about Fluffy(s) or
> Fido(s) though]. With the result that absolutely nobody in that
> country was a victim of the world-wide 1918 Influenza Epidemic because
> they were Vegetarians. That posting was Priceless.

It is also factual and true.

The information was a part of my education, not the mis-education you
may have received.

Henhede did slaughter all the farm animals and have their grain made
available for the human population. Denmark did avoid the flu
pandemic of 1918-19.

Now, pray tell, why did this happen? How could it have happened?

DrC PhD

The doctor of the future will give no poisonous medicine in the vain
attempt to poison the sick into getting well.

The doctor of the future will interest the patient in the care of the
human frame, in diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease, and
a medical theory which will not include bacteria, viruses,
retro-viruses, prions. or auto-immunine excuses as the cause of any
disease.

That would at least bring allopathic medicine, Western medicine, up
to the level of scientific medical data available in 1870.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (DRCEEPHD) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
> >From: Orac [email protected]
> >Date: 2/16/04 7:06 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >
>
> >I call it paranoid conspiracy-theory drivel, actually. And I call
> >DRCEPHD ignorant and unable to back up his own claims, given that there
> >is no Nobel Prize winner named Rosenow in medicine, biology, or any
>
> True enough.

What is true enough? That you are ignorant? I'll agree with that.


>Rosenow was NOMINATED for a Nobel prize based upon some of his
> research.

Really? Then who nominated him? And why did you keep asserting that he
had won when in fact he had not, especially since it's so easy to check
these things?


> This should stand to show that his knowledge and abilities were at the
> highest
> levels.

Not necessarily.


> Now, back to the point. In YOUR peer reviewed medical journals it has been
> published and proven that bacteria are pleomorphic and not monomorphic as the
> "germ theory" of disease requires.

Over 90 years ago. You seem to ignore the limitations of the science of
that time and the science that has been done since that time.


> Why are we still taught that bacteria are monomorphic and that they can
> "infect" us and cause disease when it has been proven and published that
> bacteria cannot do this, dating back to 1870?

Still citing 134 year old articles? My goodness, don't you realize how
much science has progressed since 1870? There were a lot of things
published in the 1800's that were later shown not to be correct. Heck,
there were a lot of things published in the 1980's that were later shown
not to be correct. Please, let us help you into the present day. You
seem stuck in the science of the 19th century. We're in the 21st century
now.


> Western medicine, allopathic medicine, as far as disease goes, is a great big
> D
> E C E P T I O N. It is one huge lie. Of course in propaganda one is taught
> that the bigger the lie, the easier it is to get the public to believe it.

That would explain why you kept lying about Rosenow having won the Nobel
Prize until it was shown to you with definitive evidence that he did not
win the Nobel Prize, wouldn't it?

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (DRCEEPHD) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
> >From: "Carole" [email protected]
> >Date: 2/17/04 1:01 AM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
> >Sorry, I'm accustomed to Drceephd usually being right and didn't check.
>
> Thank you for your confidence in me. However, I do make mistakes like all
> humans.

Funny how you failed to acknowledge this one the first time I and others
pointed it out to you. Only when someone on "your side" pointed it out
did you finally realize that you had to do some line rectification.


> >Of course it was Dr. Otto Warburg was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1931 and
> >again in 1944 for discovering the cause of cancer. But Rosenow did a lot of
> >the groundwork.
>
> >So if the cause of cancer is lack of oxygen to the cells, and Warburg got a
> >Nobel prize for discovering it,
>
> Unfortunately, Warburg did get a Nobel Prize, but his work on cancer was not
> so
> rewarded. This is one reason why the medical monopoly has been able to cover
> up his data and hide the truth about cancer while they plunder us with the
> need
> to search for a cancer "cure" and ply us with worthless and harmful
> treatments.

Or perhaps his work on cancer wasn't worthy of such an honor.


> Cancer comes in two types. Natural and Induced. With the natural type,
> Warburg's work holds to be valid and you can recover by restoring the oxygen
> balance within the body.

