Re: To Lee re: flush, quacks and mainstream medicine

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/20/2000 11:59:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

meg9999@... writes:

<< On the negative side for Hulda , I do find her blanket claims of

all disease having the same (organic) cause, too simple an

explanation in our complicated, polluted, bioengineered world. >>

Her books are anything but simple and so are the scientific explanations she

gives for different toxins and parasites affecting different people,

differently. What would you say in a few short words to summarize these works?

After witnessing my entire family be relieved of all illness after following

the same protocol, I no longer question the simplicity of it, only why this

cure would be suppressed.

A rose by any other name......

Foggs

[Guest guest]

An EXCELLENT post, Meg!

Many,many good points, well presented.

Wish I said that!

Chuck

It is better to light a flame thrower than to curse the darkness!

On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:57:43 -0000, " Meg " <meg9999@...> wrote:

>I appreciate the information you have imparted. I intend to

>investigate this procedure further and re-evaluate my initial success

>more thoroughly. That being said, I can't help but feel rather irked

>at the haughty manner in which you present your side of this issue.

>Quotes like " the world wants to be deceived " , are hardly likely to

>draw open minds to your position. Personally, I do not like to be

>deceived, and I go to great lengths to find the truth in many aspects

>of life. But one must ask oneself, why are so many people turning to

>alternative health care? The answer is quite obvious. Much of the

>mainstream medical profession has sold out to the mammoth money-

>making conglomerates that promote their myriad of drugs and fancy

>machines. I for one, do not hold " profit making " against Dr. .

>Yes, I would, no doubt admire her more, if I knew she generously

>donated to worthy causes, but I find it highly hypocritical of

>someone who clearly stands on the side of mainstream medicine to

>point the finger at profit making as a sign of dishonesty.

[Guest guest]

Thank you, meg, for your thorough going entry. Regarding Dr.

being driven by money, please note:

.. She allows her book to be copied, no charge,

.. she has not patented the zapper,

.. she has not patented the syncrometer,

.. she has not endorsed any company's product for compensation

The above noted are not consistent with greed.

Leo.

-------------------------------------------

> I appreciate the information you have imparted. I intend to

> investigate this procedure further and re-evaluate my initial

success

> more thoroughly. That being said, I can't help but feel rather

irked

> at the haughty manner in which you present your side of this issue.

> Quotes like " the world wants to be deceived " , are hardly likely to

> draw open minds to your position. Personally, I do not like to be

> deceived, and I go to great lengths to find the truth in many

aspects

> of life. But one must ask oneself, why are so many people turning

to

> alternative health care? The answer is quite obvious. Much of the

> mainstream medical profession has sold out to the mammoth money-

> making conglomerates that promote their myriad of drugs and fancy

> machines. I for one, do not hold " profit making " against Dr.

.

> Yes, I would, no doubt admire her more, if I knew she generously

> donated to worthy causes, but I find it highly hypocritical of

> someone who clearly stands on the side of mainstream medicine to

> point the finger at profit making as a sign of dishonesty.

>

> A good friend of mines father was an outstanding doctor of Internal

> Medicine. He was a man " before his time " and a man of great

ethical

> grounding. Three decades ago, he made this statement, " They will

> NEVER find a cure for cancer because it is simply too profitable a

> disease " . How right that man was. Can you just see some miracle

> plant or drug or procedure being discovered that eradicates cancer?

> Since we are dreaming here, let's pretend the drug is cheap and

> plentiful. Would mainstream medicine shout it from the hill tops?

> Would they throw away all those invasive chemotherapy and radiation

> machines? Would they close down the cancer wards, re-educate the

> specialists, change the medical school's curriculum? Would the

> pharmaceutical companies toss out all those nasty drugs and say " to

> hell with profits " , its mankind we are happy for? Keep dreaming.

>

> The reason why people like myself look into alternative approaches

to

> medicine is that mainstream medicine cannot be trusted. Drugs are

> regularly approved that are known to be dangerous. The FDA is a

joke

> and the doctors sitting on the panels that review such drugs often

> are stockholders in the drug companies. Our population is

regularly

> poisoned by the very people we entrust to help us gain our health.

> When money talks, ethics walk and I'm not talking about some piddly

7

> million dollars, that Hulda may have amassed, I am talking

> about billions, even trillions of dollars that make up the world

> of " modern medicine.

>

> Face it, big business runs the world, we are headed toward a

> Socialistic, centrally controlled world government. The medical

> profession has been virtually taken over from the Universities on

up

> by big corporate interests. Those that are brave enough and

ethical

> enough to buck the system have their ambition curtailed and those

> that play the game of scamming the public and bilking the

individual

> and the government are paid princely sums.

>

> Like I said, I am always open to information...regardless of

whether

> it conflicts with my present thinking (that's how we learn and

grow);

> but, please don't try the condescending approach, it's just too

> hypocritical to swallow.

>

> You claim that the so called gallstones we are experiencing are a

> product of the Epsom salts and olive oil mixture. I'll buy that

> that " may " be a possibility. However, it does not explain to me

why

> on my first flush I had hundreds of tiny stones and chaff whereas,

on

> the second flush the stones were much larger and " older " looking.

