The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by John, Mar 12, 2004.

  1. John

    John Guest

    [email protected] (Steve Harris
    [email protected]) wrote in

    >
    > Or, it could be the nature of engines that there's only so
    > much that frequent oil changes can do for them.

    When you can't answer an argument you always go into motor
    cars mode.

    >
    > I personally am amazed that drugs cure ANY diseases.
    > Again, that's like some motor oil that fixes your broken
    > fan belt or timing problems.

    I would be amazed if any drug cured anything other than
    bacterial infections. As they can't. The body feeds on
    nutrients which is why nutritional med works and drugs
    don't. Nice hoax though.

    > COMMENT: We've mentioned many. Many infections, cancers,
    > acne, and acute inflammatory problems like vasculitis can
    > all be cured by a single course of the proper drug. Also
    > certain pathological clots. The similie of plugged fuel
    > injectors is better than I thought.

    Acne? What sort of reality do you work in--pharma pharma
    land? A cure is 100% and tell that to all of the poor folk
    on Accutane for acne, killed at least 26 here through
    suicide. Cancer? You mean 50% (70% claimed) of some
    childhood cancers after torturing them with chemo, and
    giving them more cancers down the line from the drugs?

    >
    > COMMENT: There's no evidence that a glass of fresh orange
    > juice a day does squat for heart disease. Abstract
    > appended.

    Quite, Pauling was taking 40 gms daily if I recall right. A
    goat can produce that in a day. We have a genetic defect
    according to Stone (actually a built in aging mechanism)
    where we can't make our own vit
    C. Nice of you medical people to inform the public of that
    one. Mind you, given your level of ignorance I would be
    surprised if you knew that.

    What a sad pathetic life, trying to defend drugs over
    vitamins. I hope for your sake Lucifer has a nice country
    club for after your demise.

    "The only cure of a degenerative disease ever established,
    has been by a vitamin, mineral, or essential food factor. No
    prescription drug has EVER cured a SINGLE degenerative
    disease. While antibiotics can kill bacteria in the body and
    have no doubt saved lives that would otherwise have been
    lost since the discovery of penicillin, this does not mean
    that the bacteria is the CAUSE of the "disease" being
    treated nor does it mean that antibiotics are the BEST way
    to handle the situation because Klenner (MD)demonstrated way
    back in the fifties (published hospital studies, Southern
    Medical J) that intravenous vitamin C in megadoses kills off
    ANY infection known to man (including tetanus -lockjaw)
    without ANY harmful side effects. What is being treated when
    an antibiotice is used... is the SYMPTOM, not the disease,
    but that is another story for another day. To say that
    bacteria cause disease is like saying that the flies cause
    the manure pile and firemen cause house fires because each
    of the latter are found on the scene. Bacteria are
    EFFECTS.... not CAUSES."--Dr Duffy DC
     


  2. John

    John Guest

    [email protected] (Steve Harris
    [email protected]) wrote in

    Save us the crap studies that show vitamins do zilch. Bit
    like the studies that show MMR is safe.

    "Any vitamin C study using less than 2,000 mg a day is a
    waste of time."--Dr Saul

    TEN WAYS TO SPOT ANTI-VITAMIN BIASES IN A SCIENTIFIC STUDY
    by Andrew Saul "The Doctor Yourself Newsletter"
    http://www.doctoryourself.com

    1. Where's the beef? How much of the original study is
    quoted in the media? Are you just getting factoids, or
    are data provided? Has the journalist writing about the
    subject actually read the original paper?

    2. What exactly was studied, and how? Was it an IN VITRO
    (test-tube) study or an IN VIVO (animal) study? Was
    there a CLINICAL STUDY on people, or is its application
    to real life a matter of conjecture?

    3. Follow the Money. Who paid for the study? Cash from food
    processors, pharmaceutical giants, and other deep
    pockets decides what gets studied, and how. It is very
    difficult, if not impossible, for researchers to present
    findings that embarrass their financial backers.
    Published research will often indicate sources of
    funding, possibly at the end of the paper in an
    acknowledgements paragraph. If not, correspondence
    addesses of principle authors are invariably provided.
    Write and ask.

    4. Check the dosages. Any vitamin C study using less than
    2,000 mg a day is a waste of time. Any vitamin E study
    employing less than 400 International Units (I.U.) is a
    waste of time. Any study using less than 1,000 mg niacin
    a day is a waste of time. All low-dose studies are set
    up to fail. Low doses of vitamins do not cure major
    diseases. Large doses cure diseases.

    5. Check the form of supplement used. Was the vitamin used
    in the study natural or synthetic? Any carotene study
    using the synthetic form of beta-carotene only is a
    waste of time. Any vitamin E study using the synthetic
    DL-alpha form is a waste of time.

    6. Use the Pauling Principle: read the entire study and
    interpret the data for yourself. Do not rely on the
    summary and/or conclusions of the study authors. As
    Linus Pauling pointed out repeatedly, many researchers
    miss, or dismiss, the statistical significance of their
    own work. Such behavior may be human error, or it may be
    politically motivated. Beware of editorializing.

    7. Beware of Pauling-bashers. If a media article is
    critical about twice Nobel prize-winning Linus Pauling,
    you can be confident it has been spin-doctored.

    8. Watch for these throw-away slams against supplements:

    "You get all the vitamins you need form your daily diet."
    "Vitamins are dangerous if you take too many of them."
    "Excess vitamins are wasted." "More research is needed
    before supplements can be recommended." "There is no
    scientific support for large vitamin doses."

    9. Watch for pontifical public recommendations at the end
    of the article such as:

    "Vitamins can do some good things, but can do some bad
    things as well." "You are better off not popping vitamin
    pills." "Just eat a balanced diet." "If you take vitamins,
    take no more than the US RDA."

    10. Use the media backwards. The more headlines about a
    particular study, the more politically charged the
    subject and the less likely that the reporting, or the
    original study, is positive towards vitamins. Negative
    news sells newspapers, and magazines, and gets lots of
    viewers. Positive drug studies do get headlines, of
    course. Positive vitamin studies do not. Is this a
    conspiracy? You mean with shady people all sitting
    around a shaded table in a darkened back room? Of course
    not. It is nevertheless an enormous public health
    problem with enormous consequences. Consider what might
    be called Saul's Law of the Media: "Press and television
    coverage of a vitamin study is inversely proportionate
    to the study's clinical usefulness." In other words, the
    more media hoopla, the worse the research. Truly
    valuable research does not scare people; it helps people
    get well. There are over 3,000 scientific references at
    Doctor Yourself.com for people who share in this goal.

    Reprinted from the book FIRE YOUR DOCTOR, copyright 2001 and
    prior years by Andrew Saul, Number 8 Van Buren Street,
    Holley, New York 14470 USA Telephone (716) 638-5357

    _______________________________________________
    Newsletter mailing list [email protected] http-
    ://doctoryourself.com/mailman/listinfo/newsletter_doctoryo-
    urself.com

    If You Choose to Take Vitamin C Supplements, Stick to it ---
    > http://osu.orst.edu/dept/lpi/new/vitamincancer2.html

    Test-Tube Science Plus Irresponsible Journalism Equals
    Consumer Confusion http://www.crnusa.org/Shellnr061501.html

    CRN's Letter to the Tan Sheet
    http://www.crnusa.org/Shellnr061501TAN.html

    New Research Findings On Vitamin C Safety: An Interview with
    Dr. Balz Frei
    http://www.nutritionfocus.com/nutrition_library/frei1.html

    This earlier article could also be of interest in this
    context:

    A Critical Analysis of The National Academy of Sciences'
    Attack on Dietary Supplements May 9, 2000 http://www.lef.org/featured-
    articles/may2000_canasads_01.html
     
  3. "AT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On March 19, 2004, Mark Probert wrote:
    >
    > >TV (watching a lot since it is March Madness) has
    > >recently been
    > flooded with
    > >ads for a weight loss mircale cure which brags about its
    > >high price
    > and the
    > >fact that it is backed by two patents (which, IMNSHO is a
    > >form of
    > deceptive
    > >advertising).
    >
    > Based on a fallacy that many if not most potential buyers
    > will fail to see (or see through), I agree; arguing that
    > people should buy a product because it is patented is
    > deceptive. However, is it illegal?

    I do not believe it is, although I think it should be.

    > Sadly, unless it violates some statutory anti-competitive
    > trade protection or rises to the level of actual fraud, it
    > is probably not illegal - just ethically questionable.

    Agreed.

    > If someone says that America should by their product
    > because the U.S. government has given them exclusive
    > rights to make and sell the product, we know nothing about
    > the product. But, people buy products about which they
    > know nothing all the time. Stupid is not against the law.
    > Negligent is.

    Negligence is normally not criminally illegal. Taking
    advantage of stupid should be.

    > Marketers daily present all manner of spurious and
    > deceptive imagery to stimulate their target markets to
    > buy, and unless their tactics violate some statutory
    > restriction, that's business as usual. Caveat emptor; let
    > the buyer beware. What looks too good to be true generally
    > is, but hey, you could already be a winner.

    My older son is not very discriminative when it comes to
    shopping., Fortunately, he is on full scholarship and makes
    a grown up living by working part time, so he, and not me,
    can afford to be.

    > You want to talk about deceptive advertising practices
    > that smack of fraud? Consider the example from U.S.
    > pharmaceuticals.

    I do not like the advertising for pharnaceuticals one bit.
    From what I have read in the ads, this can put a serious
    strain on the doctor patient relationship and complicate
    already difficult treatments.

    > For example from recent television commercials:
    >
    > A: I probably shouldn't take the OTC antacid without
    > seeing a doctor.
    > B: You just did (clearly insinuating B is a physician
    > advising use).

    One of my favorites....

    > This is questionable on several grounds, but neither the
    > FTC, FCC, FDA, nor the AMA have made any discernable
    > individual or joint effort to censure it.

    It is commercial free speech which I do not like.

    > I guess since it's just an over-the-counter product, it
    > can't cause any serious harm - aside from masking the
    > symptoms of a serious disorder or causing a serious
    > disorder, e.g. anacidosis, all by itself. So, why worry?
    >
    > And, even if we accept at face value that B is a physician
    > rather than an actor pretending to be kindly and
    > supportive, is he A's doctor, responsive to the patient's
    > additional educational needs or liable for his negligence?
    >
    > Even more entertaining to me:
    >
    > Announcer: Nobody knows for sure what causes this mental
    > illness, but people who take our product may not worry
    > about it anymore. {SUBTEXT: So, find the first person you
    > can with prescriptive authority, and whine for our
    > product by name.}
    >
    > Again, there's no real, personalized deception going no
    > here. It's just another sales pitch - another sales pitch
    > to an emotionally imperiled and dependent audience who may
    > be triggered to act in response to undue influence.

    This scenario is one of the ones that disturb me the most.
    The person asking the doctor may have impaired judgment and
    this further complicates treatment.

    > Excuse the fact that practitioners given an opportunity to
    > evaluate a patient's condition objectively may be able to
    > deduce the actual nature of /that/ patient's particular
    > malfunction, e.g. the abusive drunken boyfriend and sub-
    > clinical polysubstance reliance. Naturally, if a drug can
    > help the sufferer adapt to an unmanagable lifestyle, that
    > solution may to be quicker and easier than expecting her
    > and everyone in the immediate vicinity to change. And,
    > quick and easy is what we're looking for. Right?

    For most people. I prefer to look harder and find the
    right answer.

    > Naturally, nutraceutical hawkers are aware of these
    > accepted pharmaceutical marketing peccadillos, and many
    > would love an equal shot at a gullible market. Who
    > wouldn't?

