[email protected] (Carole) wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
>
[email protected] (Michele) wrote in message
> news:<
[email protected]>...
<snip for brevity only>
> Ever heard the expression "there is more than one way to
> skin a cat"? Yes, athletes foot can be treated and
> eventually cured using nutritional methods. And I do know
> the conventional treatment so don't waffle on about the
> bleeding obvious. Its the unconventional treatment I'm
> interested in. If you use the conventional treatment - dry
> feet, powder, etc its necessary to keep this up for the
> rest of your life whenever you get the condition.
And keeping one's feet clean, dry, & shoeless when possible
is some sort of conventional "treatment"??? No, Carole --
it's called "hygiene" & "cleanliness". Hopefully a person
practices keeping their feet clean & dry as a matter of
course. If you don't, that would be a lapse on your part.
Swallowing cell salts is certainly NOT the answer to dirty,
soggy toes & athlete's foot.
You seem to be unable to comprehend the irony of your
repeated protests that treating athlete's foot may be more
than a one shot deal with conventional remedies, & that
basic hygiene must be maintained to prevent its recurrence
-- when you tell the NG that you're always taking cell
salts. If cell salts *cured* something once & for all, you'd
need not take 'em again -- but you do! As you've posted:
*********************
Message 37 in thread From: Carole Hubbard
(
[email protected]) Subject: Re: Closed medical mind?
View this article only Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,
sci.med Date: 2001-01-04 07:23:56 PST
Beachhouse <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Carole Hubbard" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
>
news:[email protected]...
> >
> > How come I'm at this very moment successfully treating
> > tinea with calcium supplements? Does medical science
> > know about this cure?
>
> (a) how do you know it's tinea?
> (b) how long have you been "treating" it for?
> (c) what exactly are you treating?
>
(a) I've had it on and off most of my life, so has my
brother. I've looked the description up on Encarta and
it matches the symptoms.
(b) I have only just discovered this treatment in the past
couple of months. It took me 24+ years on cell salts to
actually work it out. It wasn't a big problem but
annoying, irritating and persistant.
(c) Cracked skin between toes, itchiness, little red pimples
that break open and have water inside them, peeling
skin. Soon as I get an itch I take 1000mg elemental
calcium carbonate and magnesium. I take 2000-4000mg a
day of calcium. If I stop, which I did on xmas day, the
symptoms all return.
********************
I hope you're not too thick to see that your treasured ideas
of treatment are just as ongoing as those you lament as
being ongoing? [BTW, I'm sure your cell salts are more
costly than simply washing your feet & keeping them dry.]
> Whereas if you look at athletes foot/tinea as a symptom of
> cellular toxemia (yes, I'll use that term because that's
> what it amounts to) then it appears as a 'whole of body'
> treatment. Because Michele, if the blood isn't right it
> can affect any part of the body and lead to more insidious
> disease eventually. This is no doubt why people get so
> sick because they don't view minor complaints as the
> symptoms of a larger problem and attempt to "sweep them
> under the carpet" to make them go away.
A fungus is an organism, a parasite. Whether athlete's foot,
jock itch, or ringworm -- it's independent of any "cellular
toxemia", occurring only where it can live. Warm, moist,
dark places (feet, crotch, skin folds) are ideal. It can be
spread from one person to another -- no "cellular toxemia"
there, Carole.
<snip for brevity only>
> > It doesn't prohibit the use of supplements, Carole. It
> > regulates it, & pretty much only the mega doses. It
> > won't stop people from taking multiple tabs of a lower
> > dose of a vitamin. As far as herbal products, they will
> > still be available.
>
> Of course you're right and on face value this might seem
> reasonable enough. However, it is this seemingly
> reasonableness which gets the foot in the door and the
> tougher stuff comes later once everything is locked in.
Common sense & reason is some sort of *slippery slope* to
you?? Keeping herbal products & supplements available in
GRAS doses is getting "the foot in the door"?? The door to
what -- letting consumers continue to purchase the products
they want?? It's not a matter of "face value", Carole --
it's the whole thing. Mega doses of vitamins could still be
taken, just as many OTC pharm. products are taken in
prescription doses by consumers. Ibuprofen & Zantac are just
2 examples of meds available in lower strength OTC that
users can take in prescription doses just by popping a
tablet or two more. There is no "tougher stuff" coming
later. C'est tout.