> They were, in fact, quite hard; something I would not expect in a

> stone made during a few hours of an intestinal flush. After

reading

> your information, I mixed up a batch of Epsom salts and combined it

> with olive oil and grapefruit to see if there was any sign of a

> reaction that would indicate the stones were forming merely by the

> combination of these products. As one would expect, the olive oil

> mixture simply floated on the top. Obviously, products of

digestion

> may act as the catalyst in forming the stones, but as another

poster

> suggested...only a laboratory could tell us for sure.

>

> On the negative side for Hulda , I do find her blanket claims

of

> all disease having the same (organic) cause, too simple an

> explanation in our complicated, polluted, bioengineered world.

> However, I do believe she is correct that toxification, whether

> through parasites and/or chemicals has a huge affect on our bodies

> immune systems. And, in my opinion, vaccines are also suspect when

it

> comes to immune system malfunctions. It therefore, makes sense to

try

> and rid the body of as much toxin as possible.

>

> As far as dental work to remove mercury fillings goes...that only

> makes sense. What makes absolutely no sense to me (given the

> choice); is to choose a substance known to cause serious problems

in

> the human body as a filler in ones teeth were it sits in pools of

> digestive liquid. And, as for caps and crowns that lay on root-

> canalled teeth, it is not just Hulda that makes the point

that

> keeping dead tissue in the body could lead to unhealthy side

> effects. I for one, have at least one crown that has bothered me

off

> and on for years and I do not doubt that it has some small,

festering

> underlying infection going on under it. Each individual needs to

> make up their own mind with respect to these decisions.

>

> It's interesting to note that where I live, it's against the law

> for

> a dentist to suggest the removal of amalgam fillings unless they

are

> physically damaged. At the same time, fillings that are removed

have

> to be handled as " toxic waste " and are picked up by special

> waste

> removal companies. Why do you think that is? Could it be, that if

> dentists were allowed to suggest the removal of these fillings,

> thereby insinuating that they might be dangerous, the Dental

> Association might risk huge class-action law suits? Dentists are

> frequently blackballed for trying to do the right thing; the good,

> ethical ones are in the same boat as the MD's.. And, let's not

> forget the American Dental Associations stand on Fluoridated water

> and Fluoride in toothpaste and mouthwash. Here again, they have

sold

> out for the almighty dollar. Fluoride is the number one component

in

> rat poison. It's origins and promotion by the dental association

are

> tied to government justification for dumping fluoride, which was a

> byproduct of the production of the Atomic bomb back in the

> 1940's...into the local water system. Currently, it saves the

> fertilizer industry (where fluoride is now produced as a byproduct)

> six Billion with a " B " , dollars a year by allowing them to sell it

> off to our water districts and toothpaste manufacturers instead of

> correctly disposing of it as an environmental hazard. Anyone who

> has investigated this subject thoroughly will come to the

conclusion

> that the American Dental Association does NOT have their client's

> best interest at heart. It is also interesting to note that the

first

> persons to use Fluoride in water were the Nazi's. Papers now

> available to the public from WWII archives show that the Nazi's put

> Fluoride into the concentration camp water supply because

> it " subdued " the prisoners.

>

> Is it any wonder that more and more people are finding it hard to

> have faith in the mainstream medical and dental profession?

[Guest guest]

AMEN to all of below!!!!

>A good friend of mines father was an outstanding doctor of Internal

>Medicine. He was a man " before his time " and a man of great ethical

>grounding. Three decades ago, he made this statement, " They will

>NEVER find a cure for cancer because it is simply too profitable a

>disease " . How right that man was. Can you just see some miracle

>plant or drug or procedure being discovered that eradicates cancer?

>Since we are dreaming here, let's pretend the drug is cheap and

>plentiful. Would mainstream medicine shout it from the hill tops?

>Would they throw away all those invasive chemotherapy and radiation

>machines? Would they close down the cancer wards, re-educate the

>specialists, change the medical school's curriculum? Would the

>pharmaceutical companies toss out all those nasty drugs and say " to

>hell with profits " , its mankind we are happy for? Keep dreaming.

>

>The reason why people like myself look into alternative approaches to

>medicine is that mainstream medicine cannot be trusted. Drugs are

>regularly approved that are known to be dangerous. The FDA is a joke

>and the doctors sitting on the panels that review such drugs often

>are stockholders in the drug companies. Our population is regularly

>poisoned by the very people we entrust to help us gain our health.

>When money talks, ethics walk and I'm not talking about some piddly 7

>million dollars, that Hulda may have amassed, I am talking

>about billions, even trillions of dollars that make up the world

>of " modern medicine.

[Guest guest]

THANK YOU MEG!! This is an excellent post that I am saving in my files. Very

well said and very true.

Jan

> I appreciate the information you have imparted. I intend to

> investigate this procedure further and re-evaluate my initial success

> more thoroughly. That being said, I can't help but feel rather irked

> at the haughty manner in which you present your side of this issue.

> Quotes like " the world wants to be deceived " , are hardly likely to

> draw open minds to your position. Personally, I do not like to be

> deceived, and I go to great lengths to find the truth in many aspects

> of life. But one must ask oneself, why are so many people turning to

> alternative health care? The answer is quite obvious. Much of the

> mainstream medical profession has sold out to the mammoth money-

> making conglomerates that promote their myriad of drugs and fancy

> machines. I for one, do not hold " profit making " against Dr. .