    Agreed. But, at least we have the prescriptive process as a
    gatekeeper wrt to pharmaceuticals. Anything that erodes that
    i snot a good thing.
     
  4. "Peter Bowditch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Mark Probert-March 19, 2004" <Mark Probert03-19-
    > [email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >> Wouldn't it be quaint to see an herbal supplement, once
    > >> marketed as somehow supportive of the circulatory
    > >> system, openly marketed as a beta blocker that also
    > >> restores male pattern hair loss?
    > >
    > >Well, aspirin sort of fits that, except for the hair
    > >loss....
    >
    > But, Mark, you must know that nobody sells aspirin any
    > more because it can't be patented. No big pharma company
    > will ever sell anything on which it does not hold an iron-
    > clad current patent. Next thing you will be telling me
    > that these people sell vitamins.

    I know it is a scary thought, but BigPharma also sells
    supplements, since the profit margins are so big.
     
  5. Alan Turley

    Alan Turley Guest

    On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:43:38 GMT, Mark Probert wrote:

    >Negligence is normally not criminally illegal. Taking
    >advantage of stupid should be.

    True; negligence is generally a civil matter, since a
    failure to act with reasonable prudence in the exercise of a
    duty more often regards a duty between individuals than
    between an individual and the state.

    However, taking advantage of stupid may well /be/ criminal,
    depending on jurisdiction and the facts of a particular
    case. Still, I think it important to emphasize that this
    should stay /additionally/ criminal rather than /exclusively
    or preferentially/ criminal, which may add insult to injury
    for those individuals harmed.

    Among other reasons, civil wrongs pay the harmed individual
    rather than the offended state, and the proof standard is
    generally an easier weight of evidence rather than the
    harder "beyond a reasonable doubt."

    @~
     
  6. Gymmy Bob

    Gymmy Bob Guest

    Negligence to provide the needs of a dependant human being
    is a criminal act and has been used many times in some very
    public cases.

    "Alan Turley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:43:38 GMT, Mark Probert wrote:
    >
    > >Negligence is normally not criminally illegal. Taking
    > >advantage of stupid should be.
    >
    > True; negligence is generally a civil matter, since a
    > failure to act with reasonable prudence in the exercise of
    > a duty more often regards a duty between individuals than
    > between an individual and the state.
    >
    > However, taking advantage of stupid may well /be/
    > criminal, depending on jurisdiction and the facts of a
    > particular case. Still, I think it important to emphasize
    > that this should stay /additionally/ criminal rather than
    > /exclusively or preferentially/ criminal, which may add
    > insult to injury for those individuals harmed.
    >
    > Among other reasons, civil wrongs pay the harmed
    > individual rather than the offended state, and the proof
    > standard is generally an easier weight of evidence rather
    > than the harder "beyond a reasonable doubt."
    >
    > @~
     
  7. [email protected] (john) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > [email protected] (Steve Harris
    > [email protected]) wrote in
    >
    > >
    > > Or, it could be the nature of engines that there's only
    > > so much that frequent oil changes can do for them.
    >
    > When you can't answer an argument you always go into motor
    > cars mode.

    When you can't win you always go into testamonial mode.
    Giving quotes from people who say they've seen X cure Y.

    Too bad none of their claims are repeatable.

    > I would be amazed if any drug cured anything other than
    > bacterial infections. As they can't. The body feeds on
    > nutrients which is why nutritional med works and drugs
    > don't. Nice hoax though.

    Hey a car feeds on gasoline. Which is why if you give it
    just the right gasoline, it will never have any mechanical
    problems and never wear out. That's a hoax so stupid nobody
    would believe it. But folks like you are pushing the same
    idea with regard to biology, and some people actually do
    believe you. I guess they just figure they SHOULD be ageless
    and immortal, so if they're not, they must be doing
    something wrong. Duh.

    > > COMMENT: We've mentioned many. Many infections, cancers,
    > > acne, and acute inflammatory problems like vasculitis
    > > can all be cured by a single course of the proper drug.
    > > Also certain pathological clots. The similie of plugged
    > > fuel injectors is better than I thought.
    >
    >
    > Acne? What sort of reality do you work in--pharma
    > pharma land?

    I work in the real world. There are lots of repeated and
    repeatable studies of Accutane and acne.

    > A cure is 100% and tell that to all of the poor folk on
    > Accutane for acne, killed at least 26 here through
    > suicide.

    No. You may have had that man people kill themselves while
    taking it, but they all were eating vitamin C, too. And
    watching television. So how do you know it wasn't the
    vitamin C or TV that killed them, eh?

    > Cancer? You mean 50% (70% claimed) of some childhood
    > cancers after torturing them with chemo, and giving them
    > more cancers down the line from the drugs?

    Cancers down the line are rare. And without chemo, childhood
    leukemia is 99.9% fatal.

    > > COMMENT: There's no evidence that a glass of fresh
    > > orange juice a day does squat for heart disease.
    > > Abstract appended.
    >
    > Quite, Pauling was taking 40 gms daily if I recall right.
    > A goat can produce that in a day.

    I doubt that. Animals that make vitamin C do produce large
    amounts of it by comparison to what humans need. But we are
    unusually good at retaining vitamin C, and need less. How
    much vitamin C does it take to give a human the same blood
    levels as a goat or dog or cat which makes C, or even a
    gorrilla which doesn't but is eating a natural gorrilla diet
    (3 to 4 grams of C a day). Answer: a human can get to those
    blood levels on 500 mg a day or less. Something Pauling
    never seemed to get.

    If you take 40 grams a day of vitamin C like Pauling did,
    you run the risk of chonically irritating your stomach,
    which increases your risk of stomach cancer. Here's a quiz
    for you: how much vitamin C did Mrs. Pauling take a day? And
    what killed her?

    > We have a genetic defect according to Stone (actually a
    > built in aging mechanism) where we can't make our own vit
    > C. Nice of you medical people to inform the public of
    > that one. Mind you, given your level of ignorance I
    > would be surprised if you knew that.

    COMMENT:

    John, I've never seen you make a post on usenet where you
    didn't manage to actually *subtract* from the sum total of
    human knowledge. Nor do you disappoint here.

    Primates do have a defective gene for making the final
    enzyme which makes vitamin C (L-gulonolactone oxidase). The
    gene is still in our genome, but is as battered up and as a
    car in the back yard that hasn't been used in 60 years.
    Except in the case of primates its more like 60 million
    years, maybe longer.

    As for the idea that this is a built in aging mechanism,
    there couldn't be more of a stupid idea than this. Primates
    age more slowly for their body weights than other mammals
    that make vitamin C (hint: how long does a 150 lb sheep or
    pig live if you let it die of old age? Do you know of any
    150 animal that has made it to even 50 years old, let alone
    90?). Humans even do well on aging rate with regard to other
    primates (again, if you adjust for size and metabolism).

    A few fruit-eating birds and bats don't make vitamin C. But
    surprise, birds and bats are the only species more resistant
    to aging for their metabolic rate than human beings.

    > What a sad pathetic life, trying to defend drugs over
    > vitamins. I hope for your sake Lucifer has a nice country
    > club for after your demise.

    COMMENT:

    What a sad pathetic life for you, telling people on the net
    about medicine, aging, nutrition, and disease-- all subjects
    about which you know nothing.

    I hope you have a nice little hospice with a big toilet all
    picked out, where you can stay while you treat your final
    cancer or heart problem with 40 grams a day of vitamin C.
    Serve you right.

    > "The only cure of a degenerative disease ever
    > established, has been by a vitamin, mineral, or essential
    > food factor. No prescription drug has EVER cured a SINGLE
    > degenerative disease. While antibiotics can kill bacteria
    > in the body and have no doubt saved lives that would
    > otherwise have been lost since the discovery of
    > penicillin, this does not mean that the bacteria is the
    > CAUSE of the "disease" being treated nor does it mean
    > that antibiotics are the BEST way to handle the situation
    > because Klenner (MD)demonstrated way back in the fifties
    > (published hospital studies, Southern Medical J) that
    > intravenous vitamin C in megadoses kills off ANY
    > infection known to man (including tetanus -lockjaw)
    > without ANY harmful side effects. What is being treated
    > when an antibiotice is used... is the SYMPTOM, not the
    > disease, but that is another story for another day. To
    > say that bacteria cause disease is like saying that the
    > flies cause the manure pile and firemen cause house fires
    > because each of the latter are found on the scene.
    > Bacteria are EFFECTS.... not CAUSES."--Dr Duffy DC

    COMMENT:

    This is such self-evident boloney. Here in the same message
    that you try to tell me goats make 40 grams of vitamin C and
    that megadose C cures all infections in humans, you fail to
    consider the obvious logical necessity that if your argument
    were correct, goats should thus be impervious to all disease
    since they're on megadose therapy all the time. And the same
    for dogs and cats. If C is the universal antibiotic, then
    animals that make their own vitamin C in huge quantities
    like Pauling said, should be far more resistant to
    infection, cancer, etc than humans are.

    But this is wrong. Spend some time at any veterinary clinic
    and see how many dogs, cats, and whatnot are being treated
    for infections. Or watch a colony of mice age sometime and
    see how many of them eventually get cancer (yeah, it's about
    40%, just like humans).

    Vitamin C making animals aren't any more resist to
    infectious disease than humans are. This is just nonsense
    promoted by morons like yourself who not only have no
    human medical treatment experience, but no vetrinary
    experience, either.

    God! The stone-hard neutronium ignorance and stupidity of
    you! It's really a wonder of the universe. They should have
    the Hubble space telescope pointed down at whereever you
    are, making measurements of density for science.

    SBH
     
  8. [email protected] (Carole) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > I bet you've got a good bedside manner with patients?

    COMMENT:

    Get a clue. This isn't a hospital or office, and you're not
    my patient.

    > However, there is simply too much crap going on to believe
    > all is well with the world. For example, did you know the
    > fed is privately owned

    COMMENT

    Did you know that you're out of your mind? Unless you have a
    different idea of what constitutes "ownership" than normal
    English usage. The Fed (Federal Reserve) is a federal
    institution, subject to all the usual government laws like
    the privacy act and the freedom of informaton act. The
    government appoints the people who run it. The banks that
    host it get stock and get to make a 6% stock dividend, but
    that's just more or less the fee that the government pays
    the banks to run the system for them. No matter how they run
    the system, they can't make more than that 6%. Nor can they
    buy, sell, trade or borrow against the stock (doesn't sound
    like they own it in any sense that makes sense). And any
    profit the system makes goes straight into the US treasury
    to decrease your income taxes, not into somebody's pocket.
    Do you know of any private corporations like that?

    > and that inflation, depressions and world wars are
    > deliberately planned as they make big money for certain
    > interests, not to mention they are part of an overall plan
    > for world domination.

    Comment Yes, indeed. But we don't control what Hitler and
    Tojo do. We didn't make Hitler attack Russia or declare war
    on the US. And why did he do that, anyway? All that did was
    put him in a situation where he had to put a pistol in his
    mouth before Stalin put one to the back of his head. Lots of
    people PLAN world domination. None of them (so far) have
    succeeded.

    > But getting back to health matters, read the following:
    >
    > The Tuskegee syphilis experiment http://www.npr.org/progr-
    > ams/morning/features/2002/jul/tuskegee/index.html

    Read the book _Bad Blood._ So what?

    > and A history of US secret human experimentation 3-25-3
    > http://www.healthnewsnet.com/humanexperiments.html
    >
    > and let's see you fit that into the context of a perfectly
    > normal world where everything is above board and all
    > perfectly explainable as mistakes or errors, or we know
    > better now or whatever.

