![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/3/10 12:13 PM, carole wrote:
wrote in message ... On 10/1/10 6:56 AM, carole wrote: wrote in message ... On 9/29/10 12:53 AM, carole wrote: Ok, thanks. However - Testimony of Burton Goldberg http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/04-11-13.htm "The NCCAM is presently just a poor cousin in NIH. It needs to be run not by doctors from or beholden to the NIH, but by physicians who are experienced in and advocates of alternative methods. No, it needs to be run by medical scientists who can determine if so-called alternative medicines work. So far, after $1 billion has been spent, not one alternative medicine has been shown to actually work better than placebo. The bureacracy at NIH is full of people who serve the interests of the pharmaceutical business with disease which doesn't want the situation changed. It is making far too much money to let any alternative remedies through. Evidence, please. The FDA Exposed: An Interview With Dr. David Graham, the Vioxx Whistleblower Tuesday, August 30, 2005 by: Manette Loudon, citizen journalist http://www.naturalnews.com/011401_Dr...m_the_FDA.html " The FDA has a very peculiar culture. It runs like the army so it's very hierarchal. You have to go through the chain of command and if somebody up above you says that they want things done in a particular way well, they want it done in a particular way. The culture also views industry as the client. They're serving industry rather than the public. In fact, when a former office director for the Office of Drug Safety criticized me and tried to get me to change a report I'd written on another drug - Arava - he said to me and to a colleague who was a coauthor on this report that "industry is our client." " That's the opinion of one person, with an obvious axe to grind. A lot of organizations has a hierarchy that says do it the way of the supervisors or you're out. They make some great products, too, like the Mac and iPhone with this hierarchy. THe military this type of heirarchy. And, in science, things have to be done a certain way (like take notes and keep careful records of experiments as well as rules about human privacy). Not only can our doctors show you the multiple causes that lead to cancer, they offer steps that lead to the removal of these causes. Alternative medicine does not offer a simplistic "cookbook" solution to cancer treatment. Rather, it emphasizes the unique individuality of each case, with certain consistent elements in its approach: mobilize the lymphatic and excretory systems and then detoxify the body of its many cumulative poisons; fortify the body with nutrients; do everything possible to strengthen the immune system; stress the importance of early detection and preventive strategies; and honor the Hippocratic Oath--first, do no harm. That's what allopathic doctors do. Allopathic doctors prescribe drugs, that's what they're trained to do. They also give vaccines and recommend healthy diets and other preventive strategies. They do more than prescribe drugs. Conventional cancer doctors today cannot uphold this vow. Chemotherapy and radiation are toxic and often do as much damage to the body as the cancer itself. Even though conventional medicine presents and often forces these treatments (along with surgery) as the only options in existence for cancer, this is simply and unequivocally not true. There are many successful alternatives to conventional care that can remove the root causes of cancer and restore you to health without further poisoning or damaging your body. " It's true radiation and chemotherapy are toxic - but 50% of all cancer patients are cured. Show us the evidence that there are successful alternatives to conventional care. Real evidence. Not just anecdotes. hydrazine sulfate http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/04-11-13.htm "Preliminary animal studies supported his concept and by 1973 about 1,000 cancer patients were using hydrazine sulfate. The FDA issued a few Investigational New Drug permits and Dr. Gold organized the Syracuse Cancer Research Center to develop the drug and its protocols. In clinical trials in the United States, the compound significantly improved the nutritional status and survival of lung cancer patients. In a study of 740 patients with various types of cancer, 51% of patients reported tumor stabilization or regression. Almost half the patients also reported subjective improvement, notably decreased pain and better appetite. Further, and this is crucial, similar studies were performed in Russia with almost identical results. Dean Burk, M.D., at that time the head of cell chemistry research at NCI, called hydrazine sulfate the "most remarkable anticancer agent I have come across in my 45 years of experience with cancer." http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/p...ulfate/Patient http://quackwatch.org/search/webglim...razine+sulfate Jeff * * * "Many books have been written that document the persecution of alternative cancer doctors who cured too many of their patients with inexpensive natural products. Of course, most people have never heard of these books because the media does not give