> Yes, I would, no doubt admire her more, if I knew she generously

> donated to worthy causes, but I find it highly hypocritical of

> someone who clearly stands on the side of mainstream medicine to

> point the finger at profit making as a sign of dishonesty.

>

> A good friend of mines father was an outstanding doctor of Internal

> Medicine. He was a man " before his time " and a man of great ethical

> grounding. Three decades ago, he made this statement, " They will

> NEVER find a cure for cancer because it is simply too profitable a

> disease " . How right that man was. Can you just see some miracle

> plant or drug or procedure being discovered that eradicates cancer?

> Since we are dreaming here, let's pretend the drug is cheap and

> plentiful. Would mainstream medicine shout it from the hill tops?

> Would they throw away all those invasive chemotherapy and radiation

> machines? Would they close down the cancer wards, re-educate the

> specialists, change the medical school's curriculum? Would the

> pharmaceutical companies toss out all those nasty drugs and say " to

> hell with profits " , its mankind we are happy for? Keep dreaming.

>

> The reason why people like myself look into alternative approaches to

> medicine is that mainstream medicine cannot be trusted. Drugs are

> regularly approved that are known to be dangerous. The FDA is a joke

> and the doctors sitting on the panels that review such drugs often

> are stockholders in the drug companies. Our population is regularly

> poisoned by the very people we entrust to help us gain our health.

> When money talks, ethics walk and I'm not talking about some piddly 7

> million dollars, that Hulda may have amassed, I am talking

> about billions, even trillions of dollars that make up the world

> of " modern medicine.

>

> Face it, big business runs the world, we are headed toward a

> Socialistic, centrally controlled world government. The medical

> profession has been virtually taken over from the Universities on up

> by big corporate interests. Those that are brave enough and ethical

> enough to buck the system have their ambition curtailed and those

> that play the game of scamming the public and bilking the individual

> and the government are paid princely sums.

>

> Like I said, I am always open to information...regardless of whether

> it conflicts with my present thinking (that's how we learn and grow);

> but, please don't try the condescending approach, it's just too

> hypocritical to swallow.

>

> You claim that the so called gallstones we are experiencing are a

> product of the Epsom salts and olive oil mixture. I'll buy that

> that " may " be a possibility. However, it does not explain to me why

> on my first flush I had hundreds of tiny stones and chaff whereas, on

> the second flush the stones were much larger and " older " looking.

> They were, in fact, quite hard; something I would not expect in a

> stone made during a few hours of an intestinal flush. After reading

> your information, I mixed up a batch of Epsom salts and combined it

> with olive oil and grapefruit to see if there was any sign of a

> reaction that would indicate the stones were forming merely by the

> combination of these products. As one would expect, the olive oil

> mixture simply floated on the top. Obviously, products of digestion

> may act as the catalyst in forming the stones, but as another poster

> suggested...only a laboratory could tell us for sure.

>

> On the negative side for Hulda , I do find her blanket claims of

> all disease having the same (organic) cause, too simple an

> explanation in our complicated, polluted, bioengineered world.

> However, I do believe she is correct that toxification, whether

> through parasites and/or chemicals has a huge affect on our bodies

> immune systems. And, in my opinion, vaccines are also suspect when it

> comes to immune system malfunctions. It therefore, makes sense to try

> and rid the body of as much toxin as possible.

>

> As far as dental work to remove mercury fillings goes...that only

> makes sense. What makes absolutely no sense to me (given the

> choice); is to choose a substance known to cause serious problems in

> the human body as a filler in ones teeth were it sits in pools of

> digestive liquid. And, as for caps and crowns that lay on root-

> canalled teeth, it is not just Hulda that makes the point that

> keeping dead tissue in the body could lead to unhealthy side

> effects. I for one, have at least one crown that has bothered me off

> and on for years and I do not doubt that it has some small, festering

> underlying infection going on under it. Each individual needs to

> make up their own mind with respect to these decisions.

>

> It's interesting to note that where I live, it's against the law

> for

> a dentist to suggest the removal of amalgam fillings unless they are

> physically damaged. At the same time, fillings that are removed have

> to be handled as " toxic waste " and are picked up by special

> waste

> removal companies. Why do you think that is? Could it be, that if

> dentists were allowed to suggest the removal of these fillings,

> thereby insinuating that they might be dangerous, the Dental

> Association might risk huge class-action law suits? Dentists are

> frequently blackballed for trying to do the right thing; the good,

> ethical ones are in the same boat as the MD's.. And, let's not

> forget the American Dental Associations stand on Fluoridated water

> and Fluoride in toothpaste and mouthwash. Here again, they have sold

> out for the almighty dollar. Fluoride is the number one component in

> rat poison. It's origins and promotion by the dental association are

> tied to government justification for dumping fluoride, which was a

> byproduct of the production of the Atomic bomb back in the

> 1940's...into the local water system. Currently, it saves the

> fertilizer industry (where fluoride is now produced as a byproduct)

> six Billion with a " B " , dollars a year by allowing them to sell it

> off to our water districts and toothpaste manufacturers instead of

> correctly disposing of it as an environmental hazard. Anyone who

> has investigated this subject thoroughly will come to the conclusion

> that the American Dental Association does NOT have their client's

> best interest at heart. It is also interesting to note that the first

> persons to use Fluoride in water were the Nazi's. Papers now

> available to the public from WWII archives show that the Nazi's put

> Fluoride into the concentration camp water supply because

> it " subdued " the prisoners.

