Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / February 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Introduction To The War in Medicine

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Carole - 25 Jan 2008 22:39 GMT
Chapter 1: Introduction To The War in Medicine
http://www.cancertutor.com/WarBetween/War_Intro.html

Introduction
We live in a world of "fast foods," "fast cars," and fast answers or should
I say: "shallow answers." Executives don't like to read reports of more than
one or two pages. People want to learn everything they need to know about
something by watching a 1/2 hour television show. Students want to learn
complicated mathematics while they play video games. And so on.
Unfortunately, the world of cancer politics and cancer treatments are not
simple subjects. They are complicated. Plus it is impossible to overcome
decades of constant false information by reading for half an hour. So grab
something to drink, settle into your seat, and grab your computer mouse,
because this is not going to be a short story, nor will it be entertaining.
Let us start with a metaphor.

The Small Town Metaphor
Let us suppose you move to a new town, in fact a small town with only two
car repair shops (i.e. "garages"). One of them is owned by Jim. The other by
Bob. Jim's garage is by far the biggest garage, he has lots of customers.
The problem is that Jim's mechanics are not very good because they have had
very poor training. In fact, most of the time the cars they have "repaired"
are in worse shape when they are done, than when the car first came in. Most
people put up with Jim, and just live with the shoddy work.
However, some people go to Bob's garage, usually after they have gone to
Jim's garage first. While Jim's garage charges an average of $1,500 per car
repair job, Bob's garage only charges $75 per car repair job. Furthermore,
in over 90% of the time, Bob's garage completely fixes the cars of its
customers, including the extra damage done by Jim's garage.
You are new to the town, and wonder why anyone would ever take their car to
Jim's garage and why everyone doesn't take their car to Bob's garage first.

Then one day as you are reading the newspaper you see part of the problem.
Jim is so rich he has several large ads in the newspaper every day. Bob
rarely advertises, and when he does he usually gets a visit from the police,
and it is not a friendly visit. It seems that all prior policemen in the
town now work at Jim's garage, and the current policeman looks forward to a
cushy job at Jim's garage.

You also note that the newspaper has an article virtually every day about
how good Jim's garage is. They interview satisfied customers, interview the
mechanics, and make the mechanics sound like geniuses. You also read about
how the mechanics at Jim's garage are constantly striving to get better and
better equipment. But you note that the better and better equipment they
talk about doesn't improve anything, it just increases the cost of their
repairs.
You also note that the mayor, members of the chamber of commerce, etc. all
strongly endorse Jim's garage. You also note that many of these people are
highly paid part-time salesmen for Jim's garage.
You also note that Jim contributes significantly to the local schools, and
that the children are taught how good Jim's garage is.
Finally you realize there is a war going on between Jim's garage and Bob's
garage and that those in power in the town are more interested in which
garage offers them the most benefits, than in which garage has the best
mechanics. You see that the political machine in town does everything in
their power to crush Bob's garage.
But above all, you note that month after month, year after year, Jim's
garage prices keep growing and growing, it makes obscene profits, and
usually does more damage than good in repairing the cars. You also note that
those small number of people who later go to Bob's garage usually get their
car completely fixed for less than $100.

What Is Wrong With This Picture?
What I have just described is the war in modern medicine with regards to
cancer treatments.
Orthodox medicine is well organized, unbelievably well funded, and has total
control over the news media due to the massive amounts of advertising
dollars spent by the pharmaceutical industry. When was the last time you saw
a 1/2 hour television show where the main speaker was a doctor who used
alternative treatments for cancer? Try to name 10 of the "top 100" best
alternative treatments for cancer.

Would it surprise you that the pharmaceutical companies make billions of
dollars in profits on chemotherapy drugs every year? Big Pharma also
controls many other aspects of life in America due to their billions of
dollars of clout. It turns out that there are a lot of people who will
quickly sellout for the right price.
Alternative medicine, on the other hand, is very poorly organized, equally
poorly funded, disjointed, and severely persecuted by orthodox medicine.

People in America, unfortunately, generally make their key decisions based
solely on what they hear on television. Yet, the fact that orthodox medicine
has lots of money, and alternative medicine is disjointed, has nothing to do
with which type of medicine has the best treatments for cancer. It only has
to do with which side has had the most money for the longest amount of time.
It is like the above metaphor: just because Jim's garage makes far more
money than Bob's garage, and does far more advertising, doesn't mean Jim's
garage charges a fair price and does a better job.

While orthodox medicine generally uses surgery, chemotherapy and radiation
treatments, alternative medicine uses treatment plans with names like:
Kelley Metabolic, Breuss Tea, Budwig Flaxseed, Brandt Grape Cure, Essiac
Tea, etc.
Did you recognize any of the treatments I just mentioned under alternative
medicine? You probably didn't. Yet if you have cancer, and if you make the
wrong treatment decision, it could cost you your life! That's right - your
own life. Before you brush-off this war as being unimportant to you, keep
that in mind.

You probably think that this war is about medical theory, and that one side
believes in the "germ theory" of disease and the other side believes in the
"nutritional theory" of disease. Or perhaps you think that orthodox medicine
is interested in treating "symptoms," while alternative medicine is
interested in treating "causes." While there are theoretical differences,
the war is not caused by differences in medical theory. The war is all about
profits.

Carole
www.cellsalts.net
Stuart - 25 Jan 2008 23:51 GMT
If what you are saying is that the average American is a moron, you're
right.

> Chapter 1: Introduction To The War in Medicine
> http://www.cancertutor.com/WarBetween/War_Intro.html
[quoted text clipped - 131 lines]
> Carole
> www.cellsalts.net
Peter Moran - 25 Jan 2008 23:56 GMT
> Chapter 1: Introduction To The War in Medicine
> http://www.cancertutor.com/WarBetween/War_Intro.html
[quoted text clipped - 85 lines]
> alternative treatments for cancer? Try to name 10 of the "top 100" best
> alternative treatments for cancer.

Try,  indeed.   The reason you can't name this top ten is that there is a
sordid collusion amongst those offering alternative cancer treatments not to
compete with each other on cure rates, as would happen in any rational and
ethical marketplace.    We even  have alternative supporters supporting and
defending  the use of testimonial as the marketing standard for this
industry,  even though that leaves the promoters of these methods with
complete control over the information they can choose to divulge,  and the
capacity to fool cancer sufferers with ridiculously low standards (see the
examples in
http://www.users.on.net/~pmoran/cancer/how_to_read_a_testimonial.htm ).

As I say elsewhere on my web site --
"Testimonial is a powerful lure, but it captures attention while very
important information is concealed.  Even if seemingly valid, it leaves
critical questions unanswered : "How representative are these good cases?
What  *usually* happens  to cancer sufferers who use this method?"   And,
"how might it compare to all the other alternative methods being advised by
enthusiasts?"  *The cancer sufferer is entitled to know*.