them the free publicity they give their favored books." |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/3/10 2:16 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 12:35:29 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, wrote: On 10/3/10 10:52 AM, carole wrote: "Bob wrote in message ... On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 20:18:19 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, wrote: "Bob wrote in message ... On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:05:07 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, wrote: wrote in message ... On 9/29/10 2:18 AM, carole wrote: wrote in message ... On 9/28/10 9:48 PM, carole wrote: Silica, silicon, silicon dioxide, siliclic acid - any of these ring a bell? Silica is also beneficial for bone growth and arterial health, amongst other things. Silica is harmful and can cause inflamation if inside the body. It is not absorbed by the body. Get a clue errol. Studies have shown that silica is a vital nutrient, go do some homework in pubmed or one of your research books. I did. It is a toxin. That's about it. How about silicon dioxide? Bottom line is that silicon is not a nutrient for humans. If I am incorrect, show me *good* evidence. WHO FOOD ADDITIVES SERIES NO. 5 http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm From that report: Very small amounts of silica are normally present in all body tissues but there is no evidence that they play any physiological role. Are you stupid, or maybe you just can't read? Note - silica, silicon, and sililic acid are interchangeable. http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm From this reference: "The available data on orally administered silica and silicates, including flumed silicon dioxide, appear to substantiate the biological inertness of these compounds." Chicken "Day-old deutectomized cockerels were kept in a trace element controlled environment and fed a synthetic low silicon diet. The diet of the test groups was supplemented with sodium metasilicate (Na2SiO3½9H2O) at a level of 100 mg/kg. 114 chickens were in the control groups and 114 chickens in the test groups. Growth rates and the appearance of the animals were evaluated at two- to three- day intervals. The animals were killed at the end of a 25- to 35- day period. Gross pathology and histological examinations were carried out on the organs of each chick. Differences between the chicks on the basal and silicon-supplemented diets were noted after one to two weeks. At the twenty-third day of the study the average weight for the low silicon group was 76 g compared to a weight of 116 g for the supplemented group (p 0.02). The average daily weight gain for the control groups was 2.57 g and that of the test groups reached 3.85 g (p 0.01). The animals on the basal diet were smaller and all their organs appeared relatively atrophied as compared to the test chickens. The leg bones of the deficient birds were shorter, of smaller circumference and thinner cortex. The metatarsal bones were relatively flexible and the femur and tibia fractured more easily under pressure than those of the supplemented group. Thus the effect of silicon on skeletal development indicates that it plays an important role in an early stage of bone formation (Carlisle, 1972)." From a 40-year old study. Big deal. So if this information has been known for 40 how do you explain the lag in having it known to the medical establishment? Carole it was an artificial environment. They artificially deprived the chickens of all silicon compounds normally available in the natural diet. The other Chickens were feed an enriched diet supplemented with Additional Silicates. The Test does not say what you think it says. I suggest you re-read: Cite Comment "Day-old deutectomized cockerels were kept|Describes test subjects in a trace element controlled environment |They were deprived of |natural trace element and fed a synthetic low silicon diet. |Note" the word synthetic The diet of the test groups |Which of the two groups |was target was supplemented |Do you see that word with sodium metasilicate (Na2SiO3½9H2O) |That is not silica or even |silicon dioxide at a level of 100 mg/kg. |that is about 10-15x the |normal level found in |natural diets /cite |/comments What the study doesn't say plainly is the artificial control environment allowed them to deprive the "control group" of any foods containing "Silica" or any other "trace minerals", and then "test Group" was given suppliments at least 10 to 15 times the level of Silica compounds (Sodium Silicate) found non-artifical non-enriched diets. In other words they created a false or artificial group as a control. and then Created a second set of groups with outlandish Suppliments. So you can understand a "dumbed down" version just for Carole. They Starved one group and over fed the Second Group and then remarked about the disparity between the two groups. Not really much a study, is it Carole? Do See why you have to read critically? If I were you I would have start to doubt the validity of the so called "Briggs-Myers Type Test" you claimed to have taken. It is plain to just about everyone else but you, that you are not a master