>

> Is it any wonder that more and more people are finding it hard to

> have faith in the mainstream medical and dental profession?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Absolutely!! This is the one thing that perturbs me, Hulda is not greedy in

any way. Why would she still be working at age 72?? Those who know her know

that she is only interested in helping others...........Period.

Jan

> Thank you, meg, for your thorough going entry. Regarding Dr.

> being driven by money, please note:

>

> . She allows her book to be copied, no charge,

> . she has not patented the zapper,

> . she has not patented the syncrometer,

> . she has not endorsed any company's product for compensation

>

> The above noted are not consistent with greed.

> Leo.

[Guest guest]

Way to go lisa. In the last several years I have learned so much of what you

have said to be the truth.There is definitly cures out there.My pharmacist

told me a couple of months ago that they were told in a cont. ed. class,

That there would be a medical revolution in the USA within the next two

years.Tha reason is that (1) OLD CURES that have been suppresed by the NIH

and pharmaceuticals have resurfaced and that there was overwelming eviedence

that ALTERNATIVE works.This is to those ORTHODOX DR's that tells patients

that there is no cure for their desease, at least ALTERNATIVE gives us hope

and dammit, it WORK Good Luck to you L:isa and I hope more people will stand

up. Re: To Lee re: flush, quacks and mainstream medicine

>

>

> AMEN to all of below!!!!

>

>

>

> >A good friend of mines father was an outstanding doctor of Internal

> >Medicine. He was a man " before his time " and a man of great ethical

> >grounding. Three decades ago, he made this statement, " They will

> >NEVER find a cure for cancer because it is simply too profitable a

> >disease " . How right that man was. Can you just see some miracle

> >plant or drug or procedure being discovered that eradicates cancer?

> >Since we are dreaming here, let's pretend the drug is cheap and

> >plentiful. Would mainstream medicine shout it from the hill tops?

> >Would they throw away all those invasive chemotherapy and radiation

> >machines? Would they close down the cancer wards, re-educate the

> >specialists, change the medical school's curriculum? Would the

> >pharmaceutical companies toss out all those nasty drugs and say " to

> >hell with profits " , its mankind we are happy for? Keep dreaming.

> >

> >The reason why people like myself look into alternative approaches to

> >medicine is that mainstream medicine cannot be trusted. Drugs are

> >regularly approved that are known to be dangerous. The FDA is a joke

> >and the doctors sitting on the panels that review such drugs often

> >are stockholders in the drug companies. Our population is regularly

> >poisoned by the very people we entrust to help us gain our health.

> >When money talks, ethics walk and I'm not talking about some piddly 7

> >million dollars, that Hulda may have amassed, I am talking

> >about billions, even trillions of dollars that make up the world

> >of " modern medicine.

>

>

>

>

> Learn more from:

> http://home.online.no/~dusan/

> http://www.geocities.com/~mycleanse/

> http://home.online.no/~huldakli/

> http://www..net/

> http://home.online.no/~dusan/gallstones/

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Thank you, meg, for your thorough going entry. Regarding Dr.

> being driven by money, please note:

>

> . She allows her book to be copied, no charge,

> . she has not patented the zapper,

> . she has not patented the syncrometer,

> . she has not endorsed any company's product for compensation

>

> The above noted are not consistent with greed.

From what I've read about her I don't get the impression that she is

motivated by money. Even though I am not, so far, convinced about

the claims she is making about the cure for all diseases, I also

don't see any evidence of malevolent intentions on her part.

On the other hand, there have been a number of personal attacks on

Dr. Barrett here as well. I am pretty familiar with his web site and

some things I agree with that he's written and others I have to take

strong issue with. I do think he throws the baby out with the

bathwater when it comes to " alternative " medicine and I agree with

those on the list who have pointed out that there is much

in " traditional " medicine to be skeptical about. That said, I don't

think that he is the evil demon he is being made out to be. The

impression I have of Dr. Barrett is that he is a person who cares

very deeply about others and wants to protect people from harm. This

is a person who is spending his retirement helping others. I think

he is performing a good service. A thinking person can go to his

website, read the information there and decide if its valid or not.

I have been to many " alternative " events and I see how easily people,

especially those in a vulnerable situation, accept things that really

need to be questioned. I am really bothered by this. I think that

the biggest problem with many of the " alternative " innovators is that

brilliant as they are, they fall too much in love with their own

ideas and then do not remain open to contradictory evidence and

instead look only for confirmation, explaining away contradictions.

As someone who is both skeptical and involved in alternative

approaches, I do think that skeptics and alternative proponents would

have a far more productive dialogue if we acknowledged the positive

intentions of both sides. While there are some out and out con

artists that do exist and need to be exposed, I don't think this

holds true for the vast majority of people in this field. I have

been with skeptics and I have been with " alternative " people and I

have noticed that both tend to demonize the other side when most of

the time this is not warranted.

