Re: Re: Who is Ian Sinclair

[Guest guest]

Celeste, Ian Sinclair is not the only one who warns of the dangers of

vaccinations. One does not have to have credentials to compile statistics,

but if it is credentials you want -- and if you are not afraid to face the

real truth -- there is no lack of credentialed people giving the same

warnings. Dr. Tenpenny and Dr. Mercola are two good examples, but only a

couple of many.

People see and hear what they want to see sometimes. If it makes you happy

to trust vaccinations who am I to burst your bubble? Yet for anyone who

wants the truth -- it's out there, and easy to find.

At 04:36 PM 10/20/2005 +0000, you wrote:

>I had already looked at that web site before I posted my questions. My

>questions are not answered anywhere on that web site. I noticed a

>mysterious lack of any background or credential information.

>

>My opinion at this point is that Ian Sinclair is probably just a

>fearmonger trying to make some money.

>

>Best regards,

>Celeste

>

>Michele Deradune wrote:

> > You can check out this Aussie's website at:

> >

>

<http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/about.html>http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/ab\

out.html

> >

> > Celeste wrote:

> > >Who is this Ian Sinclair fellow? What qualifies him as an expert in

> > >vaccines and vaccinations? What is his background and education?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>Note: This forum is for discussion of health related subjects but under no

>circumstances should any information published here be considered a

>substitute for personal medical advice from a qualified physician. -the owner

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Celeste:

Most of the Gulf War Syndrome was laid at the feet of those who gave

mercury stabilized vaccinations to the troops. They got seven or eight

vaccinations at one time and it has been shown that with some of the

troops those giving the vaccinations forgot to shake the bottle. The

person who got that vaccination got all the mercury. Now suppose that

happened in one or more of that persons total vaccination procedure. You

figure it out.

a1thighmaster wrote:

>I don't consider Tenpenny or Mercola to be reliable sources of health

>information either.

>

>I have not known anyone who has had any problems following a

>vaccination. I have known plenty of folks, though, who have had

>serious illnesses due to the lack of vaccination.

>

>Best regards,

>Celeste

>

>

[Guest guest]

a1thighmaster wrote:

> I have not known anyone who has had any problems following a

> vaccination.

As far as you realize :-))

Have you never met anyone who had cancer? or arthritis? or fibromyalgia?

or diabetes? or cushing's syndrome? or allergies or asthma of nay kind?

Those are just a few examples of diseases predisposed by vaccinations:-)

(They were also virtually unheard-of prior to vaccinations.)

> I have known plenty of folks, though, who have had

> serious illnesses due to the lack of vaccination.

So you think?

They would have been MORE serious if they'd had vaccinations.

And you have shown no evidence to the contrary either:-))

The onus is on vaccine companies to prove the vaccines are useful - and

they have yet to do that.

However - it's for you to believe what you will. Certainly there have

been decades of propaganda - and decades of valid research showing

vaccine dangers but which was suppressed and not published (yet it it

all there as is the data on illness cases and vaccines.) The drug

companies manufacturing vaccines have for some reason not advertised the

research. Wonder why?

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.

www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)

Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it.

[Guest guest]

a1thighmaster wrote:

> What you've described is an interesting and unproven theory.

The data presented on this list has not been theory - it's been factual

data available as public record.

There's a difference:-)))

Also - the onus of proof is on the vaccine manufacturers - and they have

failed to provide evidence or proof of vaccine efficacy :-))

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.

www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)

Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it.

[Guest guest]

Mercola is horrible! That is not to say that I disagree with everything

he says. But his site & he is scientifically negligent! I won't touch

his site again.

a1thighmaster wrote:

>I don't consider Tenpenny or Mercola to be reliable sources of health

information either.

>

>

[Guest guest]

We can not demonize the principles of vaccine. We can protest the wrong or

failed applications of ideas. Does homeopathy not work by introducing a minute

substance to the body. Does it not save a man who has been injected with small

quantities of snake venom as an antidote to an actual bite? Yes. Do we want to

throw out the baby with the bathwater? No.

