Re: HOW TO MAKE YOUR BODY ALKALINE?


"David L. Burkhead" <dburkhuad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Jeydnf8DcvaIUObenZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Corey wrote:
>> "David L. Burkhead" <dburkhuad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:-JidncLdNfSGceveRVn-uA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Corey wrote:
>>>> "David L. Burkhead" <dburkhuad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:nfqdnQcMoeRV9ujenZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Wayne Dobson wrote:
>>>>>> "David L. Burkhead" <dburkhuad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:toqdnWbVUI2g__HenZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>> Corey wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are in a state of denial.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are in a state of gullibility.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is hundreds of studies on ozone and oxygen therapies. It
>>>>>>>> would be very easy to verify, just take your head out of the
>>>>>>>> sand and
>>>>>>>> look. http://www.oxygentherapyexperts.com/library.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I looked at some of these.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many?
>>>>>
>>>>> About a dozen. There are only so many hours in the day and so
>>>>> many days
>>>>> in one lifetime.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of the ones I looked at, not _one_ of them was
>>>>>>> anything close to a rigorous study, done to good scientific
>>>>>>> practice, documented in sources, and claiming what you claim for
>>>>>>> them. Not
>>>>>>> one.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> They fall into one of two categories: a lot of crap that has
>>>>>>> nothing to do with science and science that has nothing to do
>>>>>>> with your claims.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You have a scientific basis for this assertion?
>>>>>
>>>>> The ability to read and compare what is stated in the papers
>>>>> with what was claimed uptopic.
>>>>>
>>>>> A couple of examples: one of the "studies" listed was just a
>>>>> description of
>>>>> how to perform the "treatment" with no actual experimental results
>>>>> presented
>>>>> showing anything, let alone that it does what is claimed for it.
>>>>> This kind
>>>>> of thing has no place whatsoever in any list of "studies" being
>>>>> provided as
>>>>> evidence that something actually works. Its presence in such a
>>>>> list
>>>>> is a clear indication of "padding the resume" which is an alert
>>>>> that things are not as strong as they would have you believe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then there's the study about CsCl use in chemotherapy treatment
>>>>> that Corey cited uptopic. Following the link provided and reading
>>>>> what's actually there reveals several things. First is that the
>>>>> description is a "downstream" change in pH. I.e., that it's a
>>>>> _local_ phenomenon rather than
>>>>> "making your body alkaline." (Note that the text said that pH
>>>>> measured in leg muscle was not influenced by CsCl treatment.)
>>>>> Second, no direct connection was made between the pH change pe se
>>>>> and the increased uptake of
>>>>> chemotherapy agents by the tumor. Maybe the pH was a factor or
>>>>> maybe the CsCl itself, irrespective of the local pH, facilitated
>>>>> bonds to receptor sites. That question is not answered in the
>>>>> quoted text. Third, the therapeutic effect cited was not the
>>>>> presence of either the CsCl _or_ pH by
>>>>> themselves (contrary to the claim that "making the body alkaline"
>>>>> is some great cure-all), but rather by increased uptake of
>>>>> conventional chemotherapy
>>>>> agents. IOW it would be used as part of a chemotherapy treatment
>>>>> program rather than as a replacement. Fourth, a "statistically
>>>>> significant" difference is not necessarily a practically
>>>>> significant difference. Arbitrarily small differences can be
>>>>> "statistically significant" if the variation within each
>>>>> population being compared
>>>>> is low enough and the sample
>>>>> size is large enough. Fifth, lots of studies of various treatments
>>>>> show dramatic improvements in mice (and lots more show
>>>>> "statistically significant" results) which fail to hold up on the
>>>>> way to human
>>>>> trials. Same thing with _causing_ cancer (remember saccharine?).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, this paper, while interesting, really doesn't support
>>>>> Corey's rather absolute position at all.
>>>>
>>>> They aren't designed to actually work. They never include DMSO to
>>>> transport the Cesium Chloride to the Cancer Cells. Potassium and
>>>> other minerals to keep imbalance problems from happening. Its as
>>>> though they don't want it to work or they have no sense. In fact I
>>>> think they have actually banned DMSO to be researched. It could be
>>>> even combined with some forms of Chemo.
>>>
>>> First you cite it as evidence for your position. Now you claim that
>>> it was
>>> designed not to work? Backpedal much? Sorry, but you can't have it
>>> both ways.
>>>
>>> So far, you have failed to provide any verifiable evidence for the
>>> claims being made. And many of the things that one would expect
>>> given what's being
>>> claimed (cures for AIDS and Cancer) are not happening. If hundreds
>>> of people have been cured of AIDS, we would expect at least a _few_
>>> to be out making the talk show circuits. We would expect _some_
>>> nation where the FDA
>>> and AMA don't have any authority (you know, like every country in the
>>> world
>>> that isn't the US) to be using these treatments regularly and become
>>> essentially AIDS and cancer free as a result. There are countries in
>>> Africa. South Africa and Zambia, for example, have over 20% of the
>>> adult population infected with HIV. Botswana, more than 37%,
>>> Lesotho, more than 28%, Swaziland, more than 38%! Why haven't any
>>> of these countries, in desperation if nothing else, tried these
>>> cures? Neither the AMA nor the FDA
>>> has any authority over there. One of these countries managing to rid
>>> itself
>>> of AIDS would be something that _couldn't_ be hidden or covered up.
>>> Yet none of this stuff happens. If your Medical conspiracy is so
>>> powerful as to
>>> be able to prevent that, then why are the proponents of these
>>> alternate therapies still alive? If they can stop a foreign country
>>> from even trying
>>> these alternate therapies, or so thoroughly sabotage them so that
>>> there isn't even a little bit of improvement seen (and when nearly a
>>> third of your
>>> adult population is infected with HIV it doesn't take much
>>> improvement at all to raise major waves), then surely they can make
>>> a handful of activists
>>> disappear.
>>
>>
>> Here is a group right here. Don't have to depend on the "controlled
>> by evil" information any longer.
>>
>> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/aidscured/
>
> Somebody created a yahoo group. This is supposed to be convincing of
> _anything_? I could create a group in five minutes that says AIDS is
> created by invisible pink unicorns an prescribing virgin sluts as the
> cure.
>
>> You need to spend a lot less time foaming at the mouth on News groups
>> and much more time investigating or experimenting.
>
> I think you need to spend a little bit of time learning just what is
> and
> isn't evidence of anything.

But you said there is no one out there claiming anything. I also found a man
in the UK documented to have been cured from
Aids.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4432564.stm

But of course now they are trying to deny he ever had Aids or that he is
cured. The Bob Beck Protocol has cured many of Aids but of course none of
your kind have enough time to give it a chance. To busy on news groups
spreading misinformation.Your kind is not interested in the cure, just the
money for the cure, or you would be testing it right this minute.

Corey



.

Loading