Pignotti

[Guest guest]

Meg - about modern medicine - right on!

But about the 'stones' - these are certainly not a product of the oil

and salts, though the oil at least will be found within them - its

partly why we use it - to soften the stones. Besides, the oil I use

is not green. There are also different types of stones, grit like and

larger rounded ones, of various colors, and 'chaff'. On my second

flush, I had fasted and was empty - but a little while after the

stones came a huge amount of chaff - possibly gunk from the

intestines? - and am I glad its out!

Another point - more a question - even Hulda says that stones

are often green on the 'outside' and that this is coating of bile.

The ones I have examined have been bright green, almost fluorescent

green in the middle. Anyone know why - infection of some kind ??

K

> I appreciate the information you have imparted. I intend to

> investigate this procedure further and re-evaluate my initial

success

> more thoroughly. That being said, I can't help but feel rather

irked

> at the haughty manner in which you present your side of this issue.

> Quotes like " the world wants to be deceived " , are hardly likely to

> draw open minds to your position. Personally, I do not like to be

> deceived, and I go to great lengths to find the truth in many

aspects

> of life. But one must ask oneself, why are so many people turning

to

> alternative health care? The answer is quite obvious. Much of the

> mainstream medical profession has sold out to the mammoth money-

> making conglomerates that promote their myriad of drugs and fancy

> machines. I for one, do not hold " profit making " against Dr.

.

> Yes, I would, no doubt admire her more, if I knew she generously

> donated to worthy causes, but I find it highly hypocritical of

> someone who clearly stands on the side of mainstream medicine to

> point the finger at profit making as a sign of dishonesty.

>

> A good friend of mines father was an outstanding doctor of Internal

> Medicine. He was a man " before his time " and a man of great

ethical

> grounding. Three decades ago, he made this statement, " They will

> NEVER find a cure for cancer because it is simply too profitable a

> disease " . How right that man was. Can you just see some miracle

> plant or drug or procedure being discovered that eradicates

cancer?

> Since we are dreaming here, let's pretend the drug is cheap and

> plentiful. Would mainstream medicine shout it from the hill tops?

> Would they throw away all those invasive chemotherapy and radiation

> machines? Would they close down the cancer wards, re-educate the

> specialists, change the medical school's curriculum? Would the

> pharmaceutical companies toss out all those nasty drugs and say " to

> hell with profits " , its mankind we are happy for? Keep dreaming.

>

> The reason why people like myself look into alternative approaches

to

> medicine is that mainstream medicine cannot be trusted. Drugs are

> regularly approved that are known to be dangerous. The FDA is a

joke

> and the doctors sitting on the panels that review such drugs often

> are stockholders in the drug companies. Our population is

regularly

> poisoned by the very people we entrust to help us gain our health.

> When money talks, ethics walk and I'm not talking about some piddly

7

> million dollars, that Hulda may have amassed, I am talking

> about billions, even trillions of dollars that make up the world

> of " modern medicine.

>

> Face it, big business runs the world, we are headed toward a

> Socialistic, centrally controlled world government. The medical

> profession has been virtually taken over from the Universities on

up

> by big corporate interests. Those that are brave enough and

ethical

> enough to buck the system have their ambition curtailed and those

> that play the game of scamming the public and bilking the

individual

> and the government are paid princely sums.

>

> Like I said, I am always open to information...regardless of

whether

> it conflicts with my present thinking (that's how we learn and

grow);

> but, please don't try the condescending approach, it's just too

> hypocritical to swallow.

>

> You claim that the so called gallstones we are experiencing are a

> product of the Epsom salts and olive oil mixture. I'll buy that

> that " may " be a possibility. However, it does not explain to me

why

> on my first flush I had hundreds of tiny stones and chaff whereas,

on

> the second flush the stones were much larger and " older " looking.

> They were, in fact, quite hard; something I would not expect in a

> stone made during a few hours of an intestinal flush. After

reading

> your information, I mixed up a batch of Epsom salts and combined it

> with olive oil and grapefruit to see if there was any sign of a

> reaction that would indicate the stones were forming merely by the

> combination of these products. As one would expect, the olive oil

> mixture simply floated on the top. Obviously, products of

digestion

> may act as the catalyst in forming the stones, but as another

poster

> suggested...only a laboratory could tell us for sure.

>

> On the negative side for Hulda , I do find her blanket claims

of

> all disease having the same (organic) cause, too simple an

> explanation in our complicated, polluted, bioengineered world.

> However, I do believe she is correct that toxification, whether

> through parasites and/or chemicals has a huge affect on our bodies

> immune systems. And, in my opinion, vaccines are also suspect when

it

> comes to immune system malfunctions. It therefore, makes sense to

try

> and rid the body of as much toxin as possible.