[Guest guest]

> I believe that vaccines do a lot more good than harm. No

> treatment or prevention protocol is 100% risk free, of

> course.

I believe a program of Transfer factor, cold-processed whey, and

detoxification is risk-free.

When he immune system is built up with transfer factor, this confers

specific immunity to whatever the surviving herds and flocks (avian

flu anyone?) were exposed to. It also increases both NK cell and T-

lymphocyte activity. And it's risk-free. Not only that but if a

person built up their immune response and then chose vaccination as

well, and optimal recognition of the vax could be accomplished, and

they'd have to worry only about the mercury content as a risk.

Transfer factor, and the cold-processed whey, are immunomodulators

too. The cold-processed whey addresses, through glutathione

production, the " robustness " of the immune cells, and all the cells,

and also supports the liver, the biggest glutathione user, in

detoxification.

The glutathione is also part of detoxification process AND ATP

production. A lack of it stimulates infection and allows autoimmune

disordes and toxin load risks to rise. Cold-processed whey and

selenium supplement is risk-free. Pesonally I'd recommend also an

antioxidant program because all the antioxidants work together.

Speaking of which, intravenous ascorbate is also risk-free. It

directly kills infection and according to orthomolecular specialists,

prevents death due to acute vitamin C depletion, the real killer in

flu and othe viral infections.

Dietary maneuvers to detoxify are risk-free. Toxin load contributes

to the weakness of the host, which allows infection. Liver flushes to

facilitate both direct detoxification through bile purging, and also

to facilitate liver function, is -almost- risk-free.

I've been a member of a few autism groups, and I can see that vax is

not risk-free enough, and like Irene, I've noted that there has not

been evidence to support the contention that vax is a positive move.

Because " germs don't cause disease " (Bechamp, Bertrand) so there has

to be be a predisposition on the part of the host to nurture an

infection, It's better to not rely on a vax to do anything but to

just increase your immune response, don't pick your nose, and wash

your hands and face.

I'll not take either the HepB/HepA vax, flu vax or any other.

One in 1,000 GET the flu from the vax, and practically everyone who

gets vaccinated sheds live viruses for about 20 days. Because of that

I'll want my immune response to be very good, as the flu is about to

be seeded into every corner of the world.

Duncan Crow

[Guest guest]

Apricot85 wrote:

> Mercola is horrible! That is not to say that I disagree with everything

> he says. But his site & he is scientifically negligent! I won't touch

> his site again.

Have to agree.

He misrepresents way too much to hold credibility for me, on issues that

are easy to check for lack of validity (like microwave ovens for example

where he still has misrepresentations from the 1950s) even though some

of the stuff there has validity.

.....Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.

www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)

Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it.

[Guest guest]

hopetek@... wrote:

> We can not demonize the principles of vaccine.>

How do you mean?

Are you saying the fact that they are shown to do harm and can not be

shown to do good, is something to be swept under the carpet blindly?

> We can protest the wrong or failed applications of ideas.>

Is there a difference?

< Does homeopathy not work by introducing a minute substance to the body.>

No.

Homeopathy does not introduce a minute substance to the body.

It introduces ZERO substance, and offers only an *energy* signature,

which is detected by the body's life force which then has the option to

change its energy field accordingly.

There is no physical introduction of substance in homeopathy. That is

specifically diluted out as it is not active and not wanted, and is

potentially dangerous.

For example, the prevention remedy for bird flu is Oscillococcinum 30C

that means that it has 1 part (dead tissue) substance from a bird with

bird flu in the following number of parts of water:

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Even at one part per billion there would be no more bird flu substance

left than you would likely find in your local water supply. One part per

billion looks like 1 in this many for comparison:

1000000000

One part per trillion is like 1 in

1000000000000

So you can see from this that the dilution for Oscillococcinum 30C is

not going to have any original dead bird tissue in it:-))

< Does it not save a man who has been injected with small quantities of

snake venom as an antidote to an actual bite? Yes.>

No it does not.