Not only is the option of choosing treatments on the basis of relative
effectiveness denied the cancer sufferer, but there is no easy way to
exclude all the useless ones.     Testimonial-based medicine  clearly
fosters fraud.   Any crook can invent a cancer cure.  Any fool can  obtain
glowing recommendations from patients, while in that early phase of
infatuation with anyone offering miraculous relief from a frightening
illness.

The  Internet especially places few constraints on this kind of exploitation
of the vulnerable.   Folk who previously never needed to know a thing about
medicine and have no idea how to "do your own research" are thrust into a
cauldron of claim and counterclaim  wherein there is a mutual, rather sordid
agreement NOT to apply any practical external yardstick (such as the
extremely simple planned studies I am suggesting) by which treatment worth
can be judged and compared. "

The reason those selling alternative methods  won't compete on cure rates is
that they already know that their treatments have no obvious effect on
established cancer.   They don't want to have to show that their methods
hardly ever work, if at all.   Moreover,  the instant some form of
measurement is introduced into the assessment of a treatment you have to set
some standards by which treatment effectiveness is to be determined.  As
soon as you apply those standards to testimonial you find that they don't,
in general, show anything at all -- the promoters of the treatments are
revealed to really have no idea whether their methods affect cancer in any
way.   Look at the examples in the web page posted above.  Ask yourself
whether persons producing this kind of rubbishy testimonial/case report  are
worthy of your trust.

PM

www.cancerwatcher.com
Jan Drew - 26 Jan 2008 00:36 GMT
>> Chapter 1: Introduction To The War in Medicine
>> http://www.cancertutor.com/WarBetween/War_Intro.html
[quoted text clipped - 95 lines]
>
> sordid collusion

>fraud

Peter, you cannot see fraud, remember?
drceephd@insightbb.com - 26 Jan 2008 01:28 GMT
>  PM
>
> www.cancerwatcher.com

Cancer watcher my arse.  Cancer profiteer is more like it.

Isn't  Petey the Moron something?  He would rather defend the human
torture methods of modern medicine for cancer and kill over 500,000
victims per year in the US alone than admit the failure of the war on
cancer by so called modern medicine and allopathic medicine.
    I will agree that the failed war on cancer has been going on
since the '60s when I studied the disease in grad school.  I will
agree that Petey and his gang uses fear, indoctrination, propaganda,
and brainwashing to maintain their ill gotten position and financial
gains.  I will agree that the global fee for many cancer patients is
now over $1 million dollars.  I will agree that a single injection may
cost over $6,000 dollars US.  I will agree that the American Cancer
Foundation  and Cancer research gets many billions of dollars to
support much false research and produce nothing of value.

And for what?  As Petey the Moron has stated, it is for  PALLIATION of
the condition.  Petey the Moron has no idea what cancer is, how it
forms, and especially he is ignorant of how it can be resolved to
return the patient back to complete health.
When Petey has been challenged by peer reviewed published results by
valid cancer researchers, he chooses to ignore the work and the
results.

Petey the Moron is a classic example of everything that is wrong with
modern medicine.

DrCee
Not a member of the medical monopoly ( I have no license to kill ).
Carole - 26 Jan 2008 02:12 GMT
> >  PM
> >
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> gains.  I will agree that the global fee for many cancer patients is
> now over $1 million dollars.

Is that over $1 million per patient?
Wow, you can see why they don't want any competition.

Carole
www.cellsalts.net

> I will agree that a single injection may
> cost over $6,000 dollars US.  I will agree that the American Cancer
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> DrCee
> Not a member of the medical monopoly ( I have no license to kill ).
D. C. Sessions - 26 Jan 2008 15:09 GMT
> Is that over $1 million per patient?
> Wow, you can see why they don't want any competition.

Pfizer is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies on Earth.
In 2004, their pharmaceutical portfolio pulled in a total of
1.2 billion dollars.  If, indeed, Cee is correct on the amount
spent per patient that amounts to less than 1200 cancer patients
worldwide.

Therefore, according to Cee, the war on cancer is nearly won.

Alternative explanations are, of course, possible.

| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable       |
| e-mail address.  Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel.    |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com.      |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
whrlwnd2@webtv.net - 26 Jan 2008 15:46 GMT
From: dcs@lumbercartel.com (D. C. Sessions)
In message
<479a9716$0$17239$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Carole
wrote:
Is that over $1 million per patient?
Wow, you can see why they don't want any competition.

>Pfizer is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies on Earth. In
2004, their pharmaceutical portfolio pulled in a total of 1.2 billion
dollars. If, indeed, Cee is correct on the amount spent per patient that
amounts to less than 1200 cancer patients worldwide.
Therefore, according to Cee, the war on cancer is nearly won.
Alternative explanations are, of course, possible.

<whrlwnd>
  <You have to realize that the $1 million per patient isn't all in
yet. (I have heard that figure tossed around before, but I think it
really is around half that). Alot of this figure is still in the form of
debt. Insurance (for those that are covered) pays a percentage of that
$1 million, the rest is paid in installments from the cancer victim.
Pfizer won't realize the profits from this years cancer crop all at
once, it could take 5 to 10 years before ever penny is paid...
  Has anyone seen Kevin Trudeau's newest book, "Debt Cures They Don't
Want You To Know About"?...:)>
D. C. Sessions - 26 Jan 2008 16:19 GMT
> From: dcs@lumbercartel.com (D. C. Sessions)
> In message
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> Pfizer won't realize the profits from this years cancer crop all at
> once, it could take 5 to 10 years before ever penny is paid...

OK, based on your 10-year amortization of the total then that would
be 12,000 cancer patients worldwide.

I can accept that.  Can you?

| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable       |
| e-mail address.  Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel.    |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com.      |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
whrlwnd2@webtv.net - 26 Jan 2008 16:55 GMT
From: dcs@lumbercartel.com (D. C. Sessions)
In message

<21845-479B55CE-19@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>, whrlwnd2@webtv.net
wrote:
From: dcs@lumbercartel.com (D. C. Sessions)
In message

  <479a9716$0$17239$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
Carole wrote:

>Is that over $1 million per patient?
Wow, you can see why they don't want any competition.

>Pfizer is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies on Earth. In
2004, their pharmaceutical portfolio pulled in a total of 1.2 billion
dollars. If, indeed, Cee is correct on the amount spent per patient that
amounts to less than 1200 cancer patients worldwide. Therefore,
according to Cee, the war on cancer is nearly won. Alternative
explanations are, of course, possible.