>

> As far as dental work to remove mercury fillings goes...that only

> makes sense. What makes absolutely no sense to me (given the

> choice); is to choose a substance known to cause serious problems

in

> the human body as a filler in ones teeth were it sits in pools of

> digestive liquid. And, as for caps and crowns that lay on root-

> canalled teeth, it is not just Hulda that makes the point

that

> keeping dead tissue in the body could lead to unhealthy side

> effects. I for one, have at least one crown that has bothered me

off

> and on for years and I do not doubt that it has some small,

festering

> underlying infection going on under it. Each individual needs to

> make up their own mind with respect to these decisions.

>

> It's interesting to note that where I live, it's against the law

> for

> a dentist to suggest the removal of amalgam fillings unless they

are

> physically damaged. At the same time, fillings that are removed

have

> to be handled as " toxic waste " and are picked up by special

> waste

> removal companies. Why do you think that is? Could it be, that if

> dentists were allowed to suggest the removal of these fillings,

> thereby insinuating that they might be dangerous, the Dental

> Association might risk huge class-action law suits? Dentists are

> frequently blackballed for trying to do the right thing; the good,

> ethical ones are in the same boat as the MD's.. And, let's not

> forget the American Dental Associations stand on Fluoridated water

> and Fluoride in toothpaste and mouthwash. Here again, they have

sold

> out for the almighty dollar. Fluoride is the number one component

in

> rat poison. It's origins and promotion by the dental association

are

> tied to government justification for dumping fluoride, which was a

> byproduct of the production of the Atomic bomb back in the

> 1940's...into the local water system. Currently, it saves the

> fertilizer industry (where fluoride is now produced as a byproduct)

> six Billion with a " B " , dollars a year by allowing them to sell it

> off to our water districts and toothpaste manufacturers instead of

> correctly disposing of it as an environmental hazard. Anyone who

> has investigated this subject thoroughly will come to the

conclusion

> that the American Dental Association does NOT have their client's

> best interest at heart. It is also interesting to note that the

first

> persons to use Fluoride in water were the Nazi's. Papers now

> available to the public from WWII archives show that the Nazi's put

> Fluoride into the concentration camp water supply because

> it " subdued " the prisoners.

>

> Is it any wonder that more and more people are finding it hard to

> have faith in the mainstream medical and dental profession?

[Guest guest]

Meg - about modern medicine - right on!

But about the 'stones' - these are certainly not a product of the oil

and salts, though the oil at least will be found within them - its

partly why we use it - to soften the stones. Besides, the oil I use

is not green. There are also different types of stones, grit like and

larger rounded ones, of various colors, and 'chaff'. On my second

flush, I had fasted and was empty - but a little while after the

stones came a huge amount of chaff - possibly gunk from the

intestines? - and am I glad its out!

Another point - more a question - even Hulda says that stones

are often green on the 'outside' and that this is coating of bile.

The ones I have examined have been bright green, almost fluorescent

green in the middle. Anyone know why - infection of some kind ??

K

> I appreciate the information you have imparted. I intend to

> investigate this procedure further and re-evaluate my initial

success

> more thoroughly. That being said, I can't help but feel rather

irked

> at the haughty manner in which you present your side of this issue.

> Quotes like " the world wants to be deceived " , are hardly likely to

> draw open minds to your position. Personally, I do not like to be

> deceived, and I go to great lengths to find the truth in many

aspects

> of life. But one must ask oneself, why are so many people turning

to

> alternative health care? The answer is quite obvious. Much of the

> mainstream medical profession has sold out to the mammoth money-

> making conglomerates that promote their myriad of drugs and fancy

> machines. I for one, do not hold " profit making " against Dr.

.

> Yes, I would, no doubt admire her more, if I knew she generously

> donated to worthy causes, but I find it highly hypocritical of

> someone who clearly stands on the side of mainstream medicine to

> point the finger at profit making as a sign of dishonesty.

>

> A good friend of mines father was an outstanding doctor of Internal

> Medicine. He was a man " before his time " and a man of great

ethical

> grounding. Three decades ago, he made this statement, " They will

> NEVER find a cure for cancer because it is simply too profitable a

> disease " . How right that man was. Can you just see some miracle

> plant or drug or procedure being discovered that eradicates

cancer?

> Since we are dreaming here, let's pretend the drug is cheap and

> plentiful. Would mainstream medicine shout it from the hill tops?

> Would they throw away all those invasive chemotherapy and radiation

> machines? Would they close down the cancer wards, re-educate the

> specialists, change the medical school's curriculum? Would the

> pharmaceutical companies toss out all those nasty drugs and say " to

> hell with profits " , its mankind we are happy for? Keep dreaming.

>

> The reason why people like myself look into alternative approaches

to

> medicine is that mainstream medicine cannot be trusted. Drugs are

> regularly approved that are known to be dangerous. The FDA is a

joke

> and the doctors sitting on the panels that review such drugs often

> are stockholders in the drug companies. Our population is

regularly

> poisoned by the very people we entrust to help us gain our health.

> When money talks, ethics walk and I'm not talking about some piddly

7

> million dollars, that Hulda may have amassed, I am talking

> about billions, even trillions of dollars that make up the world

> of " modern medicine.

>

> Face it, big business runs the world, we are headed toward a

> Socialistic, centrally controlled world government. The medical

> profession has been virtually taken over from the Universities on

up

> by big corporate interests. Those that are brave enough and

ethical

> enough to buck the system have their ambition curtailed and those

> that play the game of scamming the public and bilking the

individual

> and the government are paid princely sums.