As explained above, the homeopathic remedy does NOT have any original

substance in it. Snake venom remedies are not normally used unless they

are at 200c dilution, (though there is nothing in there even at 6C

dilution which is 1 part per trillion, thus definitely not significant).

A 200c dilution is a 1 followed by 400 zeros.

Try to imagine the dilution.....

That dilution also has zero chance of any snake venom effect - again

there will be more in your drinking water from some snake somewhere

upstream in some river or other.

I hope this explains homeopathy better. You were mistaken in thinking

that homeopathy either used or needed any physical substance, not even

in " minute " amount. It specifically does not *need* or *use* physical

substance, it uses only an energy signature from it - and in cases of

dangerous starting substance it makes SURE there is enough dilution of

the unneeded physical substance to leave none in the remedy.

Homeopathy uses only the information - the energy siignature - not

the substance.

> Do we want to throw out the baby with the bathwater?

There is no baby in this bathwater:-)))

Vaccines throw the baby out.

The *principle* touted by allopaths for vaccines, is NOT used in homeopathy.

And it does not work in allopathy either.

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.

www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)

Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it.

[Guest guest]

Celeste:

I'm a psychotherapist and I work with a D.O. who's a homeopath,

acupuncturist and does neural therapy. He has worked with successfully

several GWS Vets. It's a double removal process first from the brain

then from the body. Written material I'd have to call him for chapter

and verse.

a1thighmaster wrote:

>Well, I had looked there previously and did not find anything specific

>to proving that vaccines caused Gulf War Syndrome. Do you actually

>know exactly where this public record you're referring to exists? If

>so, then please provide a specific reference or two.

>

>Best regards,

>Celeste

>

>

[Guest guest]

a1thighmaster wrote:

> You keep referring vaguely to " public record " and " statistics " but

> have provided no references to collaborate your claims.

Not true. I posted the website for the USA statistics and the other

government records are equally accessible. With respect if you do not

want to look for the details, it is hardly appropriate to ask others to

do it for you is it?

You have the weekend? Why don't you find out what hard work it is

to get at the truth that Sinclair and others already did for you:-))

I appreciate your asking me to do it for you but I have other plans

for my weekend. I already know the details and already confirmed them.

They are well scattered - to believe them first hand, you'll need to do

your own digging and unearthing - there's no convenient list on a

website!!!! But I did show you where you need to start:-)

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.

www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)

Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it.

[Guest guest]

a1thighmaster wrote:

> My anecdotes are at least as good as the statisically significant

> recorded results that you've provided evidence of.

You truly think 2 or 3 anecdotes compares with hundreds of thousands of

government records of controlled cases plus a dozen or more studies plus

data from all the governments where vaccines are used?

Hmmmmmm.

Happy to point out anyway that your anecdotes do nothing to suggest

vaccine efficacy. Vaccines are known to cause predisposition to chronic

disease and the great majority of the population is known to get

vaccines - which makes the great majority predisposed to chronic disease

due to vaccines.

However there are other ways to get predisposed to chronic disease -

anything that damages the thymus will do that for you, and other

documented causes besides vaccines include numerous drugs especially

steroids, and several toxins, and even some herbs.

So your example of cancer in someone who believes they had no

vaccines, only means something else predisposed it. It's not evidence

that we need vaccines, much les that vaccines work!

There's no evidence that they work, not even anecdotal.

Namaste,

IRene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.

www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)

Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it.

[Guest guest]

Irene:

You know what is said about the miracles of Lourdes: for believers no

proof is necessary, for unbelievers no proof is possible.