<whrlwnd>
<You have to realize that the $1 million per patient isn't all in yet.
(I have heard that figure tossed around before, but I think it really is
around half that). Alot of this figure is still in the form of debt.
Insurance (for those that are covered) pays a percentage of that $1
million, the rest is paid in installments from the cancer victim. Pfizer
won't realize the profits from this years cancer crop all at once, it
could take 5 to 10 years before ever penny is paid...>

>OK, based on your 10-year amortization of the total then that would be
12,000 cancer patients worldwide.
I can accept that. Can you?>

<whrlwnd>
<Pfizer is not the sole recipient of the $1 mil figure. You got the
hospital, doctors, radiation, surgury, operating theatre, assistants,
lab technicians, x-rays, MRI's, CT scans, let us not forget therapists.
The cancer harvest is spread around a bit>
D. C. Sessions - 26 Jan 2008 17:31 GMT
> From: dcs@lumbercartel.com (D. C. Sessions)
> In message
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> lab technicians, x-rays, MRI's, CT scans, let us not forget therapists.
> The cancer harvest is spread around a bit>

The original claim was that the *pharmaceutical* *companies*
(who are, in MHA demonology, making the obscene profits that
enable them to control the world and so forth) were making
$1E6 per patient.

Tossing in diagnostic procedures (MRI) and recovery services
(therapy), to name two, that are independent of treatment modality
to bulk up your argument regarding chemotherapy sort of dilutes
your own argument.  I would hope that, regardless of whatever
magic you plan to use to cure a debilitating disease, you would
be in favor of assisting the patient in recovering the ability
to live a quality life -- and there isn't anything around much
more natural (or with a better track record) than physical
therapy.

| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable       |
| e-mail address.  Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel.    |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com.      |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
Jan Drew - 28 Jan 2008 06:46 GMT
>> Is that over $1 million per patient?
>> Wow, you can see why they don't want any competition.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> spent per patient that amounts to less than 1200 cancer patients
> worldwide.

The largest and most corrupt.  And that is DR. Cee.
Richard Schultz - 29 Jan 2008 07:55 GMT
: And that is DR. Cee.

In what subject did he receive his doctorate, when, and from what institution?

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
The One True Zhen Jue - 29 Jan 2008 12:52 GMT
> In article <pUenj.5725$Rg1.1...@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, Jan Drew <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> : And that is DR. Cee.
>
> In what subject did he receive his doctorate, when, and from what institution?

Subject: Pathological Lying.  Institution: Taco Bell

> -----
> Richard Schultz                              schu...@mail.biu.ac.il
> Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
> Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
> -----
> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
Jan Drew - 30 Jan 2008 07:38 GMT
<Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 29, 2:55 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
> In article <pUenj.5725$Rg1.1...@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, Jan Drew
> <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> In what subject did he receive his doctorate, when, and from what
> institution?

Subject:.Pathological Lying

 Institution: Taco Bell

Ilsa Nein    View profile
 Hide options Jul 1 2001, 12:35 pm

Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: ils...@aol.com5554 (Ilsa Nein)
Date: 01 Jul 2001 17:35:08 GMT
Local: Sun, Jul 1 2001 12:35 pm
Subject: Re: Speaking of doctors
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report
this message | Find messages by this author
Charles,

You of ALL people should talk about weight loss.  You carry at least 50lbs
of
beef chalupas around your waist, buddy.

Why not tell the group that "DR" C eats at Taco Bell, almost every day?

Ilsa Nein    View profile
>Well dear me if it ain't Andrew back. >What happened ? treatment
>ineffective again.! Dude, I'm not Andrew, though he warned me that Jan Drew
>would probably accuse me of it. What's your major malfunction, Rod?
 Hide options Jul 2 2001, 2:01 pm

Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: ils...@aol.com5554 (Ilsa Nein)
Date: 02 Jul 2001 19:01:11 GMT
Local: Mon, Jul 2 2001 2:01 pm
Subject: Re: Speaking of Ilsa/Andrew
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original |
Report this message | Find messages by this author

>Well dear me if it ain't Andrew back.
>What happened ? treatment ineffective again.!

Dude, I'm not Andrew, though he warned me that Jan Drew would probably
accuse
me of it.

What's your major malfunction, Rod?
Peter Bowditch - 30 Jan 2008 12:06 GMT
> <Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 29, 2:55 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Subject:.Pathological Lying

Thanks, Jan. I thought that that was the case.

(It must have been you writing as there was no indication of a quote.)

Signature

Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Jan Drew - 31 Jan 2008 05:11 GMT
> <Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2:55 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
>
> Peter Bowditch
David Wright - 30 Jan 2008 01:59 GMT
>: And that is DR. Cee.
>
>In what subject did he receive his doctorate, when, and from what institution?

I find it vaguely scary, though unsurprising, that Jan is stupid
enough to believe that Cee is actually some sort of doctor.

 -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?"
                                                       -- Bill Maher
Peter Bowditch - 30 Jan 2008 03:20 GMT
>>: And that is DR. Cee.
>>
>>In what subject did he receive his doctorate, when, and from what institution?
>
>I find it vaguely scary, though unsurprising, that Jan is stupid
>enough to believe that Cee is actually some sort of doctor.

He told us the other day that his doctorate was related to chemistry.
He was telling us at the time how the flame associated with sodium
metal being in contact with water was the sodium itself burning, not
the hydrogen released by the Na + H2O -> NaOH + H reaction.

Perhaps he did his chemistry at the University of Kentucky.

Signature

Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

David Wright - 30 Jan 2008 03:47 GMT
>>>: And that is DR. Cee.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>Perhaps he did his chemistry at the University of Kentucky.

Oh, come now, let's not tar the entire U of K faculty with the Boyd
Haley brush.  Some of them are doubtless fine chemists.

 -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?"
                                                       -- Bill Maher
Peter Bowditch - 30 Jan 2008 11:54 GMT
>>>>: And that is DR. Cee.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>Oh, come now, let's not tar the entire U of K faculty with the Boyd
>Haley brush.  Some of them are doubtless fine chemists.

I have no doubt that they are. Haley was just an example of the
downside of tenure. (And I was being sarcastic.)

Signature

Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Jan Drew - 30 Jan 2008 07:42 GMT
> He
> he
>University of Kentucky.

Are not the subject.  Make a note of it.
D. C. Sessions - 30 Jan 2008 12:57 GMT
> He told us the other day that his doctorate was related to chemistry.
> He was telling us at the time how the flame associated with sodium
> metal being in contact with water was the sodium itself burning, not
> the hydrogen released by the Na + H2O -> NaOH + H reaction.