>

> Like I said, I am always open to information...regardless of

whether

> it conflicts with my present thinking (that's how we learn and

grow);

> but, please don't try the condescending approach, it's just too

> hypocritical to swallow.

>

> You claim that the so called gallstones we are experiencing are a

> product of the Epsom salts and olive oil mixture. I'll buy that

> that " may " be a possibility. However, it does not explain to me

why

> on my first flush I had hundreds of tiny stones and chaff whereas,

on

> the second flush the stones were much larger and " older " looking.

> They were, in fact, quite hard; something I would not expect in a

> stone made during a few hours of an intestinal flush. After

reading

> your information, I mixed up a batch of Epsom salts and combined it

> with olive oil and grapefruit to see if there was any sign of a

> reaction that would indicate the stones were forming merely by the

> combination of these products. As one would expect, the olive oil

> mixture simply floated on the top. Obviously, products of

digestion

> may act as the catalyst in forming the stones, but as another

poster

> suggested...only a laboratory could tell us for sure.

>

> On the negative side for Hulda , I do find her blanket claims

of

> all disease having the same (organic) cause, too simple an

> explanation in our complicated, polluted, bioengineered world.

> However, I do believe she is correct that toxification, whether

> through parasites and/or chemicals has a huge affect on our bodies

> immune systems. And, in my opinion, vaccines are also suspect when

it

> comes to immune system malfunctions. It therefore, makes sense to

try

> and rid the body of as much toxin as possible.

>

> As far as dental work to remove mercury fillings goes...that only

> makes sense. What makes absolutely no sense to me (given the

> choice); is to choose a substance known to cause serious problems

in

> the human body as a filler in ones teeth were it sits in pools of

> digestive liquid. And, as for caps and crowns that lay on root-

> canalled teeth, it is not just Hulda that makes the point

that

> keeping dead tissue in the body could lead to unhealthy side

> effects. I for one, have at least one crown that has bothered me

off

> and on for years and I do not doubt that it has some small,

festering

> underlying infection going on under it. Each individual needs to

> make up their own mind with respect to these decisions.

>

> It's interesting to note that where I live, it's against the law

> for

> a dentist to suggest the removal of amalgam fillings unless they

are

> physically damaged. At the same time, fillings that are removed

have

> to be handled as " toxic waste " and are picked up by special

> waste

> removal companies. Why do you think that is? Could it be, that if

> dentists were allowed to suggest the removal of these fillings,

> thereby insinuating that they might be dangerous, the Dental

> Association might risk huge class-action law suits? Dentists are

> frequently blackballed for trying to do the right thing; the good,

> ethical ones are in the same boat as the MD's.. And, let's not

> forget the American Dental Associations stand on Fluoridated water

> and Fluoride in toothpaste and mouthwash. Here again, they have

sold

> out for the almighty dollar. Fluoride is the number one component

in

> rat poison. It's origins and promotion by the dental association

are

> tied to government justification for dumping fluoride, which was a

> byproduct of the production of the Atomic bomb back in the

> 1940's...into the local water system. Currently, it saves the

> fertilizer industry (where fluoride is now produced as a byproduct)

> six Billion with a " B " , dollars a year by allowing them to sell it

> off to our water districts and toothpaste manufacturers instead of

> correctly disposing of it as an environmental hazard. Anyone who

> has investigated this subject thoroughly will come to the

conclusion

> that the American Dental Association does NOT have their client's

> best interest at heart. It is also interesting to note that the

first

> persons to use Fluoride in water were the Nazi's. Papers now

> available to the public from WWII archives show that the Nazi's put

> Fluoride into the concentration camp water supply because

> it " subdued " the prisoners.

>

> Is it any wonder that more and more people are finding it hard to

> have faith in the mainstream medical and dental profession?

[Guest guest]

REGARDING TO WHAT YOU TOLD US, PLEASE, READ THE ARTICLE

http://cleansing.n3.net/modern_medicine.htm AND TELL ME WHAT YOU

THINK.

----------------

> I appreciate the information you have imparted. I intend to

> investigate this procedure further and re-evaluate my initial

success

> more thoroughly. That being said, I can't help but feel rather

irked

> at the haughty manner in which you present your side of this issue.

> Quotes like " the world wants to be deceived " , are hardly likely to

> draw open minds to your position. Personally, I do not like to be

> deceived, and I go to great lengths to find the truth in many

aspects

> of life. But one must ask oneself, why are so many people turning

to

> alternative health care? The answer is quite obvious. Much of the

> mainstream medical profession has sold out to the mammoth money-

> making conglomerates that promote their myriad of drugs and fancy

> machines. I for one, do not hold " profit making " against Dr.

.

> Yes, I would, no doubt admire her more, if I knew she generously

> donated to worthy causes, but I find it highly hypocritical of

> someone who clearly stands on the side of mainstream medicine to

> point the finger at profit making as a sign of dishonesty.

>

> A good friend of mines father was an outstanding doctor of Internal

> Medicine. He was a man " before his time " and a man of great

ethical

> grounding. Three decades ago, he made this statement, " They will

> NEVER find a cure for cancer because it is simply too profitable a

> disease " . How right that man was. Can you just see some miracle

> plant or drug or procedure being discovered that eradicates cancer?

