Dying To Have Known (A Gerson Therapy Documentary)

Di0genes

Pixel8 wrote: »

http://www.realscam.com/f16/doctors-data-sues-quackwatch-232/

http://chiropractorhealthblog.com/why-do-people-quote-quackwatch-org.php

Stephen Barret the guy who runs Quackwatch isn't even a medical doctor, he's a psychiatrist and not even a board certified psychiatrist at that.

Um source? Barret is a Psychiatrist. Which is a medical doctor. Specialising in Psychiatry.

Monty Burnz

Pixel8 wrote: »

http://www.realscam.com/f16/doctors-data-sues-quackwatch-232/

http://chiropractorhealthblog.com/why-do-people-quote-quackwatch-org.php

Stephen Barret the guy who runs Quackwatch isn't even a medical doctor, he's a psychiatrist and not even a board certified psychiatrist at that. He is an obvious Big Pharma shill.

It seems that he is a retired psychiatrist. You have to qualify as a medical doctor to become a psychiatrist.

So he is an obvious shill because...?

By the way, your argument fails completely because even if he was being paid a fortune by 'big pharma' (which is a totally unfounded accusation), that still does not mean that the huge flaws that he points out in the pseudo-science he examines on his website are not there.

Facts and arguments are either right or wrong; it does not matter who states them or what their motive is. You can't dismiss the argument due to the (claimed) motive of the person making that argument. So if Galileo says that the earth orbits the sun, you can't just say he's only saying it to sell his telescopes - you have to deal with his argument on its own merits.

tony 2 tone

Pixel8 wrote: »

http://www.realscam.com/f16/doctors-data-sues-quackwatch-232/

http://chiropractorhealthblog.com/why-do-people-quote-quackwatch-org.php

Stephen Barret the guy who runs Quackwatch isn't even a medical doctor, he's a psychiatrist and not even a board certified psychiatrist at that. He is an obvious Big Pharma shill.

He was a practicing physician until retiring from active practice in 1993, and his medical license is currently listed as "Active-Retired" in good standing: "No disciplinary actions were found for this license."[1]

Via wikipedia, via a link on the realscam.com forum.

Link to Pennsilvania Dept of state web site, listing info on Stephen Barrets licence
I would hazard a guess that chiropractorhealthblog would have it in for Dr Barret because of his quackwatch web site. There is no evidence on the chiropractor blog to back up their statement.

Monty Burnz

tony 2 tone wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that chiropractorhealthblog would have it in for Dr Barret because of his quackwatch web site. There is no evidence on the chiropractor blog to back up their statement.

Of course, we can rely on the chiropractors to be objective about this. After all, to become a fully qualified chiropractor you have to...put up a sign on your door that says 'chiropractor'. And you're done.

Edit: Nope, I got this one wrong - there does seem to be some regulation of chiropractors (admittedly, it's self regulation).

Di0genes

Pixel8 wrote: »

http://chiropractorhealthblog.com/why-do-people-quote-quackwatch-org.php.

I like this bit

I bet that more people are injured or killed every year by "real medicine" than by anything natural health practitioners do.

Yes I imagine more people die in hospitals with "real medicine" that in acupuncture or chiropractors offices.

And I imagine the amount of people who's life's are saved by acupuncture or chiropractor is a even smaller number.

Pixel8

Well im sure those who deserve conventional medicine will only try it and nothing else, so happy days for the rest of us, good bye to all the negative skeptics who only give out about everything their whole lives and have nothing positive to say about anything (you people are obviously all deficient in more than one vitamin otherwise ya's wouldn't moan so much).

FACT: Vitamins & minerals give the body what it needs to cure itself.

Go debate it all you want, it doesn't change the fact. If you're still a skeptic, then you haven't done nearly enough research and you certainly haven't tried it yourself, god forbid you learn something you didn't know already.

You can all go on about proof and evidence all you want but im not going to spend hours looking for all the links to back all this stuff up, get off your asses and try to disprove it to yourself. When i saw all this info the first time (lots of gerson research), that was enough for me to give it a try, i've also proved it to myself coz i've actually tried it myself and im still taking high dose vitamins, they're having such a good effect on me, so im not gonna stop, my body just keeps feeling better every day.