Actually, he specifically claimed that it was *in* chemistry.
I suppose, given the timeframe, that it might have been chemically
induced.

| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable       |
| e-mail address.  Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel.    |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com.      |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
Richard Schultz - 30 Jan 2008 13:09 GMT
:> He told us the other day that his doctorate was related to chemistry.
:> He was telling us at the time how the flame associated with sodium
:> metal being in contact with water was the sodium itself burning, not
:> the hydrogen released by the Na + H2O -> NaOH + H reaction.

: Actually, he specifically claimed that it was *in* chemistry.
: I suppose, given the timeframe, that it might have been chemically
: induced.

The funny part is that I remember the post in which he claimed that
silica was an element and that potassium and sodium burn when exposed
to water, and even that I responded to it.  But I don't remember him saying
in that post that his Ph. D. was in chemistry.  I guess that the errors were
so mind-bogglingly elementary that the part where he claimed to have a
Ph. D. in chemistry failed to make it into long-term memory.

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Peter Bowditch - 30 Jan 2008 19:59 GMT
>:> He told us the other day that his doctorate was related to chemistry.
>:> He was telling us at the time how the flame associated with sodium
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>so mind-bogglingly elementary that the part where he claimed to have a
>Ph. D. in chemistry failed to make it into long-term memory.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/a1006533f056c3a7

>Uhh, dufus Slutz, check the definition of "burn" or "to burn."

>DrCee
>BS, MS, PhD, all in chemistry, so suck it up.

Signature

Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Jan Drew - 31 Jan 2008 05:06 GMT
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/c1efd889a7678735

That _IS_ topical and worthy of discussion.  Stick with the topic,
that works for you & us.
Jan Drew - 31 Jan 2008 05:05 GMT
> The funny part is

This thread is not about *The funny part is*

> I

This thread is not about *I*

> Ph. D.

This thread is not about Ph. D

> I guess

This tread is not about *I guess*

> errors

This thread is not about *errors*
> -----
> Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/c1efd889a7678735

That _IS_ topical and worthy of discussion.  Stick with the topic,
that works for you & us.
Carole - 04 Feb 2008 04:03 GMT
> :> He told us the other day that his doctorate was related to chemistry.
> :> He was telling us at the time how the flame associated with sodium
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> so mind-bogglingly elementary that the part where he claimed to have a
> Ph. D. in chemistry failed to make it into long-term memory.

Why isn't silica an element?
Chemistry : Periodic Table : silicon : key information
This WebElements periodic table page contains key information for the
element silicon ... silicon oxides such as sand (silica), quartz, rock
crystal, amethyst, agate, ...
www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Si/key.html

So you're saying that potassium and sodium DON'T burn when exposed to water?

http://www.lenntech.com/elements-and-water/potassium-and-water.htm
"In what way and in what form does potassium react with water?
Potassium reacts rapidly and intensely with water, forming a colourless
basic potassium hydroxide solution and hydrogen gas, according to the
following reaction mechanism:  2K (s) + 2H2O (l) -> 2KOH (aq) + H2 (g)
This is an exothermal reaction and potassium is heated to such an extend
that it burns a purple flame. Additionally, hydrogen released during the
reaction strongly reacts with oxygen and ignites."

http://www.lenntech.com/elements-and-water/sodium-and-water.htm
In what way and in what form does sodium react with water?
Elementary sodium reacts strongly with water, according to the following
reaction mechanism:  2Na(s) + 2H2O ? 2NaOH(aq) + H2(g)
A colourless solution is formed, consisting of strongly alkalic sodium
hydroxide (caustic soda) and hydrogen gas. This is an exothermic reaction.
Sodium metal is heated and may ignite and burn with a characteristic orange
flame. Hydrogen gas released during the burning process reacts strongly with
oxygen in the air.
A number of sodium compounds do not react as strongly with water, but are
strongly water soluble.

Carole
www.cellsalts.net
Richard Schultz - 04 Feb 2008 19:03 GMT
: Why isn't silica an element?
: Chemistry : Periodic Table : silicon : key information
: This WebElements periodic table page contains key information for the
: element silicon ... silicon oxides such as sand (silica), quartz, rock
: crystal, amethyst, agate, ...
: www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Si/key.html

Reread what you posted and see if you can find the part in which silica
is defined.

: So you're saying that potassium and sodium DON'T burn when exposed to water?
: http://www.lenntech.com/elements-and-water/potassium-and-water.htm
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
: that it burns a purple flame. Additionally, hydrogen released during the
: reaction strongly reacts with oxygen and ignites."

That is not correct.  When potassium contacts water, it liberates hydrogen
and enough energy to set the hydrogen on fire.  Because potassium is a
relatively volatile element, a small amount evaporates due to the heat
generated by the reaction with the water.  The purple color of the flame
is due to emission of light by electronically excited potassium atoms
returning to the ground state.  It is not, repeat not, due to the
potassium burning.

: http://www.lenntech.com/elements-and-water/sodium-and-water.htm
: In what way and in what form does sodium react with water?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
: flame. Hydrogen gas released during the burning process reacts strongly with
: oxygen in the air.

This is the same process described above, except that sodium atoms
impart a yellow color to the flame -- it's the same process that gives
sodium lamps their characteristic color.  If the sodium in sodium lamps
was burning, the lamps wouldn't last very long.

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Peter Bowditch - 05 Feb 2008 21:52 GMT
>Why isn't silica an element?

Because it's a compound.

Next.

(By the way, I notice that the packets of Equal sweetener on
restaurant tables contain silica. Is this to counteract the effects of
the aspartame?)

Signature

Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Richard Schultz - 06 Feb 2008 05:17 GMT
: (By the way, I notice that the packets of Equal sweetener on
: restaurant tables contain silica. Is this to counteract the effects of
: the aspartame?)

No, silly.  The aspartame is there to counteract the effects of the silica.
It's well known that ingestion of aspartame leads to underarm odor.  Since
most people don't know that silica will cure underarm odor, they will buy
additional anti-perspirant, thus increasing Big Pharma's profits even more.

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
Peter Bowditch - 06 Feb 2008 12:05 GMT
>: (By the way, I notice that the packets of Equal sweetener on
>: restaurant tables contain silica. Is this to counteract the effects of
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>most people don't know that silica will cure underarm odor, they will buy
>additional anti-perspirant, thus increasing Big Pharma's profits even more.

Of course. Silly me. I forgot that lesson at the
SmithKlinePfizerRocheAventisMerck Academy. I'll check the boxes of
course notes in my garage and do a bit of revision.

I vaguely remember something about the propellant in the
anti-perspirant sprays doing something to the atmosphere which
increased sales of sunblock, so maybe that was the same class.

Signature

Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Richard Schultz - 06 Feb 2008 14:12 GMT
:>: (By the way, I notice that the packets of Equal sweetener on
:>: restaurant tables contain silica. Is this to counteract the effects of
:>: the aspartame?)