> > Why should products making claims of disease prevention
> > &/or cures be exempt from regulation? If you claim
> > something is just as effective or superior to a
> > pharmaceutical product, you should have no problem with
> > the scrutiny & regulation that goes along with such
> > claims.
>
> Once again, what you say makes sense. However, there are
> sinister motives behind CODEX and you really need to read
> up on the plot of create a fascist new world order.
> Regulation of every form of human endeavour includes
> medicine.
There you go again, Carole -- attributing sinister motives
to something that even you admit "makes sense". The words
"reasonable" & "sensible" don't go hand in hand with
sinister plots, diabolical motives, & evil conspiracies. Not
all regulations are tools for mind control devised by some
mysterious oligarchy. The world will never be organized
enough to be *controlled* by any economic, political, or
religious group. But laws & regulations, whether to prevent
motorists from driving on the sidewalks or packaging pharm.
& alt. products in GRAS doses for OTC use are generally
recognized as a good idea. They prevent the bodies from
piling up on the sidewalks & establish guidelines WRT OTC
products. They don't prevent stupid behavior, whether
strolling out into traffic or tossing back toxic doses of
Tylenol or Vitamin B6. It just makes it the choice of the
individual to do something harmful. If anything, it would
make it harder to yank a product off the market, a la
ephedra. Truthful labeling, packaging doses GRAS (leaving it
up to the consumer if they still want to take potentially
toxic doses), & quality control about the actual contents of
the product are as reasonable & sensible as mandating that a
bottle of Tylenol contain Tylenol instead of sawdust. It
isn't a fascist plot, there is no new world order.
>
> > Just like many prescription meds have OTC counterparts
> > that are simply a lower dose of the same med, there can
> > be two tiers of supplement/alt. products. That is a more
> > accurate picture of the CODEX ideas. Of course it
> > doesn't create that reactionary alarm like your "trying
> > to stop free access to nutritional supplements"
> > nonsense.
>
> Emotive terms like "nonsense" demonstrate your mode of
> thinking, that it isn't based on logic but on conditioned
> emotional responses to a topic.
>
> Explain, in logical terms, without use of emotive terms,
> the benefits of CODEX and why it isn't a plot to
> restrict free access to supplements which are already
> expensive enough.
I've explained it several times, Carole. Your determination
to declare it a plot, suppression, & other rather loaded
terms doesn't change a sensible, reasonable, logical idea
into the sinister plan you're trying to spin. You've even
admitted my explanations are "quite right", "reasonable",
etc. Either you really can't understand what's been said or
you would simply rather deny reality.
>
> > > What is your theory on latent acidosis, and what
> > > consequences does it have if left unchecked?
> >
> > The body's PH is consistent, Carole. Urine & saliva PH
> > are NOT indicative of the blood PH. "Left unchecked",
> > the PH of the body remains the same & the PH of the
> > urine & saliva vary without any ill effect. The test
> > results I see over & over again with patients -- both
> > healthy & not, in a variety of settings -- shows that.
>
> The reason why the pH is consistent is because the acids
> which don't get eliminated are deposited around the body
> in tissues, arteries and joints. This is called latent
> acidosis. This is explained at the following website -
>
> The development of latent "acidosis"
>
http://www.euroamericanhealth.com/how.html
Once again: The body's PH is consistent, Carole. Urine &
saliva PH are NOT indicative of the blood PH. "Left
unchecked", the PH of the body remains the same & the PH of
the urine & saliva vary without any ill effect. The test
results I see over & over again with patients -- both
healthy & not, in a variety of settings -- shows that.
> > You don't really know for sure why the pamphlet was
> > "recalled" unless the health dept. admits it did so, &
> > states why. Just as likely is the scenario that
> > statements in the pamphlet were fraudulent & the health
> > food store proprietor decided not to put his/her neck on
> > a legal chopping block for it. It could also have been a
> > matter of customers questioning the material's accuracy
> > & skepticism usually isn't good for business.