********. It will do no such thing.


> With the induced type, Warburg's research will not provide relief. Here,
> the
> DNA has been altered and some form of outside intervention will be required
> to
> overcome the rouge cells that we call cancer.

No, "induced" and sporadic cancers (sporadic is a better and more
descriptive term than "natural") ALL have genetic abnormalities that
result in incontrolled proliferation, invasion, and angiogenesis.


> DrC PhD
>
> The doctor of the future will give no poisonous medicine in the vain attempt
> to
> poison the sick into getting well.
>
> The doctor of the future will interest the patient in the care of the human
> frame, in diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease, and a medical
> theory which will not include bacteria, viruses, retro-viruses, prions. or
> auto-immunine excuses as the cause of any disease.

You mean the doctor of the future will go back to medicine as it was
practiced hundreds of years ago? No thanks.


> That would at least bring allopathic medicine, Western medicine, up to the
> level of scientific medical data available in 1870.

Well, that would appear to be the time period in which you are stuck,
now, wouldn't it?

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
>Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>From: Orac [email protected]
>Date: 2/17/04 8:52 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>

>Or perhaps his work on cancer wasn't worthy of such an honor.
>

No, just not "profitable." There is no profit for a cancer answer, but tons of
money for the search for a cure and worthless treatments. All scientific, by
the way, p < .05 maybe or is that > .05?



>> Cancer comes in two types. Natural and Induced. With the natural type,
>> Warburg's work holds to be valid and you can recover by restoring the
>oxygen
>> balance within the body.
>
>********. It will do no such thing.
>
Since you have absolutely no understanding, training, or any practical
knowledge of what I just said, I will have to write you off as an arrogant
asshole.


>No, "induced" and sporadic cancers (sporadic is a better and more
>descriptive term than "natural") ALL have genetic abnormalities that
>result in incontrolled proliferation, invasion, and angiogenesis.

Your lack of a true understanding of cancer is showing.
With your lack of knowledge, you will never understand how "spontaneous
regression" can occur, why it can occur, and how to cause it to occur.

>You mean the doctor of the future will go back to medicine as it was
>practiced hundreds of years ago? No thanks.

If we went back to the begining we would have to go to the 1500's when your
predessors began giving mercury to patients to "cure" them. You may have a
black bag full of more powerful and specific poisons, but you and yours are
still quacks trying to poison the sick into getting well.

DrC PhD

The doctor of the future will give no poisonous medicine in the vain attempt to
poison the sick into getting well.

The doctor of the future will interest the patient in the care of the human
frame, in diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease, and a medical
theory which will not include bacteria, viruses, retro-viruses, prions. or
auto-immunine excuses as the cause of any disease.

That would at least bring allopathic medicine, Western medicine, up to the
level of scientific medical data available in 1870.
 
>Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>From: Orac [email protected]
>Date: 2/17/04 8:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>

>> Now, back to the point. In YOUR peer reviewed medical journals it has been
>> published and proven that bacteria are pleomorphic and not monomorphic as
>the
>> "germ theory" of disease requires.
>
>Over 90 years ago. You seem to ignore the limitations of the science of
>that time and the science that has been done since that time.

Am I to believe that time can change a scientific truth to an untruth? What
does 90 years have to do with the truth. All it means to me is that you and
yours have ignored the truth for 90 years hoping it would go away. Can apples
now fall up instead of down?

And just what chance would any researcher have at getting grants and publishing
data that would destroy the pharmceutical industry and make all you brainwashed
allopths look like dumb sheep?

>Still citing 134 year old articles? My goodness, don't you realize how
>much science has progressed since 1870?

As far as disease and the cause of disease, all you have done is concocted one
more excuse after another. It began with bacteria, but they can't be blamed
for many diseases. With the electron microscope came the virus ( however, with
your vaccines you can develop antibodies to the virus ) With aids came the
retro-virus ( now the antibodies mean you have the disease and will die from
it.What a change of attitude on the part of medical minds.) Now we have
prions, or "flat proteins" causing disease. Just how many dumb excuses can you
guys really come up with?

