>- Show me an example of someone who was successfully treated (from E. histolytica) with your methods.
I have not seen any proof of this, nor have I seen any proof that these pharmaceuticals work. I have seen testimonials for both but testimonials are not proof.
I would be fine with testimonials, as long as they refer to herbal or natural or non-pharma cure for E. histolytica. As you say you haven't seen any proof of this, then at least show me those testimonials. Again, refering to E. histolytica.
>- ability to change it's protein structure a couple of hundred times...
GARBAGE! This is a farce and pure b.s. to cover up a theory that was WRONG to begin with.
- That part was refering to protozoan's ability to change their proteins, not HIV... (you'd be surprised to know that I agree with you regarding the aids scam though)
Actually, this is not correct. Yes, that is what E. histolytica feeds on but if you do not replinish the good bacteria, you will suffer more serious secondary infections of pathogenic bacteria.
That's open for debate as I have tried both ways (taking and stopping probiotics) and started getting better after stopping probiotic supplementation... however that is only a small part of a much larger effort... but E. histolytica feeds on probiotic AND other bacteria so pathogens would have just as hard time as probiotics.
>- So you would consider pharma drugs after all?
Yes, I would consider pharmaceuticals if nothing worked
So why ban efforts to disucss them then? Would you rather NOT have a place where to exchange opinions and experiences if you got so desparate as to try pharmaceutical means of getting better (positive or negative, doesn't matter)? Since when is absence of information a good thing? Especially when you consider that most information that is "official" is scewed, wrong, manipulated, and so on (which I am sure you know about as well as I do)? Tell people - "if you want to try something in desparation, after everything natural failed, you are on your own buddy"? Or worse yet - "you are in hands of pharma and MDs" (do you really believe that majority of "experts" and MDs know what they are doing?). You do understand that many people have parasites, have negative results, and they live lives of absolute miseary as a result. Then they try to do something on their own, and in their search they are told here that - no you can't look in that direction, our moderator doesn't like it because s/he knows nothing about it... What better proof do we need then the simple fact that we don't even have anecdotal evidence that someone was successfully cured from E.histolytica with herbal means? Isn't that what pharma companies are doing? Trying to prevent people from getting better even though they don't have cures for those same things?
Yes, unbiased studies are important, I am registered to be involved in a couple. The real problem with these studies is that they are rarely unbiased. Either the study is undertaken to prove something works or to prove that it does not work. Additionally, in almost all studies, there is insufficient control or compensation for lack of control.
Which is exactly why I said one needs to read them "carefully"... maybe I should've said "VERY carefully" (as I have exact same opinion about them as you)... one can still get a lot of usefull information from those papares, which they didn't even intend to provide us with. It's akin to reading your daily newspaper and still managing to get informed by reading between lines rather then taking the provided information at face value. I am usually more interested in who is supplying the info, what their connections are, and what their apparent and real goals are. Then I draw my own conclusions and get informed. ...I can and do see a concerted effort to "push" pharmaceuticals.
And that's exactly where you (and others like Glaxony) are wrong! First of all, my efforts are mine only. I don't care if others agree with me, or not, up to them to decide, that's the beauty of free will. Second - there is no "concerted" effort. What I have observed is that many people are jumping carelessly onto the pharma bandwagon, without really thinking about what they are getting themselves into. Yes, I took them in desparation when my life was in question and when those who are supposed to help were doing exact opposite. But making an assumption based on that one fact that somehow that must mean that I am a part of concerted effort, or that I didn't try other things first, or whatever else - those are just assumptions, nothing else. One can see whatever one wants, and usually people do see things... which are not there.
In the end, it is probably the herbals, etc, that you took before that produced your cure and all you needed to do was to wait. In the mean time you took the pharmaceuticals and since the wait period was over, you gave them credit. Can you look and see that?
Certainly something I was hoping for! But my observations were meticulous, written down in detail, and I can tell you that improvements came as a result of taking medications. Your argument to me right now sounds like an argument of those "experts" who say that a child who got autism right after a vaccine, didn't necessarily get it from the vaccine. Possible? yes, but not probable especially if you ask those mothers who were there. And same goes for me - when I have an improvement immediately after taking medications, every time, and a long term improvement as well, then I know where the improvement came from (today I am feeling way better then 6 months ago and can eat foods I couldn't touch for years),
Don't have time any more, there are better things to do then beat a dead horse - I will just correct myself that I did say "amoeba" for G. lamblia when I meant "protozoa". With that little correction, my statement was still very much true. That MD didn't know what he was doing, period.
One more thing, just remembered: the very reason why you are wrong is blind belief in CDC or whoever: E. histolytica was most often confused with morphologically identical E. dispar. Read up a bit on it. Most conclusions today are based on research done before researchers were aware of this. I can tell you that E. histolytica is deadly no matter what; however, adding E. dispar to the mix makes it appear not so deadly... horrible mistake on part of those who use outdated information! Every time you read about "asymptomatic" infection due to E. histolytica, chances are the person was actually infected with E. dispar which is completely benign. Every time you read about spontanous remission of E. histolytica you are again reading about E. dispar. And to make it even worse, there are other morphologically identical amoebas to E. histolytica, something I wrote about on curezone long ago. And to make it even worse, there are many other (even more virulent) strains of E. histolytica which we know nothing about!