>
> The shop assistant told me the Blackmores cellsalt
> pamphlet was recalled.
Once again: You don't really know for sure why the pamphlet
was "recalled" unless the health dept. admits it did so, &
states why.
The shop assistant isn't the be-all-end-all authority WRT
why a pamphlet wasn't at the health food store anymore.
*Unless the health dept. stated it did so & why -- or there
is credible evidence that they did -- you don't know why.*
Just as likely is the scenario that statements in the
pamphlet were fraudulent & the health food store proprietor
decided not to put his/her neck on a legal chopping block
for it. It could also have been a matter of customers
questioning the material's accuracy & skepticism usually
isn't good for business.
If I hadn't ever seen that pamphlet I never would have got
> into cellsalts. In other words, access to information is
> suppressed on a pretext - "public safety", "public
> health", "stopping fraud" etc.
YET AGAIN: You don't know why the pamphlet is no longer
there. You are chomping at the bit to attribute it to
*something* sinister, but you don't have one iota of
evidence about it. The fact that the pamphlet was publicly
displayed disproves your "suppression" theory. Space isn't
unlimited on the health food shelf ya know....
>
> > > Like where is your response to the suppression of
> > > ESSIAC?
> >
> > You must have a serious reading comprehension problem. I
> > already stated I've read about the efficacy of Essaic --
> > & I don't find much in the way of evidence to show much
> > to get excited about in that department.
>
> And why is that? If people get cured from it why don't
> doctors prescribe it? Its cheap enough and non-toxic.
"Cheap enough & non-toxic" describes water, bananas, & other
items that ALSO don't cure cancer. The efficacy of Essaic in
treating cancer is no better than water. People *don't* "get
cured" of cancer by using it. [Cancer isn't ONE disease,
either.] I don't see much evidence to utilize it.
>
> > I read about MANY ideas I don't agree with -- sometimes
> > there is enough evidence to make me reconsider my
> > previous POV, sometimes not. Essaic currently doesn't
> > have much indicating it can cure anything.
>
> According to who?
According to people who are doggedly pursuing cancer
treatments. Even those touting it as a cure don't offer much
sound research or evidence that I would take as
scientifically credible.
>
> > Nobody's suppressing the research into the product or
> > it's availability. You really enjoy "everything's a
> > conspiracy" ****, but there's no suppression of info on
> > Essaic, cell salts, amalgam removal, vitamins, etc.
> > Disagreement about an opinion ISN'T suppression, Carole
> > -- as much as you'd like it to mean that, it isn't even
> > close.
>
> Wrong. If a normal GP tries to peddle alternative remedies
> he risks ruining his career.
That has nothing to do with regulation, Carole. If an MD
peddling (interesting verbage there <G>) alt. remedies
"ruins" his career, that would be because potential patients
viewed him as a quack, not because he was stopped from
"peddling" those wares. Surely, you don't think it should be
mandatory for *any* doc to be ENDORSED by a regulatory
body???? Besides, Hulda Clark's been hawking her brand of
incompetence for years & she hasn't been stopped, at least
in certain developing nations. She proves that anybody can
sell anything.....
>
> > > > YOU assume that all the material about economics is
> > > > written by one source, espousing one idea. Perhaps
> > > > reading MANY books & exploring MANY sources would
> > > > enlighten you, Carole. We are not "all being ripped
> > > > off by taxes" -- many of us understand the ins &
> > > > outs of the U.S. tax system & use that knowledge to
> > > > our advantage. The divide
> > >
> > > Yes the rich get looked after by the system. Notice
> > > how Bush gave trillion dollar tax cuts to the rich and
> > > a pittance to the people who really needed the money.
> >
> > First of all, as a middle income US citizen, I pay what
> > I think is a decent amount of taxes. I take advantage of
> > every legal way to cut that amount & wind up doing
> > pretty good. George W. is a ****, but no different than
> > many boobs before him. "The people who really needed the
> > money" are who?? People who have many children? People
> > who don't have either the education or the inate skills
> > needed to get & keep high paying jobs? Disabled people?