Celeste must find her own way...or not.

a1thighmaster wrote:

>Absolutely. Since you've provided no evidence of your assertions then

>my anecdotes are certainly at least as good (or better since they're

>real) than what you've provided.

>

>Cordially,

>Celeste

>

>Irene de Villiers wrote:

>

>

>>You truly think 2 or 3 anecdotes compares with hundreds of thousands of

>>government records of controlled cases plus a dozen or more studies

>>

>>

>plus

>

>

>>data from all the governments where vaccines are used?

>>

>>Celeste wrote:

>>

>>

>>>My anecdotes are at least as good as the statisically significant

>>>recorded results that you've provided evidence of.

>>>

>>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Irene:

You know what is said about the miracles of Lourdes: for believers no

proof is necessary, for unbelievers no proof is possible.

Celeste must find her own way...or not.

a1thighmaster wrote:

>Absolutely. Since you've provided no evidence of your assertions then

>my anecdotes are certainly at least as good (or better since they're

>real) than what you've provided.

>

>Cordially,

>Celeste

>

>Irene de Villiers wrote:

>

>

>>You truly think 2 or 3 anecdotes compares with hundreds of thousands of

>>government records of controlled cases plus a dozen or more studies

>>

>>

>plus

>

>

>>data from all the governments where vaccines are used?

>>

>>Celeste wrote:

>>

>>

>>>My anecdotes are at least as good as the statisically significant

>>>recorded results that you've provided evidence of.

>>>

>>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

B. Monier- wrote:

> Irene:

> You know what is said about the miracles of Lourdes: for believers no

> proof is necessary, for unbelievers no proof is possible.

> Celeste must find her own way...or not.

>

So true:-))

Have a great weekend.

....Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom.

[Guest guest]

I really dont think that Celeste is questioning faith based miracles

[Guest guest]

I'm not so certain that Celeste ISN'T " questioning " faith based

miracles " .

I applaud her skepticism regarding this " energy signature " theory, AND

appreciate her tenacity.

ly this business of her needing to " find her own way " seems to me

as condescending toward her personally as it is dismissive of any on

this list who might feel similarly.

-bb

[Guest guest]

bb:

The point of my statement was that you either believe or don't believe

in homeopathy and or other alternative forms of medicine etc. etc.. The

proof isn't as scientifically based as most demand, though there is

proof out there. What's the proof of acupuncture other than anecdotal?

The second point is that Celeste must do the work to become a

believer...or not. Condescending it's not, I'm just not willing to

continue to fight with her or anyone else. It's up to her to find her

own way. Now make out of this what you will. It's time to move on.

bbburtnick@... wrote:

>I'm not so certain that Celeste ISN'T " questioning " faith based

>miracles " .

>I applaud her skepticism regarding this " energy signature " theory, AND

>appreciate her tenacity.

>ly this business of her needing to " find her own way " seems to me

>as condescending toward her personally as it is dismissive of any on

>this list who might feel similarly.

>-bb

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Faith is belief without proof, that maybe OK when building a hypothesis,

but is no good for a scientific theory, this requires repeatability and

impartial, statistically verified testing e.g. double-blind testing. I

admit I find some of these ideas interesting but I can't take them

seriously until proper scientific tests are done to prove these ideas

work, there has been so much fakery and selective publishing, sadly even

in standard medicine, this makes scientific proof all the more

important, for all schools of medicine.

B. Monier- wrote:

>bb:

>The point of my statement was that you either believe or don't believe

>in homeopathy and or other alternative forms of medicine etc. etc.. The

>proof isn't as scientifically based as most demand, though there is

>proof out there. What's the proof of acupuncture other than anecdotal?

>The second point is that Celeste must do the work to become a

>believer...or not. Condescending it's not, I'm just not willing to

>continue to fight with her or anyone else. It's up to her to find her

>own way. Now make out of this what you will. It's time to move on.

>

>

>

>bbburtnick@... wrote:

>

>

>

>>I'm not so certain that Celeste ISN'T " questioning " faith based

>>miracles " .

