"Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:g6a0t8$u1o$1@news.iucc.ac.il...
> In misc.health.alternative Carole <hubbca@iimetro.com.au> wrote:
>
> :> Has it ever occurred to you that a person might be able to think for
> :> himself and come to the conclusion that the experts are correct?
>
> : When you've been taught what to think, and the rules to use to achieve
> an
> : outcome, what is left for you to make an independent decision?
>
> I wasn't taught *what* to think. I was taught *how* to think. There
> is a big difference. I have pointed out to you that demonstrating the
> fundamental flaws in the "cell salt" theory is not a matter of "thinking
> for oneself." It is a matter of *doing an experiment* the results of
> which are not open to dispute.
Richard, it is a well known fact that conventional science is based on use
of pharmaceuticals.
And it is also a well known fact that the first allopathic schools were
heavily subsidised by Rockefeller donations.
Sorry, scientific research is corrupted and the research isn't worth much.
>
> :> Has it ever
> :> occurred to you that if you know nothing about a subject, the odds that
> :> thinking for yourself is going to lead you to any conclusion that is
> even
> :> close to be correct are very, very, very small?
>
> : Does it ever occur to you that the people who know so little about a
> subject
> : are those who have been taught corrupted science?
>
> You don't know *anything* about science, by your own admission. You have
> no way of knowing whether the science I have been taught is "corrupted"
> or not.
I have my own experience plus the cellsalt theory and homeopathy have been
around for 150.
There has been 150 years of suppression of the true causes of disease.
>
> Unlike you, I have actually gone into a lab and done experiments. If the
> atomic theory is wrong, and if classical physics is not a reasonable
> approximation for calculating the motions of bodies traveling at
> velocities
> that are low relative to the speed of light, then none of the results of
> the
> experiments that I did for my Ph. D. can be made to make any sense. If
> quantum mechanics is wrong, then none of results of the experiments I did
> for my postdoc (and in my lab at Bar-Ilan) make any sense.
>
> Unlike you, I know something about chemistry, and I can explain what
> happens
> when something burns. I know the difference between "oxidation" and
> "reduction" and that the oxidation states of elements as they are found
> within
> the body is not necessarily the same as those of elements as they are
> found
> in the remains of a body that has been burned. For example, the mechanism
> by which hemoglobin works is fairly well understood, and it depends on the
> iron atoms in the heme groups being in the reduced state.
> "Methemoglobin,"
> which contains iron in the ferric state, cannot transport oxygen.
Good for you Richard and no doubt your experiments work on a certain level.
However, the pharmaceutical business has absolutely no interest in curing
anybody of anything.
They are focused on making money.
>
> : And has it ever occurred to you that the pharmaceutical business with
> : disease has hijacked medical science and suppress any cures that they
> can't
> : make money out of?
>
> How could they do that? How have they succeeded in suppressing, say, you?
Let me count the ways the pharmaceutical industry suppress their opposition.
1. They train doctors in "approved" schools and techniques
2. They use the mass media to rubbish alternatives including vitamins and
minerals
3. They set up bureaucracies to promote their choices in alternative
methods -- as long as it doesn't threaten their profits they'll give it the
ok.
4. There are stories of how innovators like Reich and Rife were dealt with
by the system so their techniques would be lost to history.
5. They get doctors to push their products using dinners and other
promotional products.
6. They get their people on boards and other places of influence.
7. The public are coached in the importance of only listening to "experts"
and "reliable sources"..
Carole
www.conspiracee.com