> > Define "who really needed the money" before going any
> > further.
>
> There are plenty of victims in society, people who haven't
> got enough money to feed or house themselves. How many
> unemployed people are there in US? How many homeless?
And your proposal to house the homeless? Remember you first
have to solve the problems that led to the situation. For
some, domestic abuse that drove them unprepared out into the
street. For others, mental illness that causes them to lose
touch with reality & leave the families & homes they have.
In other situations, drug &/or alcohol problems that make it
impossible for the person to hold a job, maintain a safe
home environment, or cooperate with others enough to stay
anywhere but jail or the street. That doesn't even take into
consideration all the people who are homeless because they
don't have the education necessary to get a job earning
enough to support themselves, or to manage the money they
make if they do earn enough. C'mon, Carole -- cough up
solutions.
> I know in Australia the unemployment rate is something
> like 5.5%. If there is a workforce of $12 million that
> means 600,000 unemployed. If all those people went and got
> skilled up there would still 600,000 unemployed because
> there aren't enough job vacancies.
Many jobs go unfilled here in the U.S. There are quite a few
illegal aliens who take considerable risks to get here & it
ain't to see the Liberty Bell. It's to work just some of
those jobs.
> And what about the poor starving people in the world in
> third world countries? Should they go and get skills too?
> The facts are that the divide between the rich and the
> poor is growing - with 5% of the world's population
> controlling 95% of the world's wealth. There is something
> wrong with those figures and its not that people need more
> education.
It's EXACTLY that education is the only real answer!
Education about birth control -- agriculture -- health care
-- economics -- job skills that are relevant in the local (&
global) market -- politics -- the list goes on & on.
Ignorance is the most damaging thing to poor, unempowered
people! People without relevant skills, something to offer
the world are doomed to stay poor & suffer. A sad fact of
life. It's always been that way -- & always will be.
Your speech doesn't answer my question: "The people who
really needed the money" are who?? People who have many
children? People who don't have either the education or the
inate skills needed to get & keep high paying jobs? Disabled
people? Define "who really needed the money" before going
any further.
Everybody who is unemployed? That could be for many reasons.
People who don't make enough money despite being employed?
Maybe they had too many kids & can't make enough to live
comfortably. Maybe they didn't get the education they needed
to get a job making enough money. Maybe they want to live in
an area where the cost of living is high, instead of one
where they could more easily afford the costs of housing,
food, etc. People with other problems that prevent them from
obtaining & keeping good paying jobs? Alcohol, drugs,
disabilities can all limit the ability to make enough money
to live on. Are you claiming that every job is filled in
either Australia or the U.S.?? Or are you actually aware
that many jobs are available -- but that they go unfilled
for MANY reasons?
Some of my patients are jobless, on Medicaid, even though
they *could* work in many cases. They receive many benefits
I couldn't qualify for if I wanted to (too high an income).
They often drive up in decent vehicles, talking on cell
phones, wearing designer outfits, etc. Most often, these are
the folks whose families supplement the money they get from
me & millions of other taxpayers. I don't begrudge them
managing to grab a piece of the pie -- I also don't pity
them for the stuff they don't have. Just as I don't expect
pity from wealthy people because I'm not filthy rich.
Life isn't fair, Carole. The distribution of brains, talent,
& yes LUCK ain't fair. Should people be restricted on how
much they can achieve? How much their ambition & hard work
should get them? Told they must all live in the areas where
they can be comfortable, & how many kids they can have? I
don't think so. Sharing what one has is commendable -- I do
it, as do many, many people. [I'm not just talking taxes,
but giving time &/or money to help others just *because*.]
But the first person who forces me to limit my work, tells
me I'm not supposed to aim higher to raise my standard of
living, or mandates that I can't enjoy what I've worked for
because there are people less fortunate than I am will get
my heartiest "screw you". Just as there are people more
financially well off than me & that's okay.
> > [Aren't there any injustices where you live? IIRC you're
> > half a world away, in a country with its own fair share
> > of wrongs to be righted -- surely enough to keep you
> > busy a long time, eh?]