>>I applaud her skepticism regarding this " energy signature " theory, AND

>>appreciate her tenacity.

>>ly this business of her needing to " find her own way " seems to me

>>as condescending toward her personally as it is dismissive of any on

>>this list who might feel similarly.

>>-bb

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>Note: This forum is for discussion of health related subjects but under no

circumstances should any information published here be considered a substitute

for personal medical advice from a qualified physician. -the owner

>

[Guest guest]

bbburtnick@... wrote:

> I applaud her skepticism regarding this " energy signature " theory,

It's not theory - it's what happens in nature. If you don't like calling

the phenomenon " energy signature " feel free to rename it - but it's

simply what happens in nature whatever you choose to call it. There's no

theory needed:-))

Hippocrates noticed it in 500 BC and it's been noticed over and over

ever since - it's there for all to see - except by those who look with

eyes closed :-)

Can't change how nature works; and all homeopathy does is copy it and

lately the physicists like to study it :-)) So energy signatuer is not a

theory - it's something that occurs in nature.

Why and how it works at the atomic level I leave to the physicists - I

just use the fact of its existence, and apply it :-) You are welcome to

do the asme - or not - as you see fit.

> ly this business of her needing to " find her own way " seems to me

> as condescending toward her personally as it is dismissive of any on

> this list who might feel similarly.

Not true.

What she wants is for me to spend all my time putting together the

hundreds of pages of references needed to assemble the statistics with

which she was already presented with summaries from different sources -

and onus is now on her to disprove the refs she was given. But they are

valid, and so she can't disprove them and instead she has made other

excuses to deny the obvious.

The alternative is to assemble it for herself, but she's too lazy to do

that as it is great deal of work and Cleecte is making excuses by

poinitng fingers at me instead:

I gather the current cop-out is to say that unless she is spoonfed the

entire lot line by line, she will pretend it is invisible to her.

Well that's her choice - but don't make judgements on the quality of

information just because someone does not want to do the work to look at it!

Of course it is not in one convenient spot - the drug companies would go

out of business overnight:-))) They hide it as best they can considering

it is public information. So either someone does the work to unearth it

- which was done and presented here - or you do it yourself (you or

Celeste or whoever wants it from source instead of conveniently summarized.)

But don't complain about the tediousness of looking at sourrce!!!

That's a given when big pharma wants to hide the truth.

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.

www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)

Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it.

[Guest guest]

nospam.rwp@... wrote:

> Faith is belief without proof,

In that case I guess I lack faith.

I make use of things that work, AFTER observing that they work. That

does not require faith.

> this requires repeatability

No thanks.

I had gangrene once, that was enough. I do not wish repeatability of it

- I had breast cancer once and do not want s repeat - and so on.

Repeatability is a concept that only applies to toxic substances.

So it lends itself well to allopathy as that is based on toxic

substances - poisons. There is indeed proof that a toxin for one person

is a toxin for another in large enough number of cases to convince the

allopaths that they know what they are doing.

It doesn't convince me in the least. There is no way I shall be

persuaded that the use of a toxic substance can build health, nor that

use of toxins is appropriate for health care.

and

> impartial, statistically verified testing e.g. double-blind testing.

Such a sweet phrase - double-blind - don't you think? Describes the

allopathic world very well. Blind leading the blind - or double-blind.

I far prefer the scientific world of homeopathy - where mere observance

of how things work in nature is used and copied.

This makes ALL future homeopathy cases totally predictable in

advance - even for new diseases that have yet to occur - as to how they

will respond. There is no guesswork and testing needed so as to form an

opinion on how much toxin to use where and when as there is with toxic

medicines used in allopathy.

Do you not realize that a " double-blind " trial is just an experiment

with an opinion for outcome?

And you want your health based on someone's opinion about toxins?

No thanks. Not for me!