:>No, silly.  The aspartame is there to counteract the effects of the silica.
:>It's well known that ingestion of aspartame leads to underarm odor.  Since
:>most people don't know that silica will cure underarm odor, they will buy
:>additional anti-perspirant, thus increasing Big Pharma's profits even more.

: I vaguely remember something about the propellant in the
: anti-perspirant sprays doing something to the atmosphere which
: increased sales of sunblock, so maybe that was the same class.

The increased sales of sunblock are really just a useful by-product.  In
fact, the idea is that the anti-perspirant sprays do something to the
atmosphere that makes people afraid to go outside when the sun is shining,
which leads to people exercising less, which leads to more obesity, which
leads to a greater demand for low-calorie sweeteners such as aspartame,
which leads to more consumption of silica, which leads to more people
suffering from underarm odor. . . .

Cool how that all works out, isn't it?

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
Carole - 09 Feb 2008 08:04 GMT
> >Why isn't silica an element?
>
> Because it's a compound.

http://www.radiochemistry.org/periodictable/elements/14.html
(L. silex, silicis, flint) Davy in 1800 thought silica to be a compound and
not an element; later in 1811, Gay Lussac and Thenard probably prepared
impure amorphous silicon by heating potassium with silicon tetrafluoride.
In 1824 Berzelius, generally credited with the discovery, prepared amorphous
silicon by the same general method and purified the product by removing the
fluosilicates by repeated washings. Deville in 1854 first prepared
crystalline silicon, the second allotropic form of the element.

> Next.
>
> (By the way, I notice that the packets of Equal sweetener on
> restaurant tables contain silica. Is this to counteract the effects of
> the aspartame?)

Do you mean those little packs to remove humidity?
Silica is used in different ways and I don't think you can use silica hair
gel as a food supplement.

Carole
www.cellsalts.net

> --
> Peter Bowditch aa #2243
> The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
> Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
> Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
> To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
D. C. Sessions - 09 Feb 2008 14:39 GMT
>> >Why isn't silica an element?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> fluosilicates by repeated washings. Deville in 1854 first prepared
> crystalline silicon, the second allotropic form of the element.

I'll catch some flak for this, but ...
Carole, please pay careful attention:

silica
silicon
silicone

Not the same.

>> Next.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Silica is used in different ways and I don't think you can use silica hair
> gel as a food supplement.

No, the silica is the same (very finely divided bits of quartz)
in your "supplements" as is added to all sorts of powders to keep
them from clumping.  Same factory, even.  Just different packaging.

| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable       |
| e-mail address.  Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel.    |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com.      |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
Peter Bowditch - 09 Feb 2008 20:06 GMT
>> >Why isn't silica an element?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>fluosilicates by repeated washings. Deville in 1854 first prepared
>crystalline silicon, the second allotropic form of the element.

Like I said, because it's a compound. The above refers to the element
silicon, not the compound silica.

>> Next.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Silica is used in different ways and I don't think you can use silica hair
>gel as a food supplement.

No, I mean those little packets to sweeten your coffee.

Signature

Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Jan Drew - 30 Jan 2008 06:33 GMT
> : And that is DR. Cee.
>
> In what subject did he receive his doctorate, when, and from what
> institution?

This thread is not about subject, doctorate, nor institution.

> -----
> Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
proven hypocrite
Richard Schultz - 30 Jan 2008 08:22 GMT
:> : And that is DR. Cee.

:> In what subject did he receive his doctorate, when, and from what
:> institution?

: This thread is not about subject, doctorate, nor institution.

If so, then why did *you* bring up the subject?

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter."
                -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_
Jan Drew - 31 Jan 2008 04:39 GMT
> :> : And that is DR. Cee.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> If so, then why did *you* bring up the subject?

I didn't you did.

> -----
> Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter."
> -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_
Richard Schultz - 31 Jan 2008 05:56 GMT
:> :> : And that is DR. Cee.
:>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
:
: I didn't you did.

You most certainly did, in message <pUenj.5725$Rg1.1862@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>,
in which you wrote "And that is DR. Cee," as quoted above.

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"These are just simple farmers.  People of the land.  The common clay
of the New West.  You know -- morons."
Peter Bowditch - 31 Jan 2008 06:10 GMT
>> :> : And that is DR. Cee.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>I didn't you did.

YOU corrected Richard. YOU said "And that is DR. Cee". Therefore YOU
brought it up.

Signature

Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

D. C. Sessions - 31 Jan 2008 11:06 GMT
>>> :> : And that is DR. Cee.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> YOU corrected Richard. YOU said "And that is DR. Cee". Therefore YOU
> brought it up.

That's another transparent lie from you, Peter.

| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable       |
| e-mail address.  Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel.    |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com.      |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
Peter Bowditch - 30 Jan 2008 11:56 GMT
>> : And that is DR. Cee.
>>
>> In what subject did he receive his doctorate, when, and from what
>> institution?
>
>This thread is not about subject, doctorate, nor institution.

Jan, YOU were the one who corrected someone by saying, and I quote,
"And that is DR. Cee". By saying that, you brought not-a-doctor Cee's
qualifications right to the front of the thread.

Signature

Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

D. C. Sessions - 30 Jan 2008 12:59 GMT
>>> : And that is DR. Cee.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> "And that is DR. Cee". By saying that, you brought not-a-doctor Cee's
> qualifications right to the front of the thread.

And now she's sent them off again.

It's her newsgroup, after all -- who do you think you are,
questioning her rulings?

| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable       |
| e-mail address.  Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel.    |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com.      |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
Jan Drew - 31 Jan 2008 04:54 GMT
> Of course, there isn't REALLY a lymber cartel.

Yes, that is very clear.

M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t 07-10...@lymbercartel.com>

>D. C. Sessions <dcs@lymbercartel.com>
Jan Drew - 31 Jan 2008 04:47 GMT
>>> : And that is DR. Cee.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Jan

> YOU

>DR. Cee".

This thread is not about Jan--YOU--DR. Cee.
Carole - 30 Jan 2008 11:44 GMT
> : And that is DR. Cee.
>
> In what subject did he receive his doctorate, when, and from what institution?

It is obvious that this information is very important to you Richard.
Yes, you get a bit of basic information about how to understand a few
chemicals, various parts of the human anatomy, a bit of scientific lingo and
what have you. But what do you really know that does anybody any good?
You are up yourself if you think you know anything that bloody marvellous.

You are just one dumbed down dude.
DrCee has got his qualifications and then he had to go and unlearn much of
what had been taught to him.

What you don't understand Richard, is that the system is stuffed and much of
what you learn is wrong.
So don't go getting yourself to puffed up with your own importance --
there's a good fellow.