>
> IIRC = If I recall correctly
>
> > > > between the rich & the poor has always been there &
> > > > will always be there. Your reference to "the
> > > > economy" shows you don't understand the
> > >
> > > Oh, so the poor have always been poor and so they
> > > should stay poor and sick. Good one Michele.
> >
> > You have to accept the fact that you are simply too
> > stupid to efectively twist my words, Carole. Find where
> > I said people *should* stay poor -- you can't. That
> > would be because I didn't say any such thing, nitwit. I
> > said there will always be poor people.
>
> Why will there always be poor people Michele?
For all the reason I've already listed. Apparently, Jesus
agreed. As I remember, He said the same thing when the
apostle criticized Mary for anointing His feet with costly
oil instead of giving the money to the poor. Maybe you
should ask Him?
>
>
> > You've admitted on many occasions that if a POV is
> > conventional, you're not buyin' it -- I guess that saves
> > you actually having to *think* about what you believe.
>
> I probably said I'd consider the alternative viewpoint
> before the one that gets peddled on the mass media.
No,
>
> > > > Read above & try to comprehend. As someone who
> > > > questions the Holocaust happening, you seem to enjoy
> > > > believing a particularly disgusting revision of
> > > > history.
> > >
> > > I don't deny the holocaust happened just the meaning
> > > behind it. And what about you? Look up how Prescott
> > > Bush made his millions, and how a lot of the
> > > pharmaceutical cartel is tied up to I.G.Farben who
> > > created Zygon B gas which gassed the jews.
> >
> > And? This PROVES what? That Germans gassed Jews. That
> > millionaires have often accumulated their fortunes
> > through unethical means? It doesn't mean everything &
> > everyone conventional is tainted & part of sinister
> > conspiracy. You like to say that if one is _____
> > (whatever, fill it in for yourself), then everyone is
> > ____. It doesn't mean that at all.
>
> > > > > > What part don't you believe? That effective meds
> > > > > > = big bucks? That drug companies answer to their
> > > > > > stockholders? That big successes for the pharm.
> > > > > > companies result in those large bonuses for the
> > > > > > top execs?
> > > > >
> > > > > That pharmaceutical drugs improve health.
> > > >
> > > > Suuure. Let's ask Lance Armstrong -- a group with
> > > > IIDM -- those who've lived 15 years with HIV if they
> > > > agree. Of course, they're only around to ask because
> > > > of conventional drugs, surgery, & other
> > > > therapies.......
> > >
> > > Where did AIDS come from?
> >
> > Research has several theories of where HIV came from.
> > More importantly, focus should be on dealing with it
> > NOW. Mutation of viruses is common, & identifying a
> > source of the original infection is secondary to
> > stopping it now.
>
> That's the cover story that AIDS came out of the
> environment. A history of US secret human experimentation
> 3-25-3
http://www.rense.com/general36/history.htm
Do you EVER get out of your "conspiracy -- cover up --
sinister plot" mode??? Read some real history about the
disease -- stuff written as it was unfolding. Back in
1978/79, several gay friends began discussing "gay cancer" &
when I asked them what the hell they were talking about,
they shared the available information which was scant at the
time. [One of them, now deceased from AIDS, told me
something I'll NEVER forget -- "As long as it's just us fags
dying, the public doesn't really have a problem with it. But
it's probably not just a gay disease & once your average
heteros start getting it, people will come up with all sorts
of asinine explanations of how it started & how it spread --
all sorts of lies to avoid admitting they might be in the
"deserving" of whatever this thing is." People like you
prove he was sooooo right. (RIP Mike)] Within a few years,
research in both the U.S. & France raced to figure out the
basics -- it was a blood borne retrovirus. Too many people
have made too many advances in the field to believe the
sinister plot scenarios.
>
> > > > You snipped what I cited as proof -- the marketing
> > > > of supplements like Avlimil & other herbals is big
> > > > money, Carole. They don't need to be patented --
> > > > just promoted, packaged, & sold. That tired old
> > > > "they can't be patented" is such ******** -- few if
> > > > any of the supplements at the local health food
> > > > store are patented, but they certainly charge
> > > > through the nose for 'em. Bet your cell salts ain't
> > > > free either. Water isn't patented, but they sell it
> > > > anyway. Money making doesn't depend on patents.