I just started taking Vitamin C in high doses two weeks ago and my eyes have never felt better (Ive had eye conditions my whole life and seen numerous specialists who knew nothing about it, they always told me its mechanical irritation, stop touching your eyes, how wrong they were...), didn't even know, and no doctor ever told me, that the eyes have the second biggest concentration of Vitamin C in the body, so naturally more Vitamin C in the diet is going to have a positive effect on the eyes, makes sense doesn't it? My eyes have felt so much better in the last 2 weeks than the last 10 years! Here's the page that woke me up: http://www.cforyourself.com/Conditions/Eye_Conditions/eye_conditions.html
And another source saying the same about Vitamin C for they eyes: http://www.visionworksusa.com/floaters.htm
Apparently, smoking can deplete vitamin C rapidly in the body and im a big smoker so even worse for my eyes the more i smoke... yet, here i am still smoking as much but my eyes feel way better since taking lots of vitamin C, way less itchy, way less goo and way less touching them. Do i need a scientist to confirm to me what im feeling and what im not feeling? I don't think so, what would he know anyway if HE hasn't tried the vitamins im taking myself or had the condition i have...? Again, less than 6% of all medical doctors, including Barret, know anything about vitamins or minerals, they are NOT qualified in nutrition; which is all about vitamins and minerals.

I'd recommend Solgar Vitamins if you're interested in giving this a go, they're Vit D 2200IU is great and Vit C 1500MG. Vit B and Vit E are also supposed to be very important, haven't tried them yet though...
An excellent multi-vitamin that i just began taking about 4 months ago which has over 120 different fruits, veges and mushrooms is called Natures Plus Source Of Life Gold. Tastes lovely too and is a liquid.

You'd spend about 50 quid on about 2-3 months supply of all the above vitamins which i think works out 100's of thousands cheaper than conventional chemo treatment... and it works much better, so really, no matter what you believe about all of this, would you go for the way more expensive option first just because of petty pride, in order to be correct about something? Well thats just plain stupid...

Did nobody see the Cancer Death Rates graph a few pages ago? Conventional cancer, diabetes and heart disease treatment is killing people, it does not work, look at the stats and wake up.

Monty Burnz

Pixel8 wrote: »

Well im sure those who deserve conventional medicine will only try it and nothing else, so happy days for the rest of us, good bye to all the negative skeptics who only give out about everything their whole lives and have nothing positive to say about anything (you people are obviously all deficient in more than one vitamin otherwise ya's wouldn't moan so much).

Facts are not negative or positive. They just are. And if someone tells you that they can fly on magical invisible wings, it's not negative if you ask them for proof. You are actually doing the guy a favour before he jumps off a tall building, relying on these magical wings.

Once again, you attack the motives of the people who are asking questions, rather than addressing the questions. This isn't rocket science: if your position is correct, your argument will be better. It isn't, because you are wrong on this one.

Pixel8 wrote: »

FACT: Vitamins & minerals give the body what it needs to cure itself.

...up to a point. There are many diseases and medical problems that the body cannot cure. Very many. That is why the medical industry exists, and has existed since pre-history.

Pixel8 wrote: »

Go debate it all you want, it doesn't change the fact. If you're still a skeptic, then you haven't done nearly enough research and you certainly haven't tried it yourself, god forbid you learn something you didn't know already.

And you should probably do the same.

Pixel8 wrote: »

You can all go on about proof and evidence all you want but im not going to spend hours looking for all the links to back all this stuff up, get off your asses and try to disprove it to yourself.

I think we have done. You have failed to prove your claims.

Pixel8 wrote: »

When i saw all this info the first time (lots of gerson research), that was enough for me to give it a try, i've also proved it to myself coz i've actually tried it myself and im still taking high dose vitamins, they're having such a good effect on me, so im not gonna stop, my body just keeps feeling better every day.

That's great. And it's great that you can rule out a placebo effect with a sample size of n=1.

Pixel8 wrote: »

I just started taking Vitamin C in high doses two weeks ago and my eyes have never felt better (Ive had eye conditions my whole life and seen numerous specialists who knew nothing about it, they always told me its mechanical irritation, stop touching your eyes, how wrong they were...), didn't even know, and no doctor ever told me, that the eyes have the second biggest concentration of Vitamin C in the body, so naturally more Vitamin C in the diet is going to have a positive effect on the eyes, makes sense doesn't it?

Your eyes almost entirely made of water. Maybe you should drink more water? Makes sense, doesn't it? And for headaches, you should eat animal brains - your brain is made of brain matter too! That makes as much sense.