mind or able to see any sort of a big picture. The test showed that chickens deprived of silica developed abnormalities. That's the bottom line. Beats head on desk... No, Carole, that is not what the test proved. You get a zero for yesterday's reading and comprehension score. Try once more reread it and see what the what the study actually showed. http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm "At the twenty-third day of the study the average weight for the low silicon group was 76 g compared to a weight of 116 g for the supplemented group (p0.02). The average daily weight gain for the control groups was 2.57 g and that of the test groups reached 3.85 g (p 0.01). " IOW the low silicon group were underweight. Obviously, you're the one with the comprehension problems. Wrong. The low-silicon group was a group with low supplements across the board. When they made the diet for the group with the low silicon, they removed other minerals, too. So, low-silicon is really low mineral. was the Carlisle paper for degree work, if so why wasn't it challenged for the obvious fallacy? This is very poor work, isn't it? Kind of reminds of a middle school science project. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bob Officer" wrote in message ... On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 01:52:32 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, "carole" wrote: Beats head on desk... No, Carole, that is not what the test proved. You get a zero for yesterday's reading and comprehension score. Try once more reread it and see what the what the study actually showed. http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm "At the twenty-third day of the study the average weight for the low silicon group was 76 g compared to a weight of 116 g for the supplemented group (p 0.02). The average daily weight gain for the control groups was 2.57 g and that of the test groups reached 3.85 g (p 0.01). " IOW the low silicon group were underweight. That's what they claim but it isn't true. Obviously, you're the one with the comprehension problems. No Carole read my annotated part up there. Their so called "control group" wasn't really a "Control Group". You do know what a control group is, don't you Carole? In this Study while it claims to use a "control group" for comparison again a group which was fed suppliments. They actually created a group which was artificially deprived of all trace elements and called it a control. No moron. The purpose of the study was to determine if silica additives to food were harmful or not. It just so happened that the studies showed the efficacy of silica and the detriment of not adding it. When the study was at the 23rd day, they compared a group which they called "a control Group" with a group which was fed supplemented food. The study was not flawed, it makes perfect sense and demonstrates quite adequately that silica is essential which we knew already. Why is the study flawed. IT is a fallacy of false comparison. Give up bob, you're clutching at straws. The control group should have been a Group fed with a "normal" diet. In your obsessive little mind. The test was to show suppliments had efficacy over a normal diet. The test did not prove that. The test should have been called a failure because they didn't show any efficacy over a normal diet. It did show that when artificially deprived of trace elements chickens do not do well. I think the purpose of the study was to show that silica additves weren't harmful. They did not even show Silicon is necessary. They artificially deprived the false group called control subjects of **All Trace Elements**. Rubbish. They fed the test subjects a *supplemented diet* and assumed the difference was because of the silicates used. This is not really Quality work. If this was a PhD paper I wonder how the defendant handled the argument? I am sorry if this is just a bit technical for you carole. A control group is a group which is considered "normalized" for a comparison. For example if you wanted to do a test to show eating a high Sodium diet would cause temporary wieght gain (water weight), you would not create a control group by feeding your control group an artificially low sodium diet for a week before the test begins, would you? Reading and understanding any sort of results of any experiment requires a skill set which must be learned. The use of logic and critical reading is a must. Go back to school bob ...no that wouldn't work, you're too set in your ways. Go and take a panadol and have a lie down. -- carole www.conspiracee.com "Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "dr_jeff" wrote in message ... On 10/3/10 10:52 AM, carole wrote: http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm "At the twenty-third day of the study the average weight for the low silicon group was 76 g compared to a weight of 116 g for the supplemented group (p0.02). The average daily weight gain for the control groups was 2.57 g and that of the test groups reached 3.85 g (p 0.01). " IOW the low silicon group were underweight. Obviously, you're the one with the comprehension problems. Wrong. The low-silicon group was a group with low supplements across the board. When they made the diet for the group with the low silicon, they removed other minerals, too. So, low-silicon is really low mineral. Jeff Stay off the drugs Jeff. -- carole www.conspiracee.com "Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806) |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/5/10 8:08 AM, carole wrote:
"Bob wrote in message ... On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 01:52:32 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, wrote: Beats head on desk... No, Carole, that is not what the test proved. You get a zero for yesterday's reading and comprehension score. Try once more reread it and see what the what the study actually showed. http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm "At the twenty-third day of the study the average weight for the low silicon group was 76 g compared to a weight of 116 g for the supplemented group (p0.02). The average daily weight gain for the control groups was 2.57 g and that of the test groups reached 3.85 g (p 0.01). " IOW the low silicon group were underweight. That's what they claim but it isn't true. Obviously, you're the one with the comprehension problems. No Carole read my annotated part up there. Their so called "control group" wasn't really a "Control Group". You do know what a control group is, don't you Carole? In this Study while it claims to use a "control group" for comparison again a group which was fed suppliments. They actually created a group which was artificially deprived of all trace elements and called it a control. No moron. The purpose of the study was to determine if silica additives to food were harmful or not. It just so happened that the studies showed the efficacy of silica and the detriment of not adding it. Wrong. It showed the detriment of not adding any minerals. When the study was at the 23rd day, they compared a group which they called "a control Group" with a group which was fed supplemented food. The study was not flawed, it makes perfect sense and demonstrates quite adequately that silica is essential which we knew already. Wrong again. It was flawed. Its design was very poor and didn't test what they thought they wre testing. Why is the study flawed. IT is a fallacy of false comparison. Give up bob, you're clutching at straws. Wrong. He is completely correct. The control group should have been a Group fed with a "normal" diet. In your obsessive little mind. And in the study. The test was to show suppliments had efficacy over a normal diet. The test did not prove that. The test should have been called a failure because they didn't show any efficacy over a normal diet. It did show that when artificially deprived of trace elements chickens do not do well. I think the purpose of the study was to show that silica additves weren't harmful. You think? Wrong. However, regardless of what What the purpose was, the design didn't address the purpose. They did not even show Silicon is necessary. They artificially deprived the false group called control subjects of **All Trace Elements**. Rubbish. Incorrect. They fed the test subjects a *supplemented diet* and assumed the difference was because of the silicates used. This is not really Quality work. If this was a PhD paper I wonder how the defendant handled the argument? I am sorry if this is just a bit technical for you carole. A control group is a group which is considered "normalized" for a comparison. For example if you wanted to do a test to show eating a high Sodium diet would cause temporary wieght gain (water weight), you would not create a control group by feeding your control group an artificially low sodium diet for a week before the test begins, would you? Reading and understanding any sort of results of any experiment requires a skill set which must be learned. The use of logic and critical reading is a must. Go back to school bob ...no that wouldn't work, you're too set in your ways. Go and take a panadol and have a lie down. Nice personal attacks. Your best argument. Jeff |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bob Officer wrote:
Jeff Carole has the definition of Empiricalism and Rationalism reversed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical A empiricalism demands experimental Evidence for Justification of any conclusion. Rationalism is just the opposite and is "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification" Yet another of her inconsistencies. She insists that the ancient meaning of "toxemia" still applies today and now wants the Enlightenment-era philosophical meaning of "rationalism" to be what people mean when they use the word today. Contrast this with her insistence that "allopath" doesn't mean what the inventor of the word said it did. In 18th century terms I am an empiricist but definitely neither a rationalist nor an idealist. I paid my membership subscription to the Rationalist Association this week and I am a member of Amnesty International, so I am a 21st century rationalist and idealist. I'm still an empiricist, because the meaning of that word hasn't changed. Carole should not mistake cant for Kant (and no, there is no missing apostrophe). -- Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|