DrC PhD

The doctor of the future will give no poisonous medicine in the vain attempt to
poison the sick into getting well.

The doctor of the future will interest the patient in the care of the human
frame, in diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease, and a medical
theory which will not include bacteria, viruses, retro-viruses, prions. or
auto-immunine excuses as the cause of any disease.

That would at least bring allopathic medicine, Western medicine, up to the
level of scientific medical data available in 1870.
 
Orac <[email protected]> wrote in
news:eek:[email protected]:

> Still citing 134 year old articles? My goodness, don't you realize how
> much science has progressed since 1870? There were a lot of things
> published in the 1800's that were later shown not to be correct. Heck,
> there were a lot of things published in the 1980's that were later
> shown not to be correct. Please, let us help you into the present day.
> You seem stuck in the science of the 19th century. We're in the 21st
> century now.

Does it ever strike you that some (but not all) of "alternative medicine"
seems to put the Golden Age in the late Victorian period? It seems part of
a larger form of alienation with modernity in American culture that
involves a nostalgia for the 1870s-1890s (some fundamentalists, for
example, will flat-out state that nobody can seriously argue that America
is a better place in 2004 than it was in 1870; that may have something to
do with the fact that American Christian fundamentalism really developed
during the late Victorian period).

I'm guessing that the root of this nostalgia is a desire to return to
"simpler" times in response to a feeling of "overchoice." Of course, the
reason those times were "simpler" was that most people's existence revolved
around basic (and not always met) survival needs. This seems to transcend
the political spectrum, though on the Left it seems mostly to take the form
of an infatuation with everything Third World and a concern that indigenous
people's ways of life not be changed (not really taking into account that
many of them *aren't* satisfied with their existing ways of life [1]) and a
sort of romanticization of poverty (as long as it's not in one's own back
yard). On the Right it seems more a yearning for the days when the man of
the house ruled it absolutely.

[1] A while back I was reading part of the debate about genetically-
modified crops. Someone who had, I believed, actually worked with poor
farmers in Africa pointed out that a lot of them wanted to start [gasp!]
spraying *chemical* [oh, the humanity!] herbicides on their crops. And the
reason was *not* that they had been seduced by the propaganda of EEVIL
Western chemical companies. It was that they wanted to have fewer kids and
send them to school rather than having lots of kids who spent all day
stooping in the fields picking weeds (this also contradicts the dogma that
high third-world birth rates are merely the result of Roman Catholic
opposition to birth control. In a society based on manual, subsistence-
level agriculture, parents have lots of kids because they need their labor
to survive. The dark side of a lot of "green" visions of the future is
that, while it's never explicitly stated, they require women to be baby
factories).
 
In article <[email protected]>,
drceephd <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> I personally prefer Dr. "C"'s hysterical story about the "Doctor." in
>> Denmark who ordered all the animals killed [not sure about Fluffy(s) or
>> Fido(s) though]. With the result that absolutely nobody in that
>> country was a victim of the world-wide 1918 Influenza Epidemic because
>> they were Vegetarians. That posting was Priceless.
>
>It is also factual and true.

It's totally nonsensical and is denied by the Danish government's own
medical web pages.

>The information was a part of my education, not the mis-education you
>may have received.

That sounds plausible, given the amazingly low level of your
"education," which seems to have mostly consisted of filling you
with false information.

>Now, pray tell, why did this happen? How could it have happened?

Now, pray tell, why are you telling us that things happened when they
didn't actually happen.