Carole
www.cellsalts.net
Richard Schultz - 30 Jan 2008 13:12 GMT
:> In article <pUenj.5725$Rg1.1862@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, Jan Drew
: <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

:> : And that is DR. Cee.

:> In what subject did he receive his doctorate, when, and from what
: institution?

: It is obvious that this information is very important to you Richard.

The information is actually not that important.  What *is* important
is that "Dr." Cee's claim to have a Ph. D. is almost certainly a lie.

: You are just one dumbed down dude.
: DrCee has got his qualifications and then he had to go and unlearn much of
: what had been taught to him.

If he unlearned the chemical reaction that occurs when potassium is
placed in water, then he unlearned a good deal more than was good for him.

: What you don't understand Richard, is that the system is stuffed and much of
: what you learn is wrong.

So far, you have yet to show that a single thing that I learned is
wrong, and, given your complete ignorance of science, it is unlikely in
the extreme that you will ever be able to do so.

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Carole - 04 Feb 2008 00:16 GMT
> :> In article <pUenj.5725$Rg1.1862@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, Jan Drew
> : <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> The information is actually not that important.  What *is* important
> is that "Dr." Cee's claim to have a Ph. D. is almost certainly a lie.

When you can explain how homeopathy works, you will have learnt something
interesting and something that modern medicine still can't explain. The only
way they explain it is to deny it works -- anything they can't explain they
deny.
Why is that?

> : You are just one dumbed down dude.
> : DrCee has got his qualifications and then he had to go and unlearn much of
> : what had been taught to him.
>
> If he unlearned the chemical reaction that occurs when potassium is
> placed in water, then he unlearned a good deal more than was good for him.

There would be things that he would have to unlearn to make progress in his
thinking.
Probably things like acid/alkaline balance and nutritional remedies for
example.
But also probably things that are more technical and have implications for
how a person regards different treatments.

> : What you don't understand Richard, is that the system is stuffed and much of
> : what you learn is wrong.
>
> So far, you have yet to show that a single thing that I learned is
> wrong, and, given your complete ignorance of science, it is unlikely in
> the extreme that you will ever be able to do so.

Its probably not so much what you learnt is wrong, but more what you haven't
learnt.
There would be certain concepts that would conflict with the pharmaceutical
cartel for instance, that wouldn't be taught.

Carole
www.cellsalts.net
Richard Schultz - 04 Feb 2008 19:07 GMT
:> The information is actually not that important.  What *is* important
:> is that "Dr." Cee's claim to have a Ph. D. is almost certainly a lie.
:
: When you can explain how homeopathy works,

Since homeopathy does *not* work, except in the sense that its patients
die of the disease rather than of the cure, your statement makes as much
sense as saying "When you can explain how to make a four-sided triangle. . ."

: you will have learnt something
: interesting and something that modern medicine still can't explain. The only
: way they explain it is to deny it works -- anything they can't explain they
: deny.  Why is that?

The reason that "they" deny that homeopathy works is that it does not work.
I don't know what part of that is too difficult for you to grasp.

:> : You are just one dumbed down dude.
:> : DrCee has got his qualifications and then he had to go and unlearn much
:> : of what had been taught to him.

:> If he unlearned the chemical reaction that occurs when potassium is
:> placed in water, then he unlearned a good deal more than was good for him.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
: But also probably things that are more technical and have implications for
: how a person regards different treatments.

As usual, your statement is a complete non sequitur.

:> : What you don't understand Richard, is that the system is stuffed and
:> : much of what you learn is wrong.

:> So far, you have yet to show that a single thing that I learned is
:> wrong, and, given your complete ignorance of science, it is unlikely in
:> the extreme that you will ever be able to do so.

: Its probably not so much what you learnt is wrong, but more what you haven't
: learnt.
: There would be certain concepts that would conflict with the pharmaceutical
: cartel for instance, that wouldn't be taught.

You mean concepts like quantum mechanics or relativity?

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter."
                -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_
Carole - 09 Feb 2008 08:24 GMT
> :> The information is actually not that important.  What *is* important
> :> is that "Dr." Cee's claim to have a Ph. D. is almost certainly a lie.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> die of the disease rather than of the cure, your statement makes as much
> sense as saying "When you can explain how to make a four-sided triangle. . ."

Homeopathy DOES work but orthodox medicine can't explain how.
This is because the science it is based on has been dumbed down and
doctored.

> : you will have learnt something
> : interesting and something that modern medicine still can't explain. The only
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> The reason that "they" deny that homeopathy works is that it does not work.
> I don't know what part of that is too difficult for you to grasp.

Sorry homeopathy DOES work.
You can do the homeopathic silica test to see for yourself -- take
homeopathic silica tablets to stop underarm odour.
If the tablets were merely lactose there would be no difference.

> :> : You are just one dumbed down dude.
> :> : DrCee has got his qualifications and then he had to go and unlearn much
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> As usual, your statement is a complete non sequitur.

You need to read The Rockefeller Drug Empire by Hans Ruesch.
It shows how teaching in medicine was corrupted by vested interests.

> :> : What you don't understand Richard, is that the system is stuffed and
> :> : much of what you learn is wrong.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> You mean concepts like quantum mechanics or relativity?

www.einsteinconspiracy.co.uk

"Becker explains how the conspiracy in science works in the present day:
experimental research is suppressed which has national security
implications. This is easily achieved by controlling the funding of
research. If a scientist finds results that do not agree with the orthodoxy
he is subjected to ridicule. The experts that the establishment want are
essentially 'yes men' who do as they are told and have lost their sense of
originality, if they had any, i.e. 'dummies'. So, the system that is set up
in the public science research sector is anti- "true scientific method" of
free enterprise, and creates a deep prejudicial atmosphere against anyone of
true original ideas. In other words it is an "anti- genius" atmosphere,
which seeks to promote people of lesser intellect, who then masquerade and
pretend to be clever."

Carole
www.cellsalts.net
D. C. Sessions - 07 Feb 2008 16:46 GMT
> When you can explain how homeopathy works, you will have learnt something
> interesting and something that modern medicine still can't explain. The only
> way they explain it is to deny it works -- anything they can't explain they
> deny.

You're starting from the premise that it *does* work.

> Why is that?

Because until that's established, anything else is pointless.

| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable       |
| e-mail address.  Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel.    |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com.      |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
Carole - 09 Feb 2008 08:27 GMT
> > When you can explain how homeopathy works, you will have learnt something
> > interesting and something that modern medicine still can't explain. The only
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Because until that's established, anything else is pointless.

As I've said to you before, try the silica test.
Go to the health shop and get some homeopathic silica, then take it and see
how it gets rid of underarm odour.
Silica dioxide gets rid of underarm odour.

But then maybe you don't trust your own judgement. You need to be told by an
"expert" if you have underarm odour or if its just placebo underarm odour.