I'll take the science of homeopathy, copied directly from nature and

applied with 100% *predictability* in advance, as to what remedy can

achieve what result - and without toxicity. No matter how clever the

allopaths are, they will never be able to *predict* what a toxic drug

will do in an individual. And until they can - I want no part of their

toxic approaches.

I

> admit I find some of these ideas interesting but I can't take them

> seriously until proper scientific tests are done to prove these ideas

> work,

Homeopathy is a lot more scientific than allopathy could ever be:-))

Everyone who ever looked into it properly, and that' sa lot of people

over the 200 years pr so it has been available, has come out a strong

proponent for how scientific it is and how unscientific allopathy is:-)))

Nobody who looked into it properly, ever decided it was less than

scientific. That includes me. I started in medical research remember -

allopathic double-blind type medical research:-)))

Homeopathy attracts me because it is true science. Allopathy is not. It

is based on experiments and opinions (which is all a double-blind

" trial " is!!!) There are no basic principles behind allopathy at all,

it's a wild and unpredictable array of toxins with horrific long-term

effects and often horrific short-term effects too. How the public was

ever duped into using such a system I don't know!

I far prefer a system with solid grounding starting from and building

upon, principles repeatedly and unvaryingly observed in nature.

> there has been so much fakery

There's a minority of charlatan nonsense in both allopathy and

alternative medicine. In USA the allopaths are terrified the word will

get out about how safe and effective the alternative forms are, and so

THEY spread fakery and stories to discredit it. There's an active well

funded (by drug companies) campaign to do this, so as not to lose all

their profits to alternative medicine.

That does not change the fact that alternatives are available from well

qualified professionals if you bother to look for proper degrees - just

as you expect your doctor to have a license.

> and selective publishing, sadly even

> in standard medicine,

ALlopaths will not publish alternative health successes - they do not

want to lose their profits by losing their clients to safer and better

from of health care.

However you can still read up in the professional journals of the

relevant professions. You should not be complaining that plumbing

journals do not publish electrical journal articles - or that homeopathy

journals do not publish allopathic drug articles. It's appropriate that

each profession has their own journals!!!

> this makes scientific proof all the more

> important, for all schools of medicine.

Your conclusion does not follow on from your arguments leading up to

that statement.

However - just as when you study medicine you are led to believe there

is science in it - if you bother to study homeopathy, you will see that

not only is homeopathy very scientific but it is so much so that it

makes allopathy look like bumbling experimentation (which it is) by

comparison.

With respect - the only reason YOU personally do not see the science of

homeopathy, is that you have not yet taken thge trouble to look into it

:-)))

I challenge you to do so, as you will be surprised, as were all before

you who bothered to do so.

Myself included:-)))

I was brought up strictly in the conventional world. I had to have my

nose rubbed in it to see the light - I had your kind of prejudice

instilled into my by my father :-)) My only regret is that I did not

wake up sooner and really look - critically instead of with the

propaganda people had put in my head - at allopathy and homeopathy.

This double-blind stuff for example is propaganda. That's no way to

prove something is good medicine!

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.

www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)

Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it.

[Guest guest]

Irene,

Not that you seem to need it, but I want to voice support for your

stance.

Sometimes a lurker has to do that.

I have little experience clinically with homeopathy, but I've become

convinced over the years that it is a true science.

I think it was a few years ago I read a published report of scientists

that discovered that water does indeed become imprinted with a

signature when diluted and succussed to the point of no original

substance detectable.

I remember saying " aha, homeopathy proved! " .

And ,of course, the fact that it works on animals is a proof in

itself.

Celeste's argument that it didn't work for her is also valid, at least

until she hits the right practitioner.

The harping about double blind studies is the predictable step in the

declining quality of argument.

The next decline occurs when spelling is criticized. (This is always

the path in usenet discussions, before namecalling etc.)

Keep it up, it's most iteresting.