> Since we are dreaming here, let's pretend the drug is cheap and

> plentiful. Would mainstream medicine shout it from the hill tops?

> Would they throw away all those invasive chemotherapy and radiation

> machines? Would they close down the cancer wards, re-educate the

> specialists, change the medical school's curriculum? Would the

> pharmaceutical companies toss out all those nasty drugs and say " to

> hell with profits " , its mankind we are happy for? Keep dreaming.

>

> The reason why people like myself look into alternative approaches

to

> medicine is that mainstream medicine cannot be trusted. Drugs are

> regularly approved that are known to be dangerous. The FDA is a

joke

> and the doctors sitting on the panels that review such drugs often

> are stockholders in the drug companies. Our population is

regularly

> poisoned by the very people we entrust to help us gain our health.

> When money talks, ethics walk and I'm not talking about some piddly

7

> million dollars, that Hulda may have amassed, I am talking

> about billions, even trillions of dollars that make up the world

> of " modern medicine.

>

> Face it, big business runs the world, we are headed toward a

> Socialistic, centrally controlled world government. The medical

> profession has been virtually taken over from the Universities on

up

> by big corporate interests. Those that are brave enough and

ethical

> enough to buck the system have their ambition curtailed and those

> that play the game of scamming the public and bilking the

individual

> and the government are paid princely sums.

>

> Like I said, I am always open to information...regardless of

whether

> it conflicts with my present thinking (that's how we learn and

grow);

> but, please don't try the condescending approach, it's just too

> hypocritical to swallow.

>

> You claim that the so called gallstones we are experiencing are a

> product of the Epsom salts and olive oil mixture. I'll buy that

> that " may " be a possibility. However, it does not explain to me

why

> on my first flush I had hundreds of tiny stones and chaff whereas,

on

> the second flush the stones were much larger and " older " looking.

> They were, in fact, quite hard; something I would not expect in a

> stone made during a few hours of an intestinal flush. After

reading

> your information, I mixed up a batch of Epsom salts and combined it

> with olive oil and grapefruit to see if there was any sign of a

> reaction that would indicate the stones were forming merely by the

> combination of these products. As one would expect, the olive oil

> mixture simply floated on the top. Obviously, products of

digestion

> may act as the catalyst in forming the stones, but as another

poster

> suggested...only a laboratory could tell us for sure.

>

> On the negative side for Hulda , I do find her blanket claims

of

> all disease having the same (organic) cause, too simple an

> explanation in our complicated, polluted, bioengineered world.

> However, I do believe she is correct that toxification, whether

> through parasites and/or chemicals has a huge affect on our bodies

> immune systems. And, in my opinion, vaccines are also suspect when

it

> comes to immune system malfunctions. It therefore, makes sense to

try

> and rid the body of as much toxin as possible.

>

> As far as dental work to remove mercury fillings goes...that only

> makes sense. What makes absolutely no sense to me (given the

> choice); is to choose a substance known to cause serious problems

in

> the human body as a filler in ones teeth were it sits in pools of

> digestive liquid. And, as for caps and crowns that lay on root-

> canalled teeth, it is not just Hulda that makes the point

that

> keeping dead tissue in the body could lead to unhealthy side

> effects. I for one, have at least one crown that has bothered me

off

> and on for years and I do not doubt that it has some small,

festering

> underlying infection going on under it. Each individual needs to

> make up their own mind with respect to these decisions.

>

> It's interesting to note that where I live, it's against the law

> for

> a dentist to suggest the removal of amalgam fillings unless they

are

> physically damaged. At the same time, fillings that are removed

have

> to be handled as " toxic waste " and are picked up by special

> waste

> removal companies. Why do you think that is? Could it be, that if

> dentists were allowed to suggest the removal of these fillings,

> thereby insinuating that they might be dangerous, the Dental

> Association might risk huge class-action law suits? Dentists are

> frequently blackballed for trying to do the right thing; the good,

> ethical ones are in the same boat as the MD's.. And, let's not

> forget the American Dental Associations stand on Fluoridated water

> and Fluoride in toothpaste and mouthwash. Here again, they have

sold

> out for the almighty dollar. Fluoride is the number one component

in

> rat poison. It's origins and promotion by the dental association

are

> tied to government justification for dumping fluoride, which was a

> byproduct of the production of the Atomic bomb back in the

> 1940's...into the local water system. Currently, it saves the

> fertilizer industry (where fluoride is now produced as a byproduct)

> six Billion with a " B " , dollars a year by allowing them to sell it

> off to our water districts and toothpaste manufacturers instead of

> correctly disposing of it as an environmental hazard. Anyone who

> has investigated this subject thoroughly will come to the

conclusion

> that the American Dental Association does NOT have their client's

> best interest at heart. It is also interesting to note that the

first

> persons to use Fluoride in water were the Nazi's. Papers now

> available to the public from WWII archives show that the Nazi's put

> Fluoride into the concentration camp water supply because

> it " subdued " the prisoners.

>

> Is it any wonder that more and more people are finding it hard to

> have faith in the mainstream medical and dental profession?