    COMMENT:

    Look, the US government has overstepped its bounds and done
    nasty things to the occational private citizen. What
    government has not? And if you don't hold them accountable,
    they'll do it again. In a democracy, people get the
    government that most of them deserve. If you let the
    government commit outrages in the name of "security" and
    "the war on (insert x)" you'll get what you deserve.

    Right now (for example) we're seeing a vast expansion of a
    police state to deal with one incident of terrorism which
    cost 4000 lives (a month of highway deaths) by a novel
    method, which was solved and thwarted forever by private
    citizens before it was even over, the day it happened. And
    almost all my neighbors approve of the police state! Because
    they run scared of having an airplane land on them, being
    anxiety-ridden idiots. Alas, they outvote me. This is not a
    conspiracy, except a "conspiracy" of morons and cowards to
    be cowards and morons. But that's not a real conspiracy in
    my book; it's just sad.

    > A lot of people just can't face the possibility that we
    > live in a totally artificial manufactured world, where
    > society is manipulated by spin and propaganda towards a
    > future not of our making, but over which we seem to have
    > no control.

    COMMENT

    And you seem to be one of them. So you invent a super
    conspiracy to make it all make sense. But actually, nobody
    that smart is in control. YOUR NEIGHBORS are in control.
    Talk to them and you'll see what they're like. They're even
    dumber than the average person here on the net, and even
    more paranoid. And they vote, as I said. And here we are.

    >Why is innovation stifled, why are so many discoveries
    >suppressed in the name of "national security"?

    COMMENT:

    They aren't. The one thing it's impossible to keep secret
    for long is a scientific discovery. If you don't publish
    what you think of, somebody else will think if it
    independently, and word will get out.

    >What exactly is "national security" and why are records
    >sealed for so long and things kept from the public?

    COMMENT:

    You know the answer. "National security" is Washington
    government officials protecting their turf, and also your
    paranoid neighbors voting in police-state laws to make sure
    that Al-Quida hiding in caves in remote North Afghanistan
    doesn't manage to drop a bomb on them in

    SBH
     
  9. John

    John Guest

    [email protected] (Steve Harris
    [email protected]) wrote in
    >
    > God! The stone-hard neutronium ignorance and stupidity of
    > you! It's really a wonder of the universe. They should
    > have the Hubble space telescope pointed down at whereever
    > you are, making measurements of density for science.
    >
    > SBH

    Nothing quite beats the sight of a pharma moron trying to
    make out drugs are medicine.

    That is why you drug fiends have spent 100-200 years
    suppressing non-drug medicine and disease prevention
    http://www.whale.to/m/therapies.html

    While ignoring poisons http://www.whale.to/v/poisons.html I
    wonder why!

    And diet/nutrition http://www.whale.to/a/nutrition.html in
    infections for starters

    That is dense and criminal.

    While killing hundreds of thousands of people every year
    http://www.whale.to/a/iatrogenic_q.html

    Folk can make up their own mind, if they still have one
    after your propaganda, about chemo
    http://www.whale.to/cancer/quotes1.html

    The Hospice Movement was set up to deal with the fallout
    from chemo, as you wouldn't want them going to find real
    medicine, assuming they could even afford it, or find it
    after your Cartel has suppressed it so well. You can see my
    point when you look into cancer charities
    http://www.whale.to/w/quotes7.html another hoax on the poor
    mugs http://www.whale.to/b/hoax.html
     
  10. John

    John Guest

    [email protected] (Steve Harris
    [email protected]) wrote in
    >
    > Right now (for example) we're seeing a vast expansion of a
    > police state to deal with one incident of terrorism which
    > cost 4000 lives (a month of highway deaths) by a novel
    > method, which was solved and thwarted forever by private
    > citizens before it was even over, the day it happened. And
    > almost all my neighbors approve of the police state!

    Course they do, that is real neat programming called the War
    on Terrorism Hoax or Order out of Chaos. You create
    terror/Chaos, blaiming some poor patsy like Bin Laden (who
    you created like the Taliban and Saddam) and then the mugs
    will clamour for protection so you can then introduce your
    police state, which was your aim in the first place. You can
    see the 9/11 conspiracy http://www.whale.to/b/911.html

    That may seem unbelieveable out of context, but when you
    know your government has been dealing drugs for years then
    it doesn't seem so farfetched
    http://www.whale.to/b/drug_war.html

    In fact they could easily stop most crime which is drug
    related by stopping the supply of drugs. When the benefit of
    producing order out of chaos exceeds the benefit of robbing
    the taxpayers then they will do it--probably to make out the
    NWO is preferable to local governments

    as for the federal reserve being a private outfit--Mullins
    proved thathttp://www.whale.to/b/mullins_h.html
     
  11. At

    At Guest

    "Gymmy Bob" wrote:

    > Negligence to provide the needs of a dependant human being
    > is a criminal act and has been used many times in some
    > very public cases.

    Used in what way?

    Aside from cases of strict liability, simple carelessness
    generally is not a crime. However, extraordinary
    carelessness may be deemed "criminal negligence" where the
    judge or jury determines that the actor recklessly
    disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk.

    Firing a rifle over your shoulder to kill bugs on the hotel
    wall while shaving your son's head with a blow torch seems
    like a pretty good way to be viewed as criminally negligent.
    ...probably something wrong there somewhere.

    Did you have in mind some very public cases in particular
    that I might consider to better understand your meaning?

    @~
     
  12. Michele

    Michele Guest

    [email protected] (Carole) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    >> [email protected] (Michele) wrote in message news:-
    >> <[email protected]>...

    <snip for brevity only>

    > > Nutritional information is easy to find. You've
    > > presented the claims you've written above before, with
    > > nothing in the way of evidence to support them.
    >
    > A lot of nutritional information is contradictory,
    > overlooked and some is just downright hard to find.

    Contradictory -- no kidding. That doesn't mean information
    isn't readily available. Overlooked -- by who? People
    ignoring it, people not interested in THAT information. Hard
    to find -- not at all. It's EVERYWHERE, Carole. You can't
    swing a dead cat without hitting a website, a book, a TV
    show, an infommercial, a seminar, a formal course of study,
    etc., etc. about nutrition! They don't all espouse the same
    ideas -- but MORE of them won't change that.

    > How do you think I found out about cellsalts? Did the
    > doctor tell me? No, it was a slow learning process, and
    > the knowledge about latent blood acidosis is really
    > hard to find, and it relies on proper nutrition to get
    > it right.

    And as much as I find your cell salts stuff to be --- well,
    let's leave it as a theory I don't ascribe to for many
    reasons --- your claim of finding out about it proves that
    information (of all sorts) is out there. Mainstream,
    unconventional, & really "out there" ideas are readily
    available.

    <snip for brevity only>

    > > If a disorder has no cure yet -- alt. or conventional --
    > > what sadist would deny those with the problem relief of
    > > its s/s???
    >
    > Yes but cures have been discovered for probably all
    > diseases and they have been suppressed e.g., ESSIAC.

    "Probably all diseases"???? There is a great deal of money
    to be made curing people of disease. Suppression of such
    cures would curtail that flowing river of cash, Carole.
    Unfortunately, many diseases are incurable for the time
    being. Some aren't even treatable. There have been
    tremendous advances made in the treatment of many health
    problems -- the lifespan & the quality of life possible has
    improved greatly WRT many diseases. Type 1 diabetes was
    pretty much a death sentence less than 100 years ago -- &
    the dying wasn't easy either. It hasn't been cured, but
    treatment has made a world of difference to those who
    survive with it & lead lives not possible until study,
    research, & development of meds like insulin came along.
    Rheumatoid arthritis continues to cripple many people, but
    the last 30 years have seen the use of drugs & surgery to
    alleviate some of the suffering & disabling effects of the
    disease. Osteoporosis, a condition resulting from
    nutritional deficits & hormonal changes (with women often
    sacrificing their health in their eternal quest to be
    slender or using food for reasons other than optimal
    nutrition) that leaves millions at risk for debilitating
    fractures & the secondary problems that accompany them. At
    65 or 70, it's a moot point that they ignored the available
    information WRT calcium intake, weight bearing exercise,
    etc. [And MUCH of the widely available -- indeed boringly
    repetitious -- information about preventative measures IS
    ignored. Whether about diet, smoking, exercise, drinking,
    adequate sleep, etc.] Instead it becomes a question of what
    to do with the problem that exists. There are treatments,
    not cures.

    Many chronic diseases have no cure -- alt. or conventional.
    It's not suppression -- it's not any conspiracy. It's simply
    humankind trying to work with what we do know while learning
    what we don't. It changes as we find out more, as technology
    lets us explore what we didn't know existed before. There
    are far too many people working on treating & curing a
    myriad of health problems -- some for the cash, some to help
    others -- for effective cures to be suppressed.

    > > Alternative health care has no "answers" for many health
    > > problems, so people should just suffer???? Remember that
    > > some day when YOU suffer from something other than lice
    > > & dusty house. If YOUR eyesight narrows down to a small
    > > tunnel, suffer -- okay? If any health problem diminishes
    > > YOUR quality of life, just grit your teeth & accept it
    > > --- okay? Easy to say until YOU have a real
    > > problem.......
    >
    > Ever heard of cellular toxemia? Do you know what it means?
    > Alternative health does have solutions for health problems
    > but unfortunately a lot of innovation is stifled and
    > suppressed, and I'm not talking about Hulda Clarke and her
    > zapper. Maybe it works, although I can't see how a zapper
    > can treat cellular toxemia.

    Read above. There is all sorts of information. How can you
    believe information is suppressed when you & other posters
    here can find so much of it?? Whether the information found
    is actually correct is another question altogether -- but
    ideas, theories, & claims are easy to find.

    <snip for brevity only>

    > > > No everybody isn't in on the conspiracy. It is a top
    > > > down conspiracy where only those at the top are
    > > > purposely going against the best interests of health.
    > > > The rest are just fitting into the system, protecting
    > > > their jobs, trying to build some status within an
    > > > industry, doing what they've been trained to do since
    > > > they were kids.
    > >
    > > "Trained to do since they were kids"??? As if
    > > researchers & scientists were brought up differently
    > > than other people!
    >
    > Children are socialised to fit into the system, get the
    > work ethic, get a good education, buy a house, fit in, get
    > along with people, don't rock the boat, obey the law.

    Having a good work ethic isn't synonymous with "fitting in"
    -- indeed it is unfortunately often the opposite as
    evidenced by employee theft, people putting in a half-assed
    effort just to collect a paycheck, & the lack of pride in
    one's work being an epidemic. A crummy work ethic certainly
    doesn't say much about the integrity & honesty of a person,
    does it? Getting a good education is often the beginning of
    questioning authority & accepted ideas, not the end. Getting
    along with people would be yet another reason to
    *disbelieve* there are conspiracies everywhere -- it's much
    more likely that NOT getting along with the people around us
    would result in behavior that demonstrates a lack of concern
    WRT the welfare of others. Buying a house & raising kids
    usually shows a desire to put down roots & be part of a
    community -- it isn't an indication that the person is then
    willing to screw people over. (If anything, being a part of
    a larger whole can bring with it a sense of responsibility
    to others.) "Obey the law" isn't relevant here -- the law
    doesn't suppress the information you claim is somehow kept
    under wraps.

    > Yet we aren't taught much about the money system how
    > it works,

    There is plenty of information about investment, banking,
    credit, money management, the gov't.'s role in the economy,
    & foreign economic impact. Just because many people are
    intimidated by dollars & cents doesn't mean there isn't info
    out there. There are even folks who break it down for those
    who want their info really simplified. Turn on PBS -- attend
    a reputable real estate course -- sign out one of the many
    volumes in the local library (untouched by human hands!) --
    watch the news & read the business section each day.