> > > > Sorry you don't seem to get that.
>
> STUDY: Old cheap drugs more effective than new expensive
> drugs "It is unlikely, in my opinion, that the
> pharmaceutical industry is going to do these kinds of
> studies of head-to-head comparisons on their own." - Dr
> Paul Whelton Treating hypertension 'Newshour' interview,
> with Ray Suarez December 18, 2002
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-
> dec02/hypertension.html
Physicians routinely prescribe less expensive drugs -- even
if only in response to patients whose insurance makes them
pay a larger amount for both name brand & "unapproved" meds.
Docs also recommend OTC meds (although prescriptions may
cost the patient less since insurance usually doesn't cover
the OTC products). Older drugs are often less expensive
because the R&D has been paid for already. In any case, this
isn't "suppressed" information is it? It's been on TV, in
print, discussed openly on the internet -- no cover up, no
conspiracy to keep the masses uninformed. It disproves your
POV, Carole.
>
> > > People don't have to buy them if they don't improve
> > > their health.
> >
> > Ditto for pharmaceuticals. If conventional meds don't
> > work, people won't continue to buy & take them. You've
> > glossed over your "because they can't be patented" POV,
> > Carole. Not surprising, as I've shown that little litany
> > to be false.
> >
> > > Chemotherapy is good in some cases, but often people
> > > die from the effects of it. And Rife apparently worked
> > > out how to kill cancer using electro magnetic
> > > frequencies but was suppressed, but since you read
> > > selectively you wouldn't know about that.
> >
> > Your lying is getting tiresome, Carole. I'd wager that I
> > regularly read a much broader variety of materials on
> > many topics from diverse sources than you do. More
> > importantly, I make sure that I understand what I've
> > read -- unlike yourself, as you've demonstrated more
> > than once when you've espoused belief in a topic that
> > you admit you "haven't figured out".
> >
> > "Apparently" finding something out isn't anything
> > definite. But don't let little stuff like questionable
> > evidence or insufficient scientific data ruin your blind
> > belief in what "apparently" was found. Facts have never
> > stopped you from wholeheartedly embracing anything you
> > see as non-conventional before -- especially if the
> > magic words "suppressed", "conspiracy", or "cartel" are
> > used in connection with the product or idea.
> >
> > > > > Graves claims he took a one off treatment and his
> > > > > AIDS seems to have disappeared. And that was 3
> > > > > years ago.
> > > >
> > > > That isn't an anwer, Carole -- but I didn't expect
> > > > one becuase I'm sure you don't know. "Seems to have
> > > > disappeared"???? Holy ****, what a concrete guess!!
> > >
> > > I don't know conclusively about Graves. Just that he
> > > claims to have found the origin of the AIDS virus and
> > > the patented cure.
> >
> > When you present something that is supposed to back up
> > your POV, it's a good idea to cite something factual,
> > Carole. Not examples of something you "don't know
> > conclusively about". But that seems to be a pattern with
> > you. You parrot whatever some ding-dong claims, without
> > even knowing the basic premises for those claims!!!
> >
> > > > > > If Graves did have HIV, what evidence is there
> > > > > > that he is no longer HIV+?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why don't you take a look at his website for
> > > > > yourself.
> > > >
> > > > Saw it -- & saw it had nothing in the way of facts
> > > > or evidence to back up his claims.
> > >
> > > That is right,
> >
> > And no facts or evidence means what, Carole? Geez, does
> > it actually have to be spelled out for you??? It's B-U-L-L-S-H-I-
> > T. But you simply shovel it without hesitation. Amazing
> > -- you could be a study in gullibility all by yourself!
> >
> > >but did you read the history of experimentation by the
> > >US government? Have you read about operation paperclip?
> >
> > Utilizing the knowledge possessed by Nazi scientists
> > after WWII has what to do with Graves' claims of being
> > cured of AIDS?? [Nothing, obviously.] There have
> > undoubtedly been many instances where the US gov't.