Chuck

Scientists tell us that the fastest animal on earth, with a top speed

of 120 ft/sec, is a cow that has been dropped out of a helicopter.

-- Dave Berry

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:47:10 -0700, Irene de Villiers

<furryboots@...> wrote:

>

>

>nospam.rwp@... wrote:

>> Faith is belief without proof,

>

>In that case I guess I lack faith.

>I make use of things that work, AFTER observing that they work. That

>does not require faith.

>

> > this requires repeatability

>

>No thanks.

>I had gangrene once, that was enough. I do not wish repeatability of it

>- I had breast cancer once and do not want s repeat - and so on.

>

>Repeatability is a concept that only applies to toxic substances.

>So it lends itself well to allopathy as that is based on toxic

>substances - poisons. There is indeed proof that a toxin for one person

>is a toxin for another in large enough number of cases to convince the

>allopaths that they know what they are doing.

>

>It doesn't convince me in the least. There is no way I shall be

>persuaded that the use of a toxic substance can build health, nor that

>use of toxins is appropriate for health care.

>

> and

>> impartial, statistically verified testing e.g. double-blind testing.

>

>Such a sweet phrase - double-blind - don't you think? Describes the

>allopathic world very well. Blind leading the blind - or double-blind.

>I far prefer the scientific world of homeopathy - where mere observance

>of how things work in nature is used and copied.

> This makes ALL future homeopathy cases totally predictable in

>advance - even for new diseases that have yet to occur - as to how they

>will respond. There is no guesswork and testing needed so as to form an

>opinion on how much toxin to use where and when as there is with toxic

>medicines used in allopathy.

>

>Do you not realize that a " double-blind " trial is just an experiment

>with an opinion for outcome?

>And you want your health based on someone's opinion about toxins?

>No thanks. Not for me!

>

>I'll take the science of homeopathy, copied directly from nature and

>applied with 100% *predictability* in advance, as to what remedy can

>achieve what result - and without toxicity. No matter how clever the

>allopaths are, they will never be able to *predict* what a toxic drug

>will do in an individual. And until they can - I want no part of their

>toxic approaches.

>

> I

>> admit I find some of these ideas interesting but I can't take them

>> seriously until proper scientific tests are done to prove these ideas

>> work,

>

>Homeopathy is a lot more scientific than allopathy could ever be:-))

>Everyone who ever looked into it properly, and that' sa lot of people

>over the 200 years pr so it has been available, has come out a strong

>proponent for how scientific it is and how unscientific allopathy is:-)))

>Nobody who looked into it properly, ever decided it was less than

>scientific. That includes me. I started in medical research remember -

>allopathic double-blind type medical research:-)))

>Homeopathy attracts me because it is true science. Allopathy is not. It

>is based on experiments and opinions (which is all a double-blind

> " trial " is!!!) There are no basic principles behind allopathy at all,

>it's a wild and unpredictable array of toxins with horrific long-term

>effects and often horrific short-term effects too. How the public was

>ever duped into using such a system I don't know!

>

>I far prefer a system with solid grounding starting from and building

>upon, principles repeatedly and unvaryingly observed in nature.

>

>> there has been so much fakery

>

>There's a minority of charlatan nonsense in both allopathy and

>alternative medicine. In USA the allopaths are terrified the word will

>get out about how safe and effective the alternative forms are, and so

>THEY spread fakery and stories to discredit it. There's an active well

>funded (by drug companies) campaign to do this, so as not to lose all

>their profits to alternative medicine.

>

>That does not change the fact that alternatives are available from well

>qualified professionals if you bother to look for proper degrees - just

>as you expect your doctor to have a license.

>

>> and selective publishing, sadly even

>> in standard medicine,

>

>ALlopaths will not publish alternative health successes - they do not

>want to lose their profits by losing their clients to safer and better

>from of health care.