    > about constitutional law, the independent press is owned
    > by the illuminati,

    There are far too many opposing POV's in the media to think
    that one group runs it.

    > and carl marx was the first person who advocated national
    > education to socialise the children into the ways of
    > communism.

    As long as the options of private education, home schooling,
    & public education run by local governments exist, there is
    no more "communist socialization" in education than there is
    in any group -- church, bowling league, or quilting club.
    The political agendas, backgrounds, & effectiveness of those
    making decisions WRT public education are varied; & the
    availability of other educational venues from pre-school to
    post-graduate levels makes the idea of some Pink Floyd ("The
    Wall") image becoming a reality extremely unlikely.

    > > And your contention that the people who stand to make
    > > the biggest bonuses & gain the most from the discovery
    > > of any wonder drug would suppress it is just as
    > > outlandish. Pharm companies have stockholders -- & the
    > > goals of the executives of these companies include
    > > making these stockholders money. Effective meds = big
    > > bucks. Your theory of those at the top being "against
    > > the best interest of health" ignores that.
    >
    > I don't ignore it, just don't believe it.

    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?

    You continually claim suppression, but the facts don't add
    up to that. Suppressing miracle cures -- when the drug
    companies could easily make a tidy profit from them --
    doesn't fit, Carole. Avlimil, Altovis, & several other
    supplements are the latest angle of the pharm. guys -- they
    not only utilize supplements that don't require the kind of
    R&D, FDA approval, etc. that conventional meds do, but
    package them & market them just like the pharmaceutical
    products. If they can make money from supplements, cures for
    diseases, designer *air* -- they will. And they do.

    <snip for brevity only>

    > And there comes a point, where the evidence is
    > overwhelming which results in a paradigm shift.

    Paradigm shifts happen when something changes, very often
    technology. Belief in conspiracies everywhere isn't change.
    Paul Pilzer wrote an interesting book that talks about
    shifts in paradigms, widespread changes in ideas -- most
    importantly, ideas about possibilities. It's centered on
    economics, but applies to more than that.] Your claims
    provide no evidence that would indicate anything to do with
    possibilities. Indeed, you seem to preach that health care &
    medicine reached a pinnacle over 100 years ago & that
    changes in technology that have added to our knowledge (&
    shifted our paradigms) are to be viewed with suspicion & the
    assumption that they are almost (for lack of a better word
    at the end of a long day) evil.

    > I know the real facts. The press isn't independent,
    > innovation is stifled, ethics has its price, and we are
    > being lied to on a huge scale about every facet of our
    > lives. Pick a topic and there is a conspiracy behind it
    > - health, education, science, ufos, war is peace, you
    > name it.

    Your suspicion & fear of everyone/everything renders you
    incapable of reason. In your POV, NOBODY can be trusted --
    NO information is accurate -- NO proof is ever really proof.
    Yet you trust somebody long dead who theorized about cell
    salts. You give credence to Tesla's ideas & experiments. You
    agree with those who talk about conpiracies. By your
    pronouncement (above), there is no logic to believing
    anybody or anything. Do you see that this is completely
    incompatible with your beliefs that conspiracies abound,
    that there is a "we" & a "they", & that every facet of our
    lives is lied about?

    > > > > COMMENT Since there are no all-natural vitamin C
    > > > > supplement pills on the market, one wonders whether
    > > > > John takes a multivitamin.\
    > > >
    > > > Splitting hairs, hmmm? Always a useful strategy when
    > > > you know you've lost the argument.
    > >
    > > You obviously didn't understand the point about natural
    > > vs. synthetic molecules -- otherwise you wouldn't have
    > > made such a silly comment......
    >
    > You tell me the difference between natural and synthetic
    > vitamin C.

    MOLECULES, Carole. I wasn't referring to Vitamin C -- it was
    about molecules.

    <snip for brevity only>

    > > > Whether the nutritional products are produced in a lab
    > > > isn't the point.
    > >
    > > Umm, yes that WAS the point. These supplements &
    > > nutrition products are big money for the big pharm.
    > > companies.
    >
    > Are we talking about cartels fixing the prices of vitamins
    > artifically?

    NO cartels -- NO conspiracies -- NO price fixing. Just the
    free enterprise system, where products are sold to make a
    profit. Just like anything else.

    <snip for brevity only>

    > > Anyone can patent anything. There are patents for some
    > > of the most ridiculous products imagineable. And anyone
    > > who patented HIV ranks right up there with somebody
    > > who'd patent boogers. There are kooks out there, Carole.
    > > Graves is one of them......
    >
    > Maybe, maybe not. He claims to have taken a one off
    > cure about 3 years ago and his blood is normal now, no
    > sign of the disease. Reckons he's going to take the
    > cure to Africa.

    Did Graves actually even have HIV/AIDS? Who diagnosed it &
    by what means? And somebody's blood appearing normal isn't a
    cure, Carole. I have clients (as an LMT) & patients (where I
    work as a nurse) whose viral load is essentially zero,
    thanks to the meds they take. If they stopped taking those
    meds, their viral loads would rise. Sometimes they have to
    discontinue the drugs because the side effects are too
    detrimental. Some patients discontinue treatment when other
    factors in their lives -- such as homelessness, mental
    illness, or drug addiction -- enter into the picture. In
    every case where I've seen the patient stop their meds, the
    viral load rises. In some situations, a new combination of
    meds lowers it again, but for many of them it doesn't.

    If Graves did have HIV, what evidence is there that he is no
    longer HIV+? Surely he would be chomping at the bit to
    document his claims! He'd be eagerly showing scientists &
    researchers his personal case information & providing them
    with enough verifiable facts that they would be tripping
    over themselves to help him obtain big time funding for
    research in the hope of their names being mentioned in very
    small print in a report detailing the cure for HIV/AIDS. If
    he met with disbelief from science & conventional medicine,
    he could document his cure among MANY HIV+ people who'd
    gladly sign any release & pay any expenses for the chance to
    be the guinea pig for a miracle cure.

    The fact that he's taken out patents for the virus (too
    weird) as well as his "cure" makes it pretty plain he sees
    the whole thing as his "territory" & has staked out a
    claim for it -- either to make money or gain fame (both?).
    That would make him no different from the pharm.
    companies, Carole. Yet you entertain the possibility that
    Graves may be "on the level" while declaring the pharm
    industry guilty of suppressing effective cures &
    conspiring to lie to the world.

    Those you claim are part of a lying conspiracy to hold the
    world captive to do their bidding are no more likely to fit
    that mold than the people you believe in.

    <snip for brevity only>

    > I don't believe every theory that comes along.

    If a concept is considered conventional, you disbelieve it.
    You've said as much in many posts. Automatically
    disbelieving a large segment of information based on
    suspicion alone is illogical.

    >First I see how they contradict what I already know,
    >and in what way they contradict. And don't talk to me
    >about logical scrutiny, you wouldn't know the meaning
    >of the word.

    Examining the facts is part of logical scrutiny, Carole, &
    I thoroughly enjoy taking a cold hard look at 'em. I ask
    the claimant questions, & want to see the basis for their
    answers. You just want to see something that doesn't fit
    the mold of what you view as the "establishment".
    OBJECTIVE observation -- examining any contradictions --
    exploring extrinsic factors that may have influenced the
    claim -- are all part of the process I use to evaluate the
    validity of the theory/idea/claim. You have automatically
    dismissed a great deal of information before you even
    begin to ponder an idea.

    > You just go along with the system because there's safety
    > in numbers and accept the commonly held view because its
    > safe and you like to be on the winning side.

    "Winning side"???? LOLOLOLOL!! I couldn't care less what is
    "safe" to believe, & my opinions are just as often in the
    minority as they are among the "commonly held view". Your
    POV explains why you go into "conspiracy mode" WRT so many
    things. If the majority of people said the boiling point of
    water was 212 degrees Fahrenheit, you'd suspect a conspiracy
    & claim the Illuminati was in on it. It's only your attempt
    to buck the system, like all the other conformists who are
    doing the same thing. **You are such an "individual", Carole
    -- like everyone else.**

    Keep playing the role you've chosen, Carole -- the lead in
    "Rebel Without a Clue"
     
  13. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    john <[email protected]> wrote:
    >[email protected] (Steve Harris
    >[email protected]) wrote in
    >>
    >> Right now (for example) we're seeing a vast expansion of
    >> a police state to deal with one incident of terrorism
    >> which cost 4000 lives (a month of highway deaths) by a
    >> novel method, which was solved and thwarted forever by
    >> private citizens before it was even over, the day it
    >> happened. And almost all my neighbors approve of the
    >> police state!
    >
    >Course they do, that is real neat programming called the
    >War on Terrorism Hoax or Order out of Chaos. You create
    >terror/Chaos, blaiming some poor patsy like Bin Laden (who
    >you created like the Taliban and Saddam) and then the mugs
    >will clamour for protection so you can then introduce your
    >police state, which was your aim in the first place. You
    >can see the 9/11 conspiracy http://www.whale.to/b/911.html
    >
    >That may seem unbelieveable out of context, but when you
    >know your government has been dealing drugs for years then
    >it doesn't seem so farfetched
    >http://www.whale.to/b/drug_war.html
    >
    >In fact they could easily stop most crime which is drug
    >related by stopping the supply of drugs. When the benefit
    >of producing order out of chaos exceeds the benefit of
    >robbing the taxpayers then they will do it--probably to
    >make out the NWO is preferable to local governments
    >
    >as for the federal reserve being a private outfit--Mullins
    >proved that http://www.whale.to/b/mullins_h.html

    Somehow, I find it reassuring that there is no idea too
    stupid, no conspiracy too gigantic, no alt-med concept too
    preposterous, that John won't believe it and give it
    prominent display on his web site.

    He's really very helpful as shortcut -- if John is in favor
    of it, it's either stupid, preposterous, or doesn't work.

    -- 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)
     
  14. Steve Harris [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
    > And if you don't hold them accountable, they'll do it
    > again. In a democracy, people get the government that most
    > of them deserve. If you let the government commit outrages
    > in the name of "security" and "the war on (insert x)"
    > you'll get what you deserve.

    More adult Americans are forbidden from voting today than at
    any time in the past 84 years. It's not clear that the
    government is even counting the votes of those who are still
    allowed to vote, based on what I've heard about closed
    source electronic voting machines, for which it's a felony
    to even try to figure out whether what comes out has any
    resemblance to what goes in.

    And even if everyone could vote, and all votes were counted,
    how would you propose that people who value liberty more
    than bogus security vote? How would you propose that people
    who oppose the war on drugs vote? Kerry doesn't differ from
    Bush on these issues. And the Libertarian candidate has no
    hope of winning.

    > And almost all my neighbors approve of the police state!

    The government claims they do. Are you sure the government
    isn't lying?

    > Because they run scared of having an airplane land on
    > them, being anxiety-ridden idiots.

    I'm afraid of having a government land on me. What would you
    advise I do?

    > YOUR NEIGHBORS are in control.

    I wish it were true.
    --
    Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/ Please see
    http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
     
  15. Carole

    Carole Guest

    [email protected] (Michele) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > <snip for brevity only>
    >
    > > > Nutritional information is easy to find. You've
    > > > presented the claims you've written above before, with
    > > > nothing in the way of evidence to support them.
    > >
    > > A lot of nutritional information is contradictory,
    > > overlooked and some is just downright hard to find.
    >
    > Contradictory -- no kidding. That doesn't mean information
    > isn't readily available. Overlooked -- by who? People
    > ignoring it, people not interested in THAT information.
    > Hard to find -- not at all. It's EVERYWHERE, Carole.