Carole
www.cellsalts.net

> --
> | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable       |
> | e-mail address.  Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel.    |
> | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com.      |
> +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
Martin - 09 Feb 2008 20:31 GMT
>> In message <47a65962$0$5580$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>Carole wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>As I've said to you before, try the silica test.

As I've said to you before, try the silica test. Go to the health shop
and get some straight silice, then take it and see if it causes
underarm odour. Which it should if the homeopathic form gets rid of
it.
But then maybe you don't trust your own judgement. Nah, I know what it
is. You're scared that you discover that you were wrong and that the
whole house of cards that is your life is going to come down. Carole,
why don't you go to a skeptic meeting sometime, talk to these people.
I know a lot of skeptics who come from where you are now. It hasn't
been easy for them, but all of them are now much happier. Oh, and
contrary to what a whole bunch of liars been telling you, they will
not tell you what to think,  in fact, they can show the tools you need
to think for yourself.

>Go to the health shop and get some homeopathic silica, then take it and see
>how it gets rid of underarm odour.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>> | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com.      |
>> +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
Carole - 11 Feb 2008 12:47 GMT
> >> In message <47a65962$0$5580$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> >Carole wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> >
> >As I've said to you before, try the silica test.

Carole said
> As I've said to you before, try the silica test. Go to the health shop
> and get some straight silice, then take it and see if it causes
> underarm odour. Which it should if the homeopathic form gets rid of
> it.
> But then maybe you don't trust your own judgement.

Martin said
> Nah, I know what it
> is. You're scared that you discover that you were wrong and that the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> not tell you what to think,  in fact, they can show the tools you need
> to think for yourself.

But Martin,
Why would I want to discount cellsalts when they fix my health problems?
If I get toothache I take calcium and it fixes it.
If I get knotted neck or back muscles they fix it.
If I get constipation, athletes foot, watery eyes, pains in my ankle etc.

You're going so far out of your way to deny the truth, you're beginning to
appear irrational.

Carole
www.cellsalts.net

> >Go to the health shop and get some homeopathic silica, then take it and see
> >how it gets rid of underarm odour.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> >> | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com.      |
> >> +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
D. C. Sessions - 11 Feb 2008 13:14 GMT
> But Martin,
> Why would I want to discount cellsalts when they fix my health problems?
> If I get toothache I take calcium and it fixes it.
> If I get knotted neck or back muscles they fix it.
> If I get constipation, athletes foot, watery eyes, pains in my ankle etc.

That's what my exorcist said.

| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable       |
| e-mail address.  Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel.    |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com.      |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
Martin - 11 Feb 2008 19:41 GMT
>> >> In message
><47a65962$0$5580$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>But Martin,
>Why would I want to discount cellsalts when they fix my health problems?

It's not about cellsalts. It's not about your health problems. It's
not about *you*. It's about the truth. Aren't you the least interested
in the truth? Because you are certainly going out of your way to avoid
finding out what is the truth.

>If I get toothache I take calcium and it fixes it.
>If I get knotted neck or back muscles they fix it.
>If I get constipation, athletes foot, watery eyes, pains in my ankle etc.

But how do you know those problems would not have gone away without
cellsalts?
I sometimes have sensitive teeth. I'm carefull with cold and hot stuff
for a few days, nothing more, and it goes away.
I have a knotted neck or painful back muscles sometimes, but a good
night sleep is all it takes (and some time in my jacuzzi also helps).
I wouldn't know about constipation or athletes foot, but watery eyes
and pain in my ankle always goes away on its own. No cellsalts needed.
So my personal experience proves that doing nothing works.

>You're going so far out of your way to deny the truth, you're beginning to
>appear irrational.

I'm not denying anything. All I'm asking is for you to check if what
you think is true is actually true.

>Carole
>www.cellsalts.net
Carole - 13 Feb 2008 11:39 GMT
> >> >As I've said to you before, try the silica test.
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> in the truth? Because you are certainly going out of your way to avoid
> finding out what is the truth.

I am trying to find out the truth about things.
However, I find that there are people who rationalise a lot.

> >If I get toothache I take calcium and it fixes it.
> >If I get knotted neck or back muscles they fix it.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> cellsalts?
> I sometimes have sensitive teeth.

If I start to get pains in my teeth, or my teeth are sensitive to hot or
cold, I take 2grams of elemental calcium carbonate and it fixes it within a
few minutes.

> I'm carefull with cold and hot stuff
> for a few days, nothing more, and it goes away.
> I have a knotted neck or painful back muscles sometimes, but a good
> night sleep is all it takes (and some time in my jacuzzi also helps).

Yes ok, these treatments work for me too.
But I used to get really bad knotted muscles, very tight and I had to sit up
very straight, couldn't let my shoulders slump or they would cramp up. I was
always wanting to have my back massaged. You wouldn't have had it as bad as
what mine was.
Now I know that even a desire for back massage is a call for sodium
phosphate and sulphate to get rid of the acid from the muscles. I mix 1/4
tspn or bicarb and same of cream of tartar, together with a little water. It
just fizzes up a little and I drink it.

> I wouldn't know about constipation or athletes foot, but watery eyes
> and pain in my ankle always goes away on its own. No cellsalts needed.
> So my personal experience proves that doing nothing works.

When you get these things a little worse and they don't go away by
themselves, that's when you have a problem.
Sometimes I get athletes foot, and it starts to itch, I just take the bicarb
and cream of tartar and it goes away.

> >You're going so far out of your way to deny the truth, you're beginning to
> >appear irrational.
>
> I'm not denying anything. All I'm asking is for you to check if what
> you think is true is actually true.

Its not easy for me to work out what is true and what isn't, as I don't have
much resources to draw on, just what I read in books. Most of my knowledge
is based on what works when I try it for myself.
Here and there I get some information from other people which helps fill in
the missing bits.

And what I say with cellsalts is that a person needs to try them and see if
they work, rather than relying on an "expert" who tells them its the latest
and greatest remedy.

Carole
www.cellsalts.net
Peter Moran - 26 Jan 2008 08:18 GMT
>>  PM
>>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> valid cancer researchers, he chooses to ignore the work and the
> results.

Everything else you say is an outright lie or misrepresentation.  As my web
site shows, I have been prepared to look at anything to do with alternative
cancer treatments.  I have even tried to get additional information directly
from some of those promoting them.   That was when I was still prepared to
give some of them the benefit of the doubt.

I STILL say that no alternative method has any obvious effect on established
cancer and I defy you to produce any evidence that they do.

PM.
Carole - 26 Jan 2008 11:32 GMT
> >>  PM
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> I STILL say that no alternative method has any obvious effect on established
> cancer and I defy you to produce any evidence that they do.