> > decided (right or wrong) to sidestep a decision when it
> > was deemed more beneficial to do so. Your jump from
> > citing a baseless claim of a cure for HIV/AIDS to a
> > decision made 50+ years ago to dance an intellectual
> > tango with ******'s eggheads doesn't bolster your POV,
> > Carole.
>
> Calling me an idiot won't prove your point either,
> Michele.
Typical that you (as usual) gloss over (What I actually
said, without "idiot" being mentioned, but if the shoe
fits....):
> > > > That isn't an anwer, Carole -- but I didn't expect
> > > > one becuase I'm sure you don't know. "Seems to have
> > > > disappeared"???? Holy ****, what a concrete guess!!
> > When you present something that is supposed to back up
> > your POV, it's a good idea to cite something factual,
> > Carole. Not examples of something you "don't know
> > conclusively about". But that seems to be a pattern with
> > you. You parrot whatever some ding-dong claims, without
> > even knowing the basic premises for those claims!!!
> > > > Saw it -- & saw it had nothing in the way of facts
> > > > or evidence to back up his claims.
> > And no facts or evidence means what, Carole? Geez, does
> > it actually have to be spelled out for you??? It's B-U-L-L-S-H-I-
> > T. But you simply shovel it without hesitation. Amazing
> > -- you could be a study in gullibility all by yourself!
> > Utilizing the knowledge possessed by Nazi scientists
> > after WWII has what to do with Graves' claims of being
> > cured of AIDS?? [Nothing, obviously.] There have
> > undoubtedly been many instances where the US gov't.
> > decided (right or wrong) to sidestep a decision when it
> > was deemed more beneficial to do so. Your jump from
> > citing a baseless claim of a cure for HIV/AIDS to a
> > decision made 50+ years ago to dance an intellectual
> > tango with ******'s eggheads doesn't bolster your POV,
> > Carole.
Hmm, read a bit better.
<snip for brevity only>
> Ever notice that every theory you disagree with you use
> emotive terms as opposed to logic, to dismiss it?
After explaining what even you admit is reasonable &
sensible only to hear your litany about suppression,
conspiracies, etc. etc. that you admit you "haven't figured
out yet", I can only come to the conclusion that you are: a)
dense b) on hallucinogenics or c) suffering from OCD. As
your POV is blatantly illogical, I've hoped bluntness would
penetrate your world of paranoia. Does anything??
>
> > As usual, you'd be guessing without a clue. And WRT some
> > topics, you'd be guessing pretty far off base.
>
> How do you know? For example?
You've already stated that I only read conventional material
to gather information. You have posted many times that I
only give credence to mainstream medical theories. You claim
that you know what my beliefs about many topics are -- & you
don't. You carefully avoided answering when I proposed that
you *prove* your untruths by posting my beliefs/POV about
subjects like abortion, VTP, etc. It proved you are guessing
without a clue.
>
> > "I would think" is something I wish you would do on
> > occasion, Carole. But clinging to every bird-brained
> > idea that hatches from a kook *just because* it wears
> > the label of non-conventional is what you serve up here.
>
> What is one "bird brained" idea I have which is wrong?
Christ, learn to read, Carole. Cell salts, conspiracy
theories, plots to suppress information. Just naming a
couple.....
> You wouldn't know the meaning of brevity, only waffle.
It's YOU who waffles, Carole. You contradict yourself every
other stinkin' sentence. You admit you haven't "worked
things out" on more than one topic you make definitive
statements about. You believe anything that doesn't fit into
the category conventional -- no matter how much evidence
there is to disprove it. You are every charlatan's wet
dream. If someone ever wants to *peddle* some malarkey, they
know to e-mail you.
>
> > "Thinking about things" is a far cry from the blind
> > belief you have in POV's you don't even understand. From
> > what you show here, you're obviously thinking about
> > fluffy kittens, warm oatmeal & maybe snowflakes --
> > because you certainly don't give a moment's thought to
> > the baseless ideas you cite. You admit that you often
> > don't understand what you repeat -- which doesn't show
> > much thought there, Carole.
>
> How do you know my ideas are baseless?
I've already told you more than once. Even you know they
are, Carole. It just kills you to admit it.