    Wrong. Nutritional treatments aren't easy to find. And all
    the effects of nutritional deficiencies haven't been
    discovered yet.

    > > How do you think I found out about cellsalts? Did the
    > > doctor tell me? No, it was a slow learning process, and
    > > the knowledge about latent blood acidosis is really hard
    > > to find, and it relies on proper nutrition to get it
    > > right.
    >
    > And as much as I find your cell salts stuff to be ---
    > well, let's leave it as a theory I don't ascribe to for
    > many reasons --- your claim of finding out about it proves
    > that information (of all sorts) is out there. Mainstream,
    > unconventional, & really "out there" ideas are readily
    > available.

    Do you know how I found out about it? A pamphlet from a
    health store which was later recalled by the health
    department for being too specific.

    > > Yes but cures have been discovered for probably all
    > > diseases and they have been suppressed e.g., ESSIAC.
    >
    > Many chronic diseases have no cure -- alt. or
    > conventional. It's not suppression -- it's not any
    > conspiracy. It's simply humankind trying to work with what
    > we do know while learning what we don't.

    You obviously haven't taken the time to read up on ESSIAC,
    Dr Rife's or Reich's cures.

    > > Yet we aren't taught much about the money system how it
    > > works,
    >
    > There is plenty of information about investment, banking,
    > credit, money management, the gov't.'s role in the
    > economy, & foreign economic impact. Just because many
    > people are intimidated by dollars & cents doesn't mean
    > there isn't info out there. There are even folks who break
    > it down for those who want their info really simplified.
    > Turn on PBS -- attend a reputable real estate course --
    > sign out one of the many volumes in the local library
    > (untouched by human hands!) -- watch the news & read the
    > business section each day.

    I'm not talking about conventional economic views, but
    rather the way we are all being ripped off by taxes, and the
    divide between the rich and the poor. If the economy really
    worked there would be enough money for everybody to be fed
    and housed etc.

    > > about constitutional law, the independent press is owned
    > > by the illuminati,
    >
    > There are far too many opposing POV's in the media to
    > think that one group runs it.

    I think public opinion is engineered. There are different
    techniques, one of which is "two steps forward, one step
    back" which gives the impression of flexibility, but we are
    being rail-roaded.

    > > and carl marx was the first person who advocated
    > > national education to socialise the children into the
    > > ways of communism.
    >
    > As long as the options of private education, home
    > schooling, & public education run by local governments
    > exist, there is no more "communist socialization" in
    > education than there is in any group -- church, bowling
    > league, or quilting club. The political agendas,
    > backgrounds, & effectiveness of those making decisions WRT
    > public education are varied; & the availability of other
    > educational venues from pre-school to post-graduate levels
    > makes the idea of some Pink Floyd ("The Wall") image
    > becoming a reality extremely unlikely.

    Do some research and see how for instance how history is
    rewritten to make certain ideas acceptable.

    > > > And your contention that the people who stand to make
    > > > the biggest bonuses & gain the most from the discovery
    > > > of any wonder drug would suppress it is just as
    > > > outlandish. Pharm companies have stockholders -- & the
    > > > goals of the executives of these companies include
    > > > making these stockholders money. Effective meds = big
    > > > bucks. Your theory of those at the top being "against
    > > > the best interest of health" ignores that.
    > >
    > > I don't ignore it, just don't believe it.
    >
    > 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.

    > You continually claim suppression, but the facts don't add
    > up to that. Suppressing miracle cures -- when the drug
    > companies could easily make a tidy profit from them --
    > doesn't fit, Carole. Avlimil,

    Only if they can be patented, Michele.

    > possibilities. Indeed, you seem to preach that health care
    > & medicine reached a pinnacle over 100 years ago & that
    > changes in technology that have added to our knowledge (&
    > shifted our paradigms) are to be viewed with suspicion &
    > the assumption that they are almost (for lack of a better
    > word at the end of a long day) evil.

    Certain operations and microsurgery are good, just not drug
    based medicine.

    > > I know the real facts. The press isn't independent,
    > > innovation is stifled, ethics has its price, and we are
    > > being lied to on a huge scale about every facet of our
    > > lives. Pick a topic and there is a conspiracy behind it
    > > - health, education, science, ufos, war is peace, you
    > > name it.

    > Did Graves actually even have HIV/AIDS? Who diagnosed it &
    > by what means? And somebody's blood appearing normal isn't
    > a cure, Carole. I have clients (as an LMT) & patients
    > (where I work as a nurse) whose viral load is essentially
    > zero, thanks to the meds they take.

    Graves claims he took a one off treatment and his AIDS seems
    to have disappeared. And that was 3 years ago.

    > 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.

    > The fact that he's taken out patents for the virus (too
    > weird) as well as his "cure" makes it pretty plain he sees
    > the whole thing as his "territory" & has staked out a
    > claim for it -- either to make money or gain fame (both?).
    > That would make him no different from the pharm.
    > companies, Carole. Yet you entertain the possibility that
    > Graves may be "on the level" while declaring the pharm
    > industry guilty of suppressing effective cures &
    > conspiring to lie to the world.

    He found the patents, didn't take them out.

    > > I don't believe every theory that comes along.
    >
    > If a concept is considered conventional, you disbelieve
    > it. You've said as much in many posts. Automatically
    > disbelieving a large segment of information based on
    > suspicion alone is illogical.

    There are cartels behind every facet of life on this planet.
    The transport cartel suppresses knowledge of free energy,
    and so on. http://www.nomorefakenews.com/archives/archivevi-
    ew.php?key=1459 Jon Rappoport There are eight basic areas of
    control on the planet, eight basic cartels. GOVERNMENT,
    MONEY, MILITARY, INTELLIGENCE, ENERGY, MEDIA, MEDICAL,
    ORGANIZED RELIGION.

    > >First I see how they contradict what I already know,
    > >and in what way they contradict. And don't talk to me
    > >about logical scrutiny, you wouldn't know the meaning
    > >of the word.
    >
    > Examining the facts is part of logical scrutiny, Carole, &
    > I thoroughly enjoy taking a cold hard look at 'em. I ask
    > the claimant

    Your views are in accord with mainstream thinking.

    I would say you lead a pretty busy life with not much time
    to do any reading other than what's thrust in front of
    your face. Try doing some unbiased research for yourself
    on any topic you have queries on, instead of merely
    accepting the opinions "experts" and "reliable sources" or
    mainstream media.

    Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/conspiracy.htm
     
  16. Michele

    Michele Guest

    [email protected] (Carole) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > [email protected] (Michele) wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > <snip for brevity only>
    > >
    > > > > Nutritional information is easy to find. You've
    > > > > presented the claims you've written above before,
    > > > > with nothing in the way of evidence to support them.
    > > >
    > > > A lot of nutritional information is contradictory,
    > > > overlooked and some is just downright hard to find.
    > >
    > > Contradictory -- no kidding. That doesn't mean
    > > information isn't readily available. Overlooked -- by
    > > who? People ignoring it, people not interested in THAT
    > > information. Hard to find -- not at all. It's
    > > EVERYWHERE, Carole.
    >
    > Wrong. Nutritional treatments aren't easy to find.

    Not true. There is information -- both accurate &
    ridiculous, with everything in between -- EVERYWHERE.

    > And all the effects of nutritional deficiencies haven't
    > been discovered yet.

    There are studies ongoing about MANY health care subjects
    that haven't "discovered" everything yet. For crying out
    loud Carole, mankind accumulates knowledge over time -- it
    doesn't come crashing down like some ton of bricks all at
    once. And what we already know evolves as we find out more.
    Better technology often opens up whole new ideas that we
    couldn't see before with outdated methods. So? Hardly a
    "conspiracy" -- it's the natural evolution of knowledge.
    >
    > > > How do you think I found out about cellsalts? Did the
    > > > doctor tell me? No, it was a slow learning process,
    > > > and the knowledge about latent blood acidosis is
    > > > really hard to find, and it relies on proper nutrition
    > > > to get it right.
    > >
    > > And as much as I find your cell salts stuff to be ---
    > > well, let's leave it as a theory I don't ascribe to for
    > > many reasons --- your claim of finding out about it
    > > proves that information (of all sorts) is out there.
    > > Mainstream, unconventional, & really "out there" ideas
    > > are readily available.
    >
    > Do you know how I found out about it? A pamphlet from a
    > health store which was later recalled by the health
    > department for being too specific.

    Gee, there are pamphlets on counters at my local grocery
    store talking about time travel -- I think they're a waste
    of counter space, but somebody must be interested. Things
    that interest people are easier to find that stuff that
    people find idiotic or dull. Human nature. If cell salts
    don't interest people who understand human physiology, oh
    well. No "conspiracy", just lack of interest in something
    people don't care about.

    > > > Yes but cures have been discovered for probably all
    > > > diseases and they have been suppressed e.g., ESSIAC.
    > >
    > > Many chronic diseases have no cure -- alt. or
    > > conventional. It's not suppression -- it's not any
    > > conspiracy. It's simply humankind trying to work with
    > > what we do know while learning what we don't.
    >
    > You obviously haven't taken the time to read up on ESSIAC,
    > Dr Rife's or Reich's cures.

    Your assumption that I haven't taken time to read ideas I
    don't agree with only shows you don't know what you are
    talking about, Carole. The reasons I DON'T agree with these
    claims is because they defy reality. You, OTOH, rush to
    assume they are right, because they don't carry the label of
    "conventional". If major medical studies at reputable
    universities made those claims you'd probably call them a
    "conspiracy" & tell us that they are simply a sinister plot
    to keep us ill for some silly-ass reason.

    > > > Yet we aren't taught much about the money system how
    > > > it works,
    > >
    > > There is plenty of information about investment,
    > > banking, credit, money management, the gov't.'s role in
    > > the economy, & foreign economic impact. Just because
    > > many people are intimidated by dollars & cents doesn't
    > > mean there isn't info out there. There are even folks
    > > who break it down for those who want their info really
    > > simplified. Turn on PBS -- attend a reputable real
    > > estate course -- sign out one of the many volumes in the
    > > local library (untouched by human hands!) -- watch the
    > > news & read the business section each day.
    >
    > I'm not talking about conventional economic views, but
    > rather the way we are all being ripped off by taxes, and
    > the divide between the rich and the poor. If the economy
    > really worked there would be enough money for everybody to
    > be fed and housed etc.

    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 between the rich &
    the poor has always been there & will always be there. Your
    reference to "the economy" shows you don't understand the
    ideas of multiple economies. The world doesn't operate under
    one economic system -- the wide variety of economic systems,
    along with their interdependence on each other is
    interesting, & something you need to read a bit about before
    going on a tear about "the economy" which doesn't exist in
    real life. There will never be a time where *everyone* is
    fed & housed, Carole. Nice dream, but not one that fits into
    the reality of armed conflict, political unrest, & plain
    simple greed. Even natural disasters contribute to the
    misery of millions. Sad, but inevitable.
    >
    > > > about constitutional law, the independent press is
    > > > owned by the illuminati,
    > >
    > > There are far too many opposing POV's in the media to
    > > think that one group runs it.
    >
    > I think public opinion is engineered. There are different
    > techniques, one of which is "two steps forward, one step
    > back" which gives the impression of flexibility, but we
    > are being rail-roaded.

    How can world wide media, internet accessibility, etc.
    "engineer" anything, Carole?! The presentation of so many
    different (read DIFFERENT) POV's proves that different POV's
    are regularly being presented to many people. Freedom of
    speech may make you feel "railroaded", but that's simply
    paranoia oozing out of you. You express yourself, as do I &
    many other people here. Multiply that by all the POV's
    expressed on the whole web, & it's plain to see, there's no
    "engineering" going on. Chaos maybe, engineering no way.