<usual quotes excised -- have you noticed that he removed the *source*
of the quotes so the new arrivals won't know he's quoting, e.g.,
Thomas Edison?>

-- 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)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Eric Bohlman <[email protected]> wrote:
>Orac <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:eek:[email protected]:
>
>> Still citing 134 year old articles? My goodness, don't you realize how
>> much science has progressed since 1870? There were a lot of things
>> published in the 1800's that were later shown not to be correct. Heck,
>> there were a lot of things published in the 1980's that were later
>> shown not to be correct. Please, let us help you into the present day.
>> You seem stuck in the science of the 19th century. We're in the 21st
>> century now.
>
>Does it ever strike you that some (but not all) of "alternative medicine"
>seems to put the Golden Age in the late Victorian period? It seems part of
>a larger form of alienation with modernity in American culture that
>involves a nostalgia for the 1870s-1890s (some fundamentalists, for
>example, will flat-out state that nobody can seriously argue that America
>is a better place in 2004 than it was in 1870; that may have something to
>do with the fact that American Christian fundamentalism really developed
>during the late Victorian period).
>
>I'm guessing that the root of this nostalgia is a desire to return to
>"simpler" times in response to a feeling of "overchoice." Of course, the
>reason those times were "simpler" was that most people's existence revolved
>around basic (and not always met) survival needs.

It's an age-old human behavior to harken back to the "good old days."
You'll find it in Tao Te Ching, for example. The whole Garden of Eden
idea is another example.

-- 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)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DRCEEPHD <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>>From: Orac [email protected]
>>Date: 2/17/04 8:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>>> Now, back to the point. In YOUR peer reviewed medical journals it has been
>>> published and proven that bacteria are pleomorphic and not monomorphic as
>>the
>>> "germ theory" of disease requires.
>>
>>Over 90 years ago. You seem to ignore the limitations of the science of
>>that time and the science that has been done since that time.
>
>Am I to believe that time can change a scientific truth to an untruth? What
>does 90 years have to do with the truth. All it means to me is that you and
>yours have ignored the truth for 90 years hoping it would go away. Can apples
>now fall up instead of down?

If it's so easy to show this "pleiomorphic bacteria" thing, and turn
staph into strep and vice-versa, let's see you do it. Publish that
and your trip to Stockholm is all but assured.

-- 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)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (DRCEEPHD) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
> >From: Orac [email protected]
> >Date: 2/17/04 8:52 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
> >Or perhaps his work on cancer wasn't worthy of such an honor.
> >
>
> No, just not "profitable." There is no profit for a cancer answer, but tons
> of
> money for the search for a cure and worthless treatments. All scientific, by
> the way, p < .05 maybe or is that > .05?

Are you honestly saying that in the first two decades of this century
profitability was the major consideration? If you are, you


> >> Cancer comes in two types. Natural and Induced. With the natural type,
> >> Warburg's work holds to be valid and you can recover by restoring the
> >oxygen
> >> balance within the body.
> >
> >********. It will do no such thing.
> >
> Since you have absolutely no understanding, training, or any practical
> knowledge of what I just said, I will have to write you off as an arrogant
> asshole.

Who's the arrogant asshole, the one who has actually done the hard work
and deals with cancer every day or someone like you who thinks he has
some deep understanding of how cancer works, disparages decades of
scientific progress he had nothing to do with, and, when asked to
provide evidence of his self-proclaimed "superior" understanding, hides
behind evidence-free rants about the medical profession? Whatever my
faults, I at least I know my limitations and areas of ignorance when it
comes to medicine and biology. You have no clue about yours and won't
even admit to any. Now THAT's arrogance.


> >No, "induced" and sporadic cancers (sporadic is a better and more
> >descriptive term than "natural") ALL have genetic abnormalities that
> >result in incontrolled proliferation, invasion, and angiogenesis.
>
> Your lack of a true understanding of cancer is showing.

No, your lack of even a rudimentary understanding of the basic biology
of cancer is showing. This is Biology 101 and Genetics 101 stuff, bud,
and your failure to grasp the basic genetic changes that occur in normal
cells to turn them cancerous is truly sad if you actually have a Ph.D.
as you claim you have. Indeed, if you truly did have a Ph.D., even if
you disagreed with these theories, you would at least understand them.
You clearly do not, which is why I highly doubt you have the degree you
claim.


