Re: HOW TO MAKE YOUR BODY ALKALINE?


"David L. Burkhead" <dburkhuad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:08CdnR1Eia-8OcDeRVn-sQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Corey wrote:
>> "David L. Burkhead" <dburkhuad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:34Cdnc1dS_vx4sDeRVn-uQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Corey wrote:
>>>> "Mark Goldberg" <msgoldberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:u967f.37140$Ge5.19220@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Kevin Lowe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite for that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you got the wrong end of the stick. Some parasites
>>>>>> secrete bull*** that makes you think that your system is too
>>>>>> acidic, to improve your wallet for themselves. I agree that
>>>>>> getting rid of
>>>>>> the parasites is the indicated treatment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, one of the RMA people back in the mid 90's; a filipino
>>>>> martial arts guy, who also took up bjj has a website devoted to
>>>>> medical quakery, deception and wishful thinking.
>>>>>
>>>>> He's an interesting guy. He's a bodywork practitioner, who doesn't
>>>>> pretend he cures cancer and such and is a very honorable guy by all
>>>>> indications. His website is worth a peek, especially for people
>>>>> like Corey, who are so smitten with the kitten of
>>>>> the 'alternative.'
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>> I think this site is much more interesting.
>>>> http://www.curezone.com/cleanse/liver/default.asp
>>>>
>>>> You told me Hulda Clark was a quack but now more and more people are
>>>> finding out that her methods work! So why should I or anyone else
>>>> listen to the likes of you? Using electronic Rife- Clark therapy I
>>>> have achieved great results. No more foot fungus and I cured a
>>>> chronic bacterial infection that I have had for years. I'm just
>>>> glad
>>>> I wasn't as stupid as some of the dudes on this news group or I
>>>> might never have tried it.
>>>
>>> Yet these results stubbornly refuse to be borne out by properly
>>> controlled testing.
>>
>>
>> You mean you actually have done some tests this time! Why don't you
>> show us the results?
>
> Since positive results in properly controlled testing would be a major
> boon
> to sales on any of these "alternative" medical treatments that you tout,
> the
> mere fact that you can't point to any is a prima facie case that they
> don't
> exist.

All you have to do is look a little. You claim their is no proof? I guess if
you repeat a lie long enough many weak people will believe it.

http://www.drclark.net/news/thiel.htm

http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Lzapper.htm

Corey


>
>>> Anecdotes and testimonials are exactly worthless when it comes to
>>> "medical" effects. In any given population of any size, there will
>>> be some
>>> who get better, go into remission, whatever, even if you do nothing.
>
>> And even if the FDA approves a drug it doesn't mean it's safe or of
>> any value. Follow the money.
>
> You might actually learn something about how testing works and what
> testing result actually mean.
>
> "Follow the money" is right--all these "alternative" medicines do is
> take money out of your pocket and put it in the pocket of those who
> promote
> them.
>
> Your hypothesis requires that _everyone_ in the medical community,
> every
> single last one of them, is a lying scumbag deceiving the rest of the
> world
> about the wonders of these "simple" cures that work miracles.
>
> Since I know several such people personally, and can attest that such a
> characterisation is downright slanderous, your hypothesis must be rejected
> as not fitting the observed data.
>
>>> Let me break it down for you. Take 100 people who have some
>>> ailment. If you do nothing, some number, say 3, will get better.
>>> (Number chosen for illustration purposes and will vary with ailment
>>> and population.) So now take 100 people and have them undergo some
>>> "treatment." If the treatment does absolutely nothing you still end
>>> up with three people who get better. However, since they were
>>> undergoing the "treatment" 'lo and behold they attribute their
>>> recovery to said treatment and are now available as "testimonials"
>>> for how well the treatment works--all for a "treatment" that
>>> does exactly nothing.
>
>> Yeah like Chemotherapy. And Chemo is highly toxic destroying healthy
>> tissue. What a throw back. Makes lots of money though.
>
> Yep. It is. Very toxic. Just happens to be more toxic to the cancer
> cells.
>
> Tell you what. Get 100 patients with inoperable cancers who are
> diagnosed as incurable, each with an expected lifetime of less than one
> year. Give them your magic treatment. In a year, count how many are
> still
> around. Report the results. A few ground rules though:
>
> 1) Choose individuals whose expected deaths have been independently
> diagnosed--no having the proponents of the therapy doing their own
> diagnosis
> and saying "you'll die without our treatment."
> 2) Have the choice of patients for the trial listed _before_ applying
> the treatment and the list independently confirmed. This avoids the
> possibility of "cherry picking" (giving the treatment to 5000 people and
> choosing the best 100 as the results to report). I'm sure the people
> doing
> the study would all be perfectly honest, but there have been frauds in the
> past so let's set things up so that even the accusation cannot be made.
> 3) Set a hard standard for "success" ahead of time. Is it 30 people
> still alive at the end of the 1 year period? 50 people? 90 people? (I
> won't
> suggest 100 since there's the possibility of some dying from unrelated
> causes--like stepping in front of a bus.)
>
> There's a simple protocol that just about any researcher could do. It
> wouldn't even be terribly expensive. Aside from the cost of the treatment
> itself, the biggest expense would be advertising for study subjects and
> having the test group independently recorded.
>
> While nowhere near a final result (including such things as independent
> replication and proper double-blinds) a positive result of, say, 50 people
> still alive out of 100 expected to die _would_ draw interest.
>
> However, don't hold your breath waiting for the people hawking their
> alternative treatments, certainly not those making the more extreme claims
> such as "cure for cancer," to do anything of the sort.
>
>>> And, frankly, every time you attribute evil motives or simple
>>> stupidity to people who disagree with you on this topic you lose a
>>> bit of credibility.
>
>>>> I guess I have to thank Fraser for giving me the idea.
>
>>> I thank P.T. Barnum, myself.
>
> --
> David L. Burkhead "May I be just half the person
> mailto:dburkhuad@xxxxxxxxxxx my dog thinks I am."
> My webcomic Cold Servings
> http://coldservings.keenspace.com
> Updates Wednesdays
>
>


.

Loading