Re: You are so full of -- parasites and toxins, actually

I have much trouble in accepting that all diseases are caused by parasites.

Not being myself from the medical field, it was my reckoning that diseases were caused by either a bacteria, virus, or toxin and occasionally a parasite.

Well, then, you and Dr. Clark agree. You might want to actually read her work, rather than someone else's lies about her work, before you pass judgment yourself. The full information is that parasites plus toxins results in "incurable" diseases. For cancer, she mentions the human intestinal fluke as the parasite (invading the liver), and methanol as the toxin. For AIDS, the toxin is benzene, concentrated in the hypothalmus, and I don't recall off hand what the parasite is.

Her book The Cure For All Diseases discusses the roles of bacteria and viruses, too. She has not once said that all disease was caused by some parasite. She has, however, said that all cancers result from a specific toxin and a specific parasite which has migrated to a specific organ which the parasite does not ordinarily inhabit.

At least read her works before pretending you can mount an assault on her! When you read the works of the person you are attacking, you will at the very least gain real material you can use to attack the person, in the form of quotes, which is a lot more credible than rehashing the same old attack that others have read and then commented on. But it's a lot more work -- kinda like real science.

As for the tired (yes, very tired) cry of "Where are all the research files?", you do realize that, here on this alternative web site, we've grown sick (literally) of the medical establishment's pattern of ignoring medical advances from which it cannot sustain profitability, don't you?

The history of medicine and Science is replete with people with your attitude, which only serves to block progress. Consider the story of Ignaz Phillip Semmelweiss, a common name taught to high school biology students as the father of "washing one's hands". Concerned about the fact that women who gave birth in his hospital under the supervision of doctors and medical students had a 30% mortality rate ("childbed fever"), but mothers who gave birth in another ward where midwives supervised had a much lower chance of death (around 3% -- 1/10th as much), Sammelweiss investigated and eventually discovered the solution to the problem.

By merely having doctors and medical students wash their hands in a mild chlorine solution after working with dead bodies -- the doctors and medical students would frequently switch between working in the morgue and working on living patients -- the previous 30% mortality rate for mothers giving birth dropped to nearly 0%.

That was in 1847. Semmelweiss reported this information. Instead of being hailed as a genius, Semmelweiss was ridiculed by his contemporaries. He was attacked, just as you attack Dr. Clark now. Meanwhile, women kept dying at childbirth all because some of the doctors of the day were too stubborn to listen to what we all know as completely obvious now. Eventually, Semmelweiss went insane over this and died in 1865.

In the 1880's, the microscope made it possible, finally, to see why cleaning their hands made a big difference. Suddenly, bacteria came into view, and we could see that killing the bacteria by washing one's hands after working with dead bodies made all the difference to the mothers giving birth. But it took nearly forty years for this realization to set in.

Where was science back in the 1850's to test Semmelweiss's theories and determine whether or not they were valid? Well, "science" was too busy believing whatever science believed back then to even look at what the man had to say. "Science" (*spit*) was too blinded by its own arrogance to consider some new bit of information which... heck, this situation didn't even have big bucks behind it, just a bunch of arrogant doctors! So no one's income was threatened, just some doctors' opinions of how right their own biases were!

That's just ONE example in medicine. This cycle of "ignore the results, attack the discovered, pretend it's flawed, find fault, attack, ignore, etc." has been going on for centuries throughout the history of scientific progress. The Church did the same thing with Galileo. They wouldn't even look through the telescope. Einstein? Attacked over and over. Dalton's atomic theory? Widely attacked and ridiculed for decades. Etc., etc., etc. Pick a fundamental datum in science that we all take for granted, and at some point, it was ridiculed and criticized.

It was forty years from the time that washing one's hands was discovered to prevent disease until the time that it became acceptable to believe it. Should we all wait for another forty years of the ravages of cancer before we use the techniques Dr. Clark has developed which science is still too arrogant to properly test?

For you to come in here and offer that tired old refrain simply demonstrates that you are just a textbook example of a mindless automaton following your programming to block the advance of science.

Be a hero and genuinely help someone. Your attempt to demonstrate concern for your fellows by protecting their finances is not helping anyone and is actively blocking science. If you want to be a real hero, test her theories yourself, or find those who can and encourage them to explore it.

Real science is not about dismissing theories because you doubt it. Real science is about finding out the truth, without having a determined result in mind when one sets out to find the truth.

=-John-=

Alert Webmaster & Moderators Already alerted!  Already alerted!

1 readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?
How do you feel about this message?     Agree     Disagree       Hide this question