> With your lack of knowledge, you will never understand how "spontaneous
> regression" can occur, why it can occur, and how to cause it to occur.

You have yet to show that YOU have any such understanding. Every time
you are asked to do so, you conveniently dodge the question, usually
with more of your fact-free polemics against the medical profession
(without any evidence to back them up, of course).


> >You mean the doctor of the future will go back to medicine as it was
> >practiced hundreds of years ago? No thanks.
>
> If we went back to the begining we would have to go to the 1500's when your
> predessors began giving mercury to patients to "cure" them. You may have a
> black bag full of more powerful and specific poisons, but you and yours are
> still quacks trying to poison the sick into getting well.

You have yet to present any evidence to show YOUR alleged medicine is
superior. Again, any time you are asked to do so, you dodge the
question, hiding behind polemics against the medical profession.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (DRCEEPHD) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
> >From: Orac [email protected]
> >Date: 2/17/04 8:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
> >> Now, back to the point. In YOUR peer reviewed medical journals it has
> >> been
> >> published and proven that bacteria are pleomorphic and not monomorphic as
> >the
> >> "germ theory" of disease requires.
> >
> >Over 90 years ago. You seem to ignore the limitations of the science of
> >that time and the science that has been done since that time.
>
> Am I to believe that time can change a scientific truth to an untruth?

Yes. Absolutely. Many are the scientific "truths" that were thought to
be very certain that have been overturned and cast aside as new evidence
is found. Geez, and you claim to have studied science! Don't you realize
that that's how science advances? Old ideas are found to be lacking when
new evidence casts doubt on them, and new ideas, ideas better supported
by the evidence rise to take their place. It happens all the time. It's
happening now.


>What
> does 90 years have to do with the truth.

In science, it can have everything to do with it. See above.


>All it means to me is that you and
> yours have ignored the truth for 90 years hoping it would go away.

No, all it means is that you are clinging to outmoded scientific ideas
that may have seemed valid based on the evidence available at the time
they were in vogue but were later found to be lacking in the light of
evidence developed later.


>Can
> apples
> now fall up instead of down?

Straw man. Such an argument assumes equivalence in the level of evidence
supporting the law of gravity and that supporting the observations and
theories you keep harping on. No such equivilency exists. However, how
about a different question? Can time flow at different rates? We now
know the answer is yes. But 100 years ago or so, such a concept was
contrary to Newtonian physics and widely derided. It took a man named
Einstein to show us differently.


> And just what chance would any researcher have at getting grants and
> publishing data that would destroy the pharmceutical industry and
> make all you brainwashed allopths look like dumb sheep?

A far better chance than you would have. Given how ignorant you appear
to be, YOU certainly appear to be no threat.


> >Still citing 134 year old articles? My goodness, don't you realize how
> >much science has progressed since 1870?
>
> As far as disease and the cause of disease, all you have done is
> concocted one more excuse after another.

Nope. That's all you have done. You can't even back up your assertions
with actual data.


>It began with bacteria, but
> they can't be blamed for many diseases.

Wrong.


>With the electron microscope
> came the virus ( however, with your vaccines you can develop
> antibodies to the virus )

Wrong again.


>With aids came the retro-virus ( now the
> antibodies mean you have the disease and will die from it.

Nope. People who are HIV-positive can now live a decade or more. We
don't even know how long, as protease inhibitors have only been around
less than a decade.


>What a
> change of attitude on the part of medical minds.)

More like a change in the available treatments, which are now very
effective in preventing or delaying the progression from HIV infection
to full-blown AIDS.


>Now we have
> prions, or "flat proteins" causing disease. Just how many dumb
> excuses can you guys really come up with?