    >
    > > > and carl marx was the first person who advocated
    > > > national education to socialise the children into the
    > > > ways of communism.
    > >
    > > As long as the options of private education, home
    > > schooling, & public education run by local governments
    > > exist, there is no more "communist socialization" in
    > > education than there is in any group -- church, bowling
    > > league, or quilting club. The political agendas,
    > > backgrounds, & effectiveness of those making decisions
    > > WRT public education are varied; & the availability of
    > > other educational venues from pre-school to post-
    > > graduate levels makes the idea of some Pink Floyd ("The
    > > Wall") image becoming a reality extremely unlikely.
    >
    > Do some research and see how for instance how history is
    > rewritten to make certain ideas acceptable.

    Read above & try to comprehend. As someone who questions the
    Holocaust happening, you seem to enjoy believing a
    particularly disgusting revision of history.
    >
    > > > > And your contention that the people who stand to
    > > > > make the biggest bonuses & gain the most from the
    > > > > discovery of any wonder drug would suppress it is
    > > > > just as outlandish. Pharm companies have
    > > > > stockholders -- & the goals of the executives of
    > > > > these companies include making these stockholders
    > > > > money. Effective meds = big bucks. Your theory of
    > > > > those at the top being "against the best interest of
    > > > > health" ignores that.
    > > >
    > > > I don't ignore it, just don't believe it.
    > >
    > > 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.......
    >
    > > You continually claim suppression, but the facts don't
    > > add up to that. Suppressing miracle cures -- when the
    > > drug companies could easily make a tidy profit from them
    > > -- doesn't fit, Carole. Avlimil,
    >
    > Only if they can be patented, Michele.

    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 bullshit -- 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.
    >
    > > possibilities. Indeed, you seem to preach that
    > > health care & medicine reached a pinnacle over 100
    > > years ago & that changes in technology that have
    > > added to our knowledge (& shifted our paradigms) are
    > > to be viewed with suspicion & the assumption that
    > > they are almost (for lack of a better word at the
    > > end of a long day) evil.
    >
    > Certain operations and microsurgery are good, just not
    > drug based medicine.

    You can't understand that chemotherapy that saves the life
    of a young man is good? You claim that the drugs that
    increase the success of the surgeries you've opined as
    "good" aren't? Jesus, Carole -- you are a twit!!
    >
    > > > I know the real facts. The press isn't independent,
    > > > innovation is stifled, ethics has its price, and we
    > > > are being lied to on a huge scale about every facet of
    > > > our lives. Pick a topic and there is a conspiracy
    > > > behind it - health, education, science, ufos, war is
    > > > peace, you name it.
    >
    > > Did Graves actually even have HIV/AIDS? Who diagnosed it
    > > & by what means? And somebody's blood appearing normal
    > > isn't a cure, Carole. I have clients (as an LMT) &
    > > patients (where I work as a nurse) whose viral load is
    > > essentially zero, thanks to the meds they take.
    >
    > 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 shit, what a concrete guess!!

    > > 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.
    >
    > > The fact that he's taken out patents for the virus (too
    > > weird) as well as his "cure" makes it pretty plain he
    > > sees the whole thing as his "territory" & has staked out
    > > a claim for it -- either to make money or gain fame
    > > (both?). That would make him no different from the
    > > pharm. companies, Carole. Yet you entertain the
    > > possibility that Graves may be "on the level" while
    > > declaring the pharm industry guilty of suppressing
    > > effective cures & conspiring to lie to the world.
    >
    > He found the patents, didn't take them out.

    You actually believe this tripe, don't you?
    >
    > > > I don't believe every theory that comes along.
    > >
    > > If a concept is considered conventional, you disbelieve
    > > it. You've said as much in many posts. Automatically
    > > disbelieving a large segment of information based on
    > > suspicion alone is illogical.
    >
    > There are cartels behind every facet of life on this
    > planet. The transport cartel suppresses knowledge of free
    > energy, and so on. http://www.nomorefakenews.com/archives-
    > /archiveview.php?key=1459 Jon Rappoport There are eight
    > basic areas of control on the planet, eight basic cartels.
    > GOVERNMENT, MONEY, MILITARY, INTELLIGENCE, ENERGY, MEDIA,
    > MEDICAL, ORGANIZED RELIGION.
    >
    > > >First I see how they contradict what I already know,
    > > >and in what way they contradict. And don't talk to me
    > > >about logical scrutiny, you wouldn't know the meaning
    > > >of the word.
    > >
    > > Examining the facts is part of logical scrutiny, Carole,
    > > & I thoroughly enjoy taking a cold hard look at 'em. I
    > > ask the claimant
    >
    > Your views are in accord with mainstream thinking.

    You don't have a clue about MOST of my views, Carole. Of
    course if you do, you can tell me what I believe about VTP
    -- third trimester abortions -- the death penalty -- birth
    control -- affirmative action -- the Kennedy assassination?
    But you don't know my views about most subjects, just as you
    don't know about sooo many other things.
    >
    > I would say you lead a pretty busy life with not much time
    > to do any reading other than what's thrust in front of
    > your face. Try doing some unbiased research for yourself
    > on any topic you have queries on, instead of merely
    > accepting the opinions "experts" and "reliable sources" or
    > mainstream media.

    Your stupidity knows no bounds, does it Carole? I read
    voraciously, about a wide variety of subjects -- presented
    from a wide variety of sources. You, OTOH, seem to read
    little but paranoid rantings of second rate hacks -- & then
    spout their opinions without even knowing what they mean. It
    doesn't make you "unconventional" -- it just makes you
    gullible & naive.
     
  17. Carole

    Carole Guest

    [email protected] (Michele) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > > Wrong. Nutritional treatments aren't easy to find.
    >
    > Not true. There is information -- both accurate &
    > ridiculous, with everything in between -- EVERYWHERE.

    NO, you're wrong. Where is the nutritional information that
    athlete's foot can be eliminated using proper nutrition?

    > > And all the effects of nutritional deficiencies haven't
    > > been discovered yet.
    >
    > There are studies ongoing about MANY health care subjects
    > that haven't "discovered" everything yet. For crying out
    > loud Carole, mankind accumulates knowledge over time -- it
    > doesn't come crashing down like some ton of bricks all at
    > once. And what we already know evolves as we find out
    > more. Better technology often opens up whole new ideas
    > that we couldn't see before with outdated methods. So?
    > Hardly a "conspiracy" -- it's the natural evolution of
    > knowledge.

    Why is why CODEX alimentus is trying to stop free access to
    nutritional supplements if everything about them hasn't been
    discovered? They think it has and its irrelevant.

    > > > > How do you think I found out about cellsalts? Did
    > > > > the doctor tell me? No, it was a slow learning
    > > > > process, and the knowledge about latent blood
    > > > > acidosis is really hard to find, and it relies on
    > > > > proper nutrition to get it right.
    > > >
    > > > And as much as I find your cell salts stuff to be ---
    > > > well, let's leave it as a theory I don't ascribe to
    > > > for many reasons --- your claim of finding out about
    > > > it proves that information (of all sorts) is out
    > > > there. Mainstream, unconventional, & really "out
    > > > there" ideas are readily available.

    What is your theory on latent acidosis, and what
    consequences does it have if left unchecked?

    > > Do you know how I found out about it? A pamphlet from a
    > > health store which was later recalled by the health
    > > department for being too specific.
    >
    > Gee, there are pamphlets on counters at my local grocery
    > store talking about time travel -- I think they're a waste
    > of counter space, but somebody must be interested. Things
    > that interest people are easier to find that stuff that
    > people find idiotic or dull. Human nature. If cell salts
    > don't interest people who understand human physiology, oh
    > well. No "conspiracy", just lack of interest in something
    > people don't care about.

    You snipped the bit about the pamphlets being recalled
    shortly after I got hold of one. Talk about selective
    response. How many pamphlets get recalled for any reason?

    > > > > Yes but cures have been discovered for probably all
    > > > > diseases and they have been suppressed e.g., ESSIAC.
    > > >
    > > > Many chronic diseases have no cure -- alt. or
    > > > conventional. It's not suppression -- it's not any
    > > > conspiracy. It's simply humankind trying to work with
    > > > what we do know while learning what we don't.
    > >
    > > You obviously haven't taken the time to read up on
    > > ESSIAC, Dr Rife's or Reich's cures.
    >
    > Your assumption that I haven't taken time to read ideas I
    > don't agree with only shows you don't know what you are
    > talking about, Carole. The reasons I DON'T agree with
    > these claims is because they defy reality. You, OTOH, rush
    > to assume they are right, because they don't carry the
    > label of "conventional". If major medical studies at
    > reputable universities made those claims you'd probably
    > call them a "conspiracy" & tell us that they are simply a
    > sinister plot to keep us ill for some silly-ass reason.

    Your responses are lengthy, but you only respond on your
    own points. Like where is your response to the suppression
    of ESSIAC?

    > > > > Yet we aren't taught much about the money system how
    > > > > it works,
    > > >
    > > > There is plenty of information about investment,
    > > > banking, credit, money management, the gov't.'s role
    > > > in the economy, & foreign economic impact. Just
    > > > because many people are intimidated by dollars & cents
    > > > doesn't mean there isn't info out there. There are
    > > > even folks who break it down for those who want their
    > > > info really simplified. Turn on PBS -- attend a
    > > > reputable real estate course -- sign out one of the
    > > > many volumes in the local library (untouched by human
    > > > hands!) -- watch the news & read the business section
    > > > each day.
    > >
    > > I'm not talking about conventional economic views, but
    > > rather the way we are all being ripped off by taxes, and
    > > the divide between the rich and the poor. If the economy
    > > really worked there would be enough money for everybody
    > > to be fed and housed etc.
    >
    > 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.

    > 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.

    > ideas of multiple economies. The world doesn't operate
    > under one economic system -- the wide variety of economic
    > systems, along with their interdependence on each other is
    > interesting, & something you need to read a bit about
    > before going on a tear about "the economy" which doesn't
    > exist in real life. There will never be a time where
    > *everyone* is fed & housed, Carole. Nice dream, but not
    > one that fits into the reality of armed conflict,
    > political unrest, & plain simple greed. Even natural
    > disasters contribute to the misery of millions. Sad, but
    > inevitable.

    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the
    problem. See you are just going along with the status quo.
    You've just proved my point in the above that your opinions
    aren't unbiased.

    > > > > about constitutional law, the independent press is
    > > > > owned by the illuminati,
    > > >
    > > > There are far too many opposing POV's in the media to
    > > > think that one group runs it.
    > >
    > > I think public opinion is engineered. There are
    > > different techniques, one of which is "two steps
    > > forward, one step back" which gives the impression of
    > > flexibility, but we are being rail-roaded.
    >
    > How can world wide media, internet accessibility, etc.
    > "engineer" anything, Carole?! The presentation of so many
    > different (read DIFFERENT) POV's proves that different
    > POV's are regularly being presented to many people.
    > Freedom of speech may make you feel "railroaded", but
    > that's simply paranoia oozing out of you. You express
    > yourself, as do I & many other people here. Multiply that
    > by all the POV's expressed on the whole web, & it's plain
    > to see, there's no "engineering" going on. Chaos maybe,
    > engineering no way.

    You obviously haven't read how mass media ownership is being
    increasingly controlled by the few. There is no such thing
    as an independent press. The same people who own the media
    own the Fed and control our money system.