>However you can still read up in the professional journals of the

>relevant professions. You should not be complaining that plumbing

>journals do not publish electrical journal articles - or that homeopathy

>journals do not publish allopathic drug articles. It's appropriate that

>each profession has their own journals!!!

>

>> this makes scientific proof all the more

>> important, for all schools of medicine.

>

>Your conclusion does not follow on from your arguments leading up to

>that statement.

>However - just as when you study medicine you are led to believe there

>is science in it - if you bother to study homeopathy, you will see that

>not only is homeopathy very scientific but it is so much so that it

>makes allopathy look like bumbling experimentation (which it is) by

>comparison.

>

>With respect - the only reason YOU personally do not see the science of

>homeopathy, is that you have not yet taken thge trouble to look into it

>:-)))

>I challenge you to do so, as you will be surprised, as were all before

>you who bothered to do so.

>

>Myself included:-)))

>I was brought up strictly in the conventional world. I had to have my

>nose rubbed in it to see the light - I had your kind of prejudice

>instilled into my by my father :-)) My only regret is that I did not

>wake up sooner and really look - critically instead of with the

>propaganda people had put in my head - at allopathy and homeopathy.

>

>This double-blind stuff for example is propaganda. That's no way to

>prove something is good medicine!

>

>Namaste,

> Irene

[Guest guest]

Faith is also based on someone's personal experiences & perceptions. I

value hearing about the experiences of others. I respect each point of

view. Absolutely, I believe each side holds merit on this whole issue.

My experiences have taught me there isn't just one 'right' way.

Simply, science doesn't know it all yet.

nospam.rwp@... wrote:

>Faith is belief without proof, that maybe OK when building a hypothesis, but is

no good for a scientific theory, this requires repeatability and impartial,

statistically verified testing e.g. double-blind testing.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Irene:

You go for it girl!!! I haven't the time or the inclination for those

who walk around with blinders on.

FYI my background is an Asst. Trainer Level in N.L.P. and the same in

ksonian Hypnosis a basic level in Neuro-Semantics together with a

practice in Bio-Energetics (Vega) and complex as opposed to classical

homeopathy. I also act as a spiritual counselor.

Hypnosis is another of those things that we don't have the foggiest

notion of how it works yet like acupuncture many operations on the body

have been performed while using them. I for one trained a client to have

root canal while he self hypnotized himself...no pain.

Irene de Villiers wrote:

>nospam.rwp@... wrote:

>

>

>>Faith is belief without proof,

>>

>>

>

>In that case I guess I lack faith.

>I make use of things that work, AFTER observing that they work. That

>does not require faith.

>

> > this requires repeatability

>

>No thanks.

>I had gangrene once, that was enough. I do not wish repeatability of it

>- I had breast cancer once and do not want s repeat - and so on.

>

>Repeatability is a concept that only applies to toxic substances.

>So it lends itself well to allopathy as that is based on toxic

>substances - poisons. There is indeed proof that a toxin for one person

>is a toxin for another in large enough number of cases to convince the

>allopaths that they know what they are doing.

>

>It doesn't convince me in the least. There is no way I shall be

>persuaded that the use of a toxic substance can build health, nor that

>use of toxins is appropriate for health care.

>

> and

>

>

[Guest guest]

I am sure that substituting one pain for another has some merit. Pain is

somewhat manupulable, However, when I went to a chiropracter who pinched me and

made me sore it didnt do anything for my ruptured disc. I am sure there are many

valid manifestations of chiropracty however. I heard one explaination of

acupuncture that made a bit of possible logic.....the plasma energy body that we

see in a high electromagnetic field through kirlian photography is supposed to

pour through your veins and out of your eyes, but I heard someone say that the

acupuncture points are at the locations where this energy comes in and out. This

energy is charged with breathing negative ions. It would also lend merit to

prana, which is breathing, in the East Indian philosophies. As for me I am a

scientist and I go by legal citations and the results of repeatable studies.

Yet, even a faith healing should even have a scientific explaination.