I love letting you go on; you are far better at shooting down your own
arguments than I or anyone else could be. You can't present any evidence
to bolster your case. You repeat the same polemics and rants again and
again without evidence. And then you start simply "disbelieving"
scientific principles that have a great deal of evidence to support
them. Why? Because you don't like them.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (David Wright) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> DRCEEPHD <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
> >>From: Orac [email protected]
> >>Date: 2/17/04 8:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >>Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >
> >>> Now, back to the point. In YOUR peer reviewed medical journals it has
> >>> been
> >>> published and proven that bacteria are pleomorphic and not monomorphic as
> >>the
> >>> "germ theory" of disease requires.
> >>
> >>Over 90 years ago. You seem to ignore the limitations of the science of
> >>that time and the science that has been done since that time.
> >
> >Am I to believe that time can change a scientific truth to an untruth? What
> >does 90 years have to do with the truth. All it means to me is that you and
> >yours have ignored the truth for 90 years hoping it would go away. Can
> >apples
> >now fall up instead of down?
>
> If it's so easy to show this "pleiomorphic bacteria" thing, and turn
> staph into strep and vice-versa, let's see you do it. Publish that
> and your trip to Stockholm is all but assured.

"Dr. C" also forgets that the methods for characterizing and classifying
bacteria were much more primitive in 1914 than they are today. In 1870,
with bacteria only recently having been discovered, the methods were
more primitive still. It is quite possible that staph and strep (which
look very similar under the microscope) could be confused back then.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
Orac <[email protected]> wrote in
news:eek:[email protected]:

>> Am I to believe that time can change a scientific truth to an
>> untruth?
>
> Yes. Absolutely. Many are the scientific "truths" that were thought to
> be very certain that have been overturned and cast aside as new
> evidence is found. Geez, and you claim to have studied science! Don't
> you realize that that's how science advances? Old ideas are found to
> be lacking when new evidence casts doubt on them, and new ideas, ideas
> better supported by the evidence rise to take their place. It happens
> all the time. It's happening now.
>
>
>>What
>> does 90 years have to do with the truth.
>
> In science, it can have everything to do with it. See above.

This is actually the fundamental reason why science isn't a belief system,
let alone "just another belief system." In science, you don't emotionally
commit yourself to certain statements as The Truth; you accept them as
provisionally correct and are willing, however painful it might be, to
change your mind if new evidence comes along.

As Isaac Asimov observed, one of the reasons so many people find
pseudoscience more attractive than real science is that the latter makes no
claims to offer certainty. And certainty is what most people want.
 
So Dr. "C', can we continue to assume "The Medical Monopoly" is composed
of individuals who personally never experience Cancer in themselves or
their families. Exactly how does this Program work? You seem to have
the Inside Dope here. How about sharing.
 
So Dr. "C', can we continue to assume "The Medical Monopoly" is composed
of individuals who personally never experience Cancer in themselves or
their families. Exactly how does this Program work? You seem to have
the Inside Dope here. How about sharing.
 
>Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>From: Orac [email protected]
>Date: 2/17/04 11:21 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>

>disparages decades of
>scientific progress

Sorry, but I see no progress, only more continued coverups at least as applied
to so called "medical" science.

>> With your lack of knowledge, you will never understand how "spontaneous
>> regression" can occur, why it can occur, and how to cause it to occur.
>
>You have yet to show that YOU have any such understanding. Every time
>you are asked to do so, you conveniently dodge the question, usually
>with more of your fact-free polemics against the medical profession
>(without any evidence to back them up, of course).

Oh tell us. great and mighty wizzard of noz, how does Warburg's research on
cancer explain the spontaneous regression of cancer?

DrC PhD

The doctor of the future will give no poisonous medicine in the vain attempt to
poison the sick into getting well.

The doctor of the future will interest the patient in the care of the human
frame, in diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease, and a medical
theory which will not include bacteria, viruses, retro-viruses, prions. or
auto-immunine excuses as the cause of any disease.

That would at least bring allopathic medicine, Western medicine, up to the
level of scientific medical data available in 1870.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back