    > > > > and carl marx was the first person who advocated
    > > > > national education to socialise the children into
    > > > > the ways of communism.
    > > >
    > > > As long as the options of private education, home
    > > > schooling, & public education run by local governments
    > > > exist, there is no more "communist socialization" in
    > > > education than there is in any group -- church,
    > > > bowling league, or quilting club. The political
    > > > agendas, backgrounds, & effectiveness of those making
    > > > decisions WRT public education are varied; & the
    > > > availability of other educational venues from pre-
    > > > school to post-graduate levels makes the idea of some
    > > > Pink Floyd ("The Wall") image becoming a reality
    > > > extremely unlikely.
    > >
    > > Do some research and see how for instance how history is
    > > rewritten to make certain ideas acceptable.
    >
    > 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.

    > > > 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?

    > > > You continually claim suppression, but the facts don't
    > > > add up to that. Suppressing miracle cures -- when the
    > > > drug companies could easily make a tidy profit from
    > > > them -- doesn't fit, Carole. Avlimil,
    > >
    > > Only if they can be patented, Michele.
    >
    > 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 bullshit -- 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.

    People don't have to buy them if they don't improve
    their health.

    > You can't understand that chemotherapy that saves the life
    > of a young man is good? You claim that the drugs that
    > increase the success of the surgeries you've opined as
    > "good" aren't? Jesus, Carole -- you are a twit!!

    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.

    > > 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 shit, 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.

    > > > 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, but did you read the history of
    experimentation by the US government? Have you read about
    operation paperclip?

    > > > The fact that he's taken out patents for the virus
    > > > (too weird) as well as his "cure" makes it pretty
    > > > plain he sees the whole thing as his "territory" & has
    > > > staked out a claim for it -- either to make money or
    > > > gain fame (both?). That would make him no different
    > > > from the pharm. companies, Carole. Yet you entertain
    > > > the possibility that Graves may be "on the level"
    > > > while declaring the pharm industry guilty of
    > > > suppressing effective cures & conspiring to lie to the
    > > > world.
    > >
    > > He found the patents, didn't take them out.
    >
    > You actually believe this tripe, don't you?

    That is an emotive term "tripe". Its an alternate theory and
    not tripe until proven to be tripe.

    > > > > I don't believe every theory that comes along.
    > > >
    > > > If a concept is considered conventional, you
    > > > disbelieve it. You've said as much in many posts.
    > > > Automatically disbelieving a large segment of
    > > > information based on suspicion alone is illogical.
    > >
    > > There are cartels behind every facet of life on this
    > > planet. The transport cartel suppresses knowledge of
    > > free energy, and so on. http://www.nomorefakenews.com/a-
    > > rchives/archiveview.php?key=1459 Jon Rappoport There are
    > > eight basic areas of control on the planet, eight basic
    > > cartels. GOVERNMENT, MONEY, MILITARY, INTELLIGENCE,
    > > ENERGY, MEDIA, MEDICAL, ORGANIZED RELIGION.

    > > Your views are in accord with mainstream thinking.
    >
    > You don't have a clue about MOST of my views, Carole.
    > Of course if you do, you can tell me what I believe
    > about VTP -- third trimester abortions -- the death
    > penalty -- birth control -- affirmative action -- the
    > Kennedy assassination? But you don't know my views
    > about most subjects, just as you don't know about sooo
    > many other things.

    I would think they'd be pretty mainstream, and in accordance
    with what gets disseminated by mass media.

    > > I would say you lead a pretty busy life with not much
    > > time to do any reading other than what's thrust in front
    > > of your face. Try doing some unbiased research for
    > > yourself on any topic you have queries on, instead of
    > > merely accepting the opinions "experts" and "reliable
    > > sources" or mainstream media.
    >
    > Your stupidity knows no bounds, does it Carole? I read
    > voraciously, about a wide variety of subjects -- presented
    > from a wide variety of sources. You, OTOH, seem to read
    > little but paranoid rantings of

    Reading voraciously means nothing. Depends on if you think
    about things. For all I know you read fairy stories and
    propaganda.

    > second rate hacks -- & then spout their opinions without
    > even knowing what they mean. It doesn't make you
    > "unconventional" -- it just makes you gullible & naive.

    Who's naive and gullible?

    Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/conspiracy.htm
     
  18. Gymmy Bob

    Gymmy Bob Guest

    I doubt Atheletes foot can be cured nutritionally but it can
    be an assist to the cure or prevent further infections.

    "Carole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] (Michele) wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    > > > Wrong. Nutritional treatments aren't easy to find.
    > >
    > > Not true. There is information -- both accurate &
    > > ridiculous, with everything in between -- EVERYWHERE.
    >
    > NO, you're wrong. Where is the nutritional information
    > that athlete's foot can be eliminated using proper
    > nutrition?
     
  19. Michele

    Michele Guest

    [email protected] (Carole) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > [email protected] (Michele) wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    > > > Wrong. Nutritional treatments aren't easy to find.
    > >
    > > Not true. There is information -- both accurate &
    > > ridiculous, with everything in between -- EVERYWHERE.
    >
    > NO, you're wrong. Where is the nutritional information
    > that athlete's foot can be eliminated using proper
    > nutrition?

    Athlete's foot is a FUNGUS, Carole. It isn't a result of any
    deficiency, just as ringworm isn't. It isn't eliminated by
    any sort of nutrition, good or bad. It thrives in dark,
    warm, moist areas (whether that's a shower stall floor or
    between your toes). It can be eliminated by fungicides or
    sometimes by simply keeping the area dry & exposing it to
    light -- fresh socks, careful drying between the toes after
    bathing, going barefoot when possible & practical.

    > > > And all the effects of nutritional deficiencies
    > > > haven't been discovered yet.
    > >
    > > There are studies ongoing about MANY health care
    > > subjects that haven't "discovered" everything yet. For
    > > crying out loud Carole, mankind accumulates knowledge
    > > over time -- it doesn't come crashing down like some ton
    > > of bricks all at once. And what we already know evolves
    > > as we find out more. Better technology often opens up
    > > whole new ideas that we couldn't see before with
    > > outdated methods. So? Hardly a "conspiracy" -- it's the
    > > natural evolution of knowledge.
    >
    > Why is why CODEX alimentus is trying to stop free access
    > to nutritional supplements if everything about them hasn't
    > been discovered? They think it has and its irrelevant.

    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. 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. 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.

    <snipped for brevity only>

    > 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.

    > > > Do you know how I found out about it? A pamphlet from
    > > > a health store which was later recalled by the health
    > > > department for being too specific.
    > >
    > > Gee, there are pamphlets on counters at my local grocery
    > > store talking about time travel -- I think they're a
    > > waste of counter space, but somebody must be interested.
    > > Things that interest people are easier to find that
    > > stuff that people find idiotic or dull. Human nature. If
    > > cell salts don't interest people who understand human
    > > physiology, oh well. No "conspiracy", just lack of
    > > interest in something people don't care about.
    >
    > You snipped the bit about the pamphlets being recalled
    > shortly after I got hold of one. Talk about selective
    > response.

    You are truly DENSE, Carole -- I snipped NOTHING about the
    pamphlet supposedly being recalled! Are you blind?? Or are
    you lying, but not being very clever about it? No selective
    response on my part -- just idiocy on yours.

    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.

    > How many pamphlets get recalled for any reason?

    See above. In addition, the pamphlets may not have been
    recalled at all -- the person supplying them may have simply
    switched to printing flyers about UFO abductions....

    > > Your assumption that I haven't taken time to read ideas
    > > I don't agree with only shows you don't know what you
    > > are talking about, Carole. The reasons I DON'T agree
    > > with these claims is because they defy reality. You,
    > > OTOH, rush to assume they are right, because they don't
    > > carry the label of "conventional". If major medical
    > > studies at reputable universities made those claims
    > > you'd probably call them a "conspiracy" & tell us that
    > > they are simply a sinister plot to keep us ill for some
    > > silly-ass reason.
    >
    > Your responses are lengthy, but you only respond on your
    > own points.

    Lying again, Carole? HINT: you're not very good at it, & you
    really should stop.

    > 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. 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.
    Nobody's suppressing the research into the product or it's
    availability. You really enjoy "everything's a conspiracy"
    crap, 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.

    > > 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 boob, 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.

    [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?]

    > > 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. Fact, sad but true. And the
    subject of anyone staying sick wasn't even part of what I
    said. Another attempt of yours to lie, I see. Stooping to
    such tactics only reflects on your inability to argue the
    issues, Carole.

    > > ideas of multiple economies. The world doesn't operate
    > > under one economic system -- the wide variety of
    > > economic systems, along with their interdependence on
    > > each other is interesting, & something you need to read
    > > a bit about before going on a tear about "the economy"
    > > which doesn't exist in real life. There will never be a
    > > time where *everyone* is fed & housed, Carole. Nice
    > > dream, but not one that fits into the reality of armed
    > > conflict, political unrest, & plain simple greed. Even
    > > natural disasters contribute to the misery of millions.
    > > Sad, but inevitable.
    >
    > If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the
    > problem. See you are just going along with the status quo.
    > You've just proved my point in the above that your
    > opinions aren't unbiased.

    Stop spewing what you obviously don't even understand, hon.
    Looking at all sides of an issue, weighing evidence, making
    decisions based on logic & intelligence has nothing to do
    with status quo, being part of a solution or a problem, or
    any of the other hackneyed manure you shovel here without
    the slightest clue of what the phrases really mean. Bitching
    about conspiracies that don't exist, believing every aluminum-foil-helmet-
    wearing ranter that comes along, & proudly wearing your
    ignorance like Miss America's satin sash doesn't make you
    the solution to anything except the solution to paying a
    cell salts peddler's rent. 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.

    <snipped for brevity only>

    > > How can world wide media, internet accessibility, etc.
    > > "engineer" anything, Carole?! The presentation of so
    > > many different (read DIFFERENT) POV's proves that
    > > different POV's are regularly being presented to many
    > > people. Freedom of speech may make you feel
    > > "railroaded", but that's simply paranoia oozing out of
    > > you. You express yourself, as do I & many other people
    > > here. Multiply that by all the POV's expressed on the
    > > whole web, & it's plain to see, there's no "engineering"
    > > going on. Chaos maybe, engineering no way.
    >
    > You obviously haven't read how mass media ownership is
    > being increasingly controlled by the few. There is no such
    > thing as an independent press. The same people who own the
    > media own the Fed and control our money system.

    Get out your aluminum foil helmet, Carole. The above
    shows a paranoiac denial of facts. Of course, you'll name
    these "few" people who control the world's economies,
    media, & other sources of information & influence?
    Suuuure you can.....

    <snipped for brevity only>

    > > 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.

    > > 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 bullshit -- 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.
    >
    > 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 shit, 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 Hitler's eggheads doesn't bolster
    your POV, Carole.

    > > > > The fact that he's taken out patents for the virus
    > > > > (too weird) as well as his "cure" makes it pretty
    > > > > plain he sees the whole thing as his "territory" &
    > > > > has staked out a claim for it -- either to make
    > > > > money or gain fame (both?). That would make him no
    > > > > different from the pharm. companies, Carole. Yet you
    > > > > entertain the possibility that Graves may be "on the
    > > > > level" while declaring the pharm industry guilty of
    > > > > suppressing effective cures & conspiring to lie to
    > > > > the world.
    > > >
    > > > He found the patents, didn't take them out.
    > >
    > > You actually believe this tripe, don't you?
    >
    > That is an emotive term "tripe". Its an alternate theory
    > and not tripe until proven to be tripe.

    It's an objective term, along with "garbage", "nonsense", &
    "drivel". Your ranting about "conspiracies", "cartels", &
    "suppression" (OH MY!) would be emotive. Especially when you
    don't understand what you're trying to talk about, as you
    continue to show.