I wouldn't believe that to be the case, that there is no alternative
treatments for cancer.
It is far more likely that any effective treatment/s have been effectively
shutdown, ostracised and run out of town.
If you do a little research along these lines, I am sure you will come up
with any amount of cures that the pharmaceutical cartel wants to keep
hidden. Once they are out in the open they are "dealt with" -- ridiculed and
harassed so the public gets the idea they are useless.
Its a shame that the public (and yourself) use the mass media as their
primary source of information.

Carole
www.cellsalts.net

> PM.
Martin - 26 Jan 2008 14:16 GMT
>> >>  PM
>> >>
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
>Its a shame that the public (and yourself) use the mass media as their
>primary source of information.

Carole, READ HIS WEBSITE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!
Peter Moran is using data he got from the people selling the
alternative cures themselves! Not from the press, not from dumbed down
textbooks, not from rigged pharmaceutical research - he got it
straight from the source. And that data shows it doesn't work. Unless
of course you want to claim that those people are in the conspiracy
too.

>Carole
>www.cellsalts.net
Jan Drew - 27 Jan 2008 07:34 GMT
>>> >>  PM
>>> >>
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
>
> Carole, READ HIS WEBSITE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!

I can't hear you, Martin Rady.  Could you scream a bit louder?

> Peter Moran is using data he got from the people selling the
> alternative cures themselves! Not from the press, not from dumbed down
> textbooks, not from rigged pharmaceutical research - he got it
> straight from the source. And that data shows it doesn't work. Unless
> of course you want to claim that those people are in the conspiracy
> too.

That source being The American Cancer Society Journal.
*Organized corrupted medicine*....

Poor, Marty Rady.

>>Carole
>>www.cellsalts.net
Carole - 27 Jan 2008 13:52 GMT
> Carole, READ HIS WEBSITE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!
> Peter Moran is using data he got from the people selling the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> of course you want to claim that those people are in the conspiracy
> too.

http://www.cancertutor.com/WarBetween/War_Other.html
Hidden Agendas and Deceptive Titles:
This is another common technique used by corrupt governments to get what
they want. And, as always, the media is at the front of the massive
deception. In this case the "titles" and "issues" presented to the public
are vastly different from the intended purpose of the organization or issue.

For example, there is an organization called:

"Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine (OCCAM)," a noble
sounding organization,
which is part of the "National Cancer Institute (NCI)," another noble
sounding organization,
which is part of the "National Institutes of Health (NIH)," another noble
sounding group,
which is part of the "U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,"
certainly an organization of complete integrity.

Wow, with all of these high sounding names, OCCAM must have a fabulous web
site supporting and helping alternative health research. It is all a lie.
OCCAM exists to suppress the truth about alternative medicine. It exists to
lure people who contact the NCI away from the truth about alternative
medicine. Its name implies it is pro-alternative medicine, but its actions
are totally anti-alternative medicine.

Such deception in titles are common in government, charities, ad nauseum.
The "American Medical Association" has no interest in your health, it is
effectively a labor union. The "American Cancer Society" has no interest in
seeing people cured of cancer, it is interested in luring research money
away from alternative medicine and in raising money for orthodox "research."
And the list goes on and on.

> >Carole
> >www.cellsalts.net
Citizen Jimserac - 27 Jan 2008 14:26 GMT
> > Carole, READ HIS WEBSITE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!
> > Peter Moran is using data he got from the people selling the
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> > >Carole
> > >www.cellsalts.net

MANY THANKS Carole, for posting
the information about OCCAM.

It would seem there are more jobs
and careers devoted to talking about
the cancer problem than there are
researchers actually working on it.
Confusion, misdirection and
misinformation are the order
of the day while men, woman
and children suffer and die,
appallingly from it.

One begins to understand exactly
why the "war" on cancer has been
going on for so long and why
the "results" have been so meagre.

You are quite correct, in my opinion,
about the media being at the center
of the "DISINFORMATSIYA" (
one of my favorite Russian words)
campaign which of course extends
to politics as well.

I will remind you and the other
habitues of this newsgroup that
the Internet, despite all the commercialization
and pop up distractions, remains the
ANTIDOTE to media disinformation -
one need only do a bit of googling
to get at opposing viewpoints
and to find out who is profiting
from whatever at whose expense.

Government organizations, with
benevolent sounding names are,
of course, IMMEDIATELY SUSPECT.

Citizen Jimserac
Martin - 27 Jan 2008 20:35 GMT
>> Carole, READ HIS WEBSITE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!
>> Peter Moran is using data he got from the people selling the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> of course you want to claim that those people are in the conspiracy
>> too.

- snip -

I see you simply refuse to read Peter Moran's website. I'm not
surprised. It's always the same with you - your mind is fixed, facts
simply don't matter. You even actively refuse to look at the facts.

>> >Carole
>> >www.cellsalts.net
Jan Drew - 28 Jan 2008 04:49 GMT
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:32:42 +1100, "Carole" <hubbca@iimetro.com.au>
>> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
>
> - snip -

Restored, Martin Rady.

Using ye old words of Mark Probert:

*You snip what you cannot handle.*

Furthermore, it is clear you are harassing Carole.
Like picking on ladies?

> I see you simply refuse to read Peter Moran's website. I'm not
> surprised. It's always the same with you - your mind is fixed, facts
> simply don't matter. You even actively refuse to look at the facts.

lol.  What facts??

>>> >Carole
>>> >www.cellsalts.net
Carole - 28 Jan 2008 12:09 GMT
> >> Carole, READ HIS WEBSITE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!
> >> Peter Moran is using data he got from the people selling the
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> surprised. It's always the same with you - your mind is fixed, facts
> simply don't matter. You even actively refuse to look at the facts.

I'm sure Peter's website is just packed with facts and figures that support
conventional medicine.
I'm into alternative medicine.

Yell Peter doesn't even believe in homeopathy. Give me a break.

Carole
www.cellsalts.net
Martin - 28 Jan 2008 19:29 GMT
>> >> Carole, READ HIS WEBSITE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!
>> >> Peter Moran is using data he got from the people selling the
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>I'm sure Peter's website is just packed with facts and figures that support
>conventional medicine.

yep, like I said, you know what's on there without even looking. How
do you that Carole? Psychic powers?

>I'm into alternative medicine.

That's what his site is all about.

>Yell Peter doesn't even believe in homeopathy. Give me a break.

At least I read Hahnemann's work before I made up my mind. You don't
even read a website that may have information that doesn't jibe with
your precious delusions.

>Carole
>www.cellsalts.net
Carole - 29 Jan 2008 12:49 GMT
> >> I see you simply refuse to read Peter Moran's website. I'm not
> >> surprised. It's always the same with you - your mind is