    Anyone saying they were tested positive for AIDS in 1990
    would be delighted to share the secret of what cured them --
    & demonstrate they were cured with the before & after
    evidence. It ain't there. Yup, tripe is a very objective
    word for such a scam.

    <snipped for brevity only>

    > > > Your views are in accord with mainstream thinking.
    > >
    > > You don't have a clue about MOST of my views, Carole. Of
    > > course if you do, you can tell me what I believe about
    > > VTP -- third trimester abortions -- the death penalty --
    > > birth control -- affirmative action -- the Kennedy
    > > assassination? But you don't know my views about most
    > > subjects, just as you don't know about sooo many other
    > > things.
    >
    > I would think they'd be pretty mainstream, and in
    > accordance with what gets disseminated by mass media.

    As usual, you'd be guessing without a clue. And WRT some
    topics, you'd be guessing pretty far off base. "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.

    <snipped for brevity only>

    > > Your stupidity knows no bounds, does it Carole? I read
    > > voraciously, about a wide variety of subjects --
    > > presented from a wide variety of sources. You, OTOH,
    > > seem to read little but paranoid rantings of
    >
    > Reading voraciously means nothing. Depends on if you think
    > about things.

    "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.

    >For all I know you read fairy stories and propaganda.

    That would be the materials on your bookshelf, not mine. You
    like sharing these fairy tales & paranoid propaganda stories
    here. ["For all you know" actually isn't much, Carole.]

    > > second rate hacks -- & then spout their opinions without
    > > even knowing what they mean. It doesn't make you
    > > "unconventional" -- it just makes you gullible & naive.
    >
    > Who's naive and gullible?

    You are, Carole. You are just plain stupid as well.
     
  20. Anth

    Anth Guest

    CODEX is shit - I don't want some agency regulating my
    access to vitamins that I can use to treat disease or self
    medicate, and I don't want people taking my freedom to do
    this away from me just because people like you think it is
    ok to do so, just because you don't advocate big doses of
    vitamins. The people that take the vitamin doses do so out
    of their own choice - it is not forced down their throats,
    and the overall damage that these vitamins causes is very
    small when compared with other medicines which are
    regulated. Anth

    "Michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] (Carole) wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > [email protected] (Michele) wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > >
    > > > > Wrong. Nutritional treatments aren't easy to find.
    > > >
    > > > Not true. There is information -- both accurate &
    > > > ridiculous, with everything in between -- EVERYWHERE.
    > >
    > > NO, you're wrong. Where is the nutritional information
    > > that athlete's foot can be eliminated using proper
    > > nutrition?
    >
    > Athlete's foot is a FUNGUS, Carole. It isn't a result of
    > any deficiency, just as ringworm isn't. It isn't
    > eliminated by any sort of nutrition, good or bad. It
    > thrives in dark, warm, moist areas (whether that's a
    > shower stall floor or between your toes). It can be
    > eliminated by fungicides or sometimes by simply keeping
    > the area dry & exposing it to light -- fresh socks,
    > careful drying between the toes after bathing, going
    > barefoot when possible & practical.
    >
    > > > > And all the effects of nutritional deficiencies
    > > > > haven't been discovered yet.
    > > >
    > > > There are studies ongoing about MANY health care
    > > > subjects that haven't "discovered" everything yet. For
    > > > crying out loud Carole, mankind accumulates knowledge
    > > > over time -- it doesn't come crashing down like some
    > > > ton of bricks all at once. And what we already know
    > > > evolves as we find out more. Better technology often
    > > > opens up whole new ideas that we couldn't see before
    > > > with outdated methods. So? Hardly a "conspiracy" --
    > > > it's the natural evolution of knowledge.
    > >
    > > Why is why CODEX alimentus is trying to stop free access
    > > to nutritional supplements if everything about them
    > > hasn't been discovered? They think it has and its
    > > irrelevant.
    >
    > 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. 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. 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.
    >
    > <snipped for brevity only>
    >
    > > 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.
    >
    > > > > Do you know how I found out about it? A pamphlet
    > > > > from a health store which was later recalled by the
    > > > > health department for being too specific.
    > > >
    > > > Gee, there are pamphlets on counters at my local
    > > > grocery store talking about time travel -- I think
    > > > they're a waste of counter space, but somebody must be
    > > > interested. Things that interest people are easier to
    > > > find that stuff that people find idiotic or dull.
    > > > Human nature. If cell salts don't interest people who
    > > > understand human physiology, oh well. No "conspiracy",
    > > > just lack of interest in something people don't care
    > > > about.
    > >
    > > You snipped the bit about the pamphlets being recalled
    > > shortly after I got hold of one. Talk about selective
    > > response.
    >
    > You are truly DENSE, Carole -- I snipped NOTHING about the
    > pamphlet supposedly being recalled! Are you blind?? Or are
    > you lying, but not being very clever about it? No
    > selective response on my part -- just idiocy on yours.
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > > How many pamphlets get recalled for any reason?
    >
    > See above. In addition, the pamphlets may not have been
    > recalled at all -- the person supplying them may have
    > simply switched to printing flyers about UFO
    > abductions....
    >
    > > > Your assumption that I haven't taken time to read
    > > > ideas I don't agree with only shows you don't know
    > > > what you are talking about, Carole. The reasons I
    > > > DON'T agree with these claims is because they defy
    > > > reality. You, OTOH, rush to assume they are right,
    > > > because they don't carry the label of "conventional".
    > > > If major medical studies at reputable universities
    > > > made those claims you'd probably call them a
    > > > "conspiracy" & tell us that they are simply a sinister
    > > > plot to keep us ill for some silly-ass reason.
    > >
    > > Your responses are lengthy, but you only respond on your
    > > own points.
    >
    > Lying again, Carole? HINT: you're not very good at it, &
    > you really should stop.
    >
    > > 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. 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. Nobody's suppressing the research into the
    > product or it's availability. You really enjoy
    > "everything's a conspiracy" crap, 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.
    >
    > > > 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 boob, 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.
    >
    > [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?]
    >
    > > > 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. Fact, sad but true. And the
    > subject of anyone staying sick wasn't even part of what I
    > said. Another attempt of yours to lie, I see. Stooping to
    > such tactics only reflects on your inability to argue the
    > issues, Carole.
    >
    > > > ideas of multiple economies. The world doesn't operate
    > > > under one economic system -- the wide variety of
    > > > economic systems, along with their interdependence on
    > > > each other is interesting, & something you need to
    > > > read a bit about before going on a tear about "the
    > > > economy" which doesn't exist in real life. There will
    > > > never be a time where *everyone* is fed & housed,
    > > > Carole. Nice dream, but not one that fits into the
    > > > reality of armed conflict, political unrest, & plain
    > > > simple greed. Even natural disasters contribute to the
    > > > misery of millions. Sad, but inevitable.
    > >
    > > If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the
    > > problem. See you are just going along with the status
    > > quo. You've just proved my point in the above that your
    > > opinions aren't unbiased.
    >
    > Stop spewing what you obviously don't even understand,
    > hon. Looking at all sides of an issue, weighing evidence,
    > making decisions based on logic & intelligence has nothing
    > to do with status quo, being part of a solution or a
    > problem, or any of the other hackneyed manure you shovel
    > here without the slightest clue of what the phrases really
    > mean. Bitching about conspiracies that don't exist,
    > believing every aluminum-foil-helmet-wearing ranter that
    > comes along, & proudly wearing your ignorance like Miss
    > America's satin sash doesn't make you the solution to
    > anything except the solution to paying a cell salts
    > peddler's rent. 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.
    >
    > <snipped for brevity only>
    >
    > > > How can world wide media, internet accessibility, etc.
    > > > "engineer" anything, Carole?! The presentation of so
    > > > many different (read DIFFERENT) POV's proves that
    > > > different POV's are regularly being presented to many
    > > > people. Freedom of speech may make you feel
    > > > "railroaded", but that's simply paranoia oozing out of
    > > > you. You express yourself, as do I & many other people
    > > > here. Multiply that by all the POV's expressed on the
    > > > whole web, & it's plain to see, there's no
    > > > "engineering" going on. Chaos maybe, engineering no
    > > > way.
    > >
    > > You obviously haven't read how mass media ownership is
    > > being increasingly controlled by the few. There is no
    > > such thing as an independent press. The same people who
    > > own the media own the Fed and control our money system.
    >
    > Get out your aluminum foil helmet, Carole. The above shows
    > a paranoiac denial of facts. Of course, you'll name these
    > "few" people who control the world's economies, media, &
    > other sources of information & influence? Suuuure you
    > can.....
    >
    > <snipped for brevity only>
    >
    > > > 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.
    >
    > > > 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 bullshit -- 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.
    > >
    > > 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 shit, 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 Hitler's eggheads
    > doesn't bolster your POV, Carole.
    >
    > > > > > The fact that he's taken out patents for the virus
    > > > > > (too weird) as
    well
    > > > > > as his "cure" makes it pretty plain he sees the
    > > > > > whole thing as his "territory" & has staked out a
    > > > > > claim for it -- either to make
    money or
    > > > > > gain fame (both?). That would make him no
    > > > > > different from the
    pharm.
    > > > > > companies, Carole. Yet you entertain the
    > > > > > possibility that Graves
    may
    > > > > > be "on the level" while declaring the pharm
    > > > > > industry guilty of suppressing effective cures &
    > > > > > conspiring to lie to the world.
    > > > >
    > > > > He found the patents, didn't take them out.
    > > >
    > > > You actually believe this tripe, don't you?
    > >
    > > That is an emotive term "tripe". Its an alternate theory
    > > and not tripe until proven to be tripe.
    >
    > It's an objective term, along with "garbage", "nonsense",
    > & "drivel". Your ranting about "conspiracies", "cartels",
    > & "suppression" (OH MY!) would be emotive. Especially when
    > you don't understand what you're trying to talk about, as
    > you continue to show.
    >
    > Anyone saying they were tested positive for AIDS in 1990
    > would be delighted to share the secret of what cured them
    > -- & demonstrate they were cured with the before & after
    > evidence. It ain't there. Yup, tripe is a very objective
    > word for such a scam.
    >
    > <snipped for brevity only>
    >
    > > > > Your views are in accord with mainstream thinking.
    > > >
    > > > You don't have a clue about MOST of my views, Carole.
    > > > Of course if you do, you can tell me what I believe
    > > > about VTP -- third trimester abortions -- the death
    > > > penalty -- birth control -- affirmative action -- the
    > > > Kennedy assassination? But you don't know my views
    > > > about most subjects, just as you don't know about sooo
    > > > many other things.
    > >
    > > I would think they'd be pretty mainstream, and in
    > > accordance with what gets disseminated by mass media.
    >
    > As usual, you'd be guessing without a clue. And WRT some
    > topics, you'd be guessing pretty far off base. "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.
    >
    > <snipped for brevity only>
    >
    > > > Your stupidity knows no bounds, does it Carole? I read
    > > > voraciously, about a wide variety of subjects --
    > > > presented from a wide variety of sources. You, OTOH,
    > > > seem to read little but paranoid rantings of
    > >
    > > Reading voraciously means nothing. Depends on if you
    > > think about things.
    >
    > "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.
    >
    > >For all I know you read fairy stories and propaganda.
    >
    > That would be the materials on your bookshelf, not mine.
    > You like sharing these fairy tales & paranoid propaganda
    > stories here. ["For all you know" actually isn't much,
    > Carole.]
    >
    > > > second rate hacks -- & then spout their opinions
    > > > without even knowing what they mean. It doesn't make
    > > > you "unconventional" -- it just makes you gullible &
    > > > naive.
    > >
    > > Who's naive and gullible?
    >
    > You are, Carole. You are just plain stupid as well.
     
Loading...