Pixel8 wrote: »

My eyes have felt so much better in the last 2 weeks than the last 10 years! Here's the page that woke me up: http://www.cforyourself.com/Conditions/Eye_Conditions/eye_conditions.html
And another source saying the same about Vitamin C for they eyes: http://www.visionworksusa.com/floaters.htm
Apparently, smoking can deplete vitamin C rapidly in the body and im a big smoker

The irony of taking health advice on trust from a heavy smoker...:rolleyes:

Pixel8 wrote: »

Again, less than 6% of all medical doctors, including Barret, know anything about vitamins or minerals, they are NOT qualified in nutrition; which is all about vitamins and minerals.

90% of Gerson Therapy advocates make up percentages on the spot or don't cite reliable sources...

Pixel8 wrote: »

Did nobody see the Cancer Death Rates graph a few pages ago? Conventional cancer, diabetes and heart disease treatment is killing people, it does not work, look at the stats and wake up.

I'm sorry, that's total nonsense. Diet and lack of exercise are killing people. Medicine is struggling to cope with this basic fact. Do you think a fat, chain-smoking taxi-driver who does no exercise will be saved from cancer or a heart-attack with vitamins? Really? I'd also point out that as people eat more these days, they are already getting more vitamins and minerals. These don't seem to be overcoming the effects of excessive food and lack of exercise. So why would taking hugely unnatural levels of vitamins (like Linus Pauling's 190 oranges a day equivalent :eek:) make a difference, especially in the absence of any scientific proof??

Anyway, good luck with your vitamins and it's great that you feel good. Kick the ciggies and go for a run and I promise that you'll feel even better

Pixel8

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Once again, you attack the motives of the people who are asking questions, rather than addressing the questions. This isn't rocket science: if your position is correct, your argument will be better. It isn't, because you are wrong on this one.

So first you say i attack the people asking the questions, then you say "because you are wrong on this one" so you sound like you have ALREADY made your mind up about this no matter what anyone says, you just want the debate for some warped reason, Monty have you ever taken vitamin supplements or tried the Gerson Therapy? No, didnt think so, so how do YOU know it doesn't work and im wrong then? Going on something someone else has said instead of first hand experience? Well thats not very scientific!

Pixel8

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Once again, you attack the motives of the people who are asking questions, rather than addressing the questions. This isn't rocket science: if your position is correct, your argument will be better. It isn't, because you are wrong on this one.

So first you say i attack the people asking the questions, then you say "because you are wrong on this one" so you sound like you have ALREADY made your mind up about this no matter what anyone says, you just want the debate for some warped reason, Monty have you ever taken vitamin supplements or tried the Gerson Therapy? No, didnt think so, so how do YOU know it doesn't work and im wrong then? Going on something someone else has said instead of first hand experience? Well thats not very scientific!
Scientists test things out for themselves! They don't debate things til the cows come home, science is practical, it's not about what people think.

Nobody gives a damn what you *think* about Gerson, have you tried it yourself? No? Then shut up please and go do more research in the form of actually ingesting some vitamins, then report back.
I don't give a crap what you used to believe about something you never even tried for yourself, the height of arrogance... lol

Monty Burnz

Pixel8 wrote: »

Scientists test things out for themselves! They don't debate things til the cows come home, science is practical, it's not about what people think.

Yes, the scientists have tested this. They found that there is little or no sign that it does anything. i.e. Gerson Therapy is probably bull****.

Pixel8 wrote: »

Nobody gives a damn what you *think* about Gerson, have you tried it yourself? No? Then shut up please and go do more research in the form of actually ingesting some vitamins, then report back.
I don't give a crap what you used to believe about something you never even tried for yourself, the height of arrogance... lol

Well, I'll say this for you - your reply is as intelligent and well-argued as it is classy.

Pixel8

Monty Burnz wrote: »

...up to a point. There are many diseases and medical problems that the body cannot cure. Very many. That is why the medical industry exists, and has existed since pre-history.

You're right, up to a point. The body can't cure viruses, bacteria, fungus, parasites and any other living things inside the body without a good enough immune system. What builds your immune system? Vitamins and minerals, what causes a bad immune system? Lack of vitamins and minerals.
For parasites, bacteria and viral infections i'd recommend Colloidal Silver or Blood Electrification while also taking vitamins as Colloidal Silver and Blood Electrification simply kill viruses, bacteria, parasites and fungus. So there you have your 3 health solutions to ALL disease related problems with the body without the need for any conventional medicine whatsoever...

90% of Gerson Therapy advocates make up percentages on the spot or don't cite reliable sources...

Ok, where's your proof for this statement then?

Anyway, good luck with your vitamins and it's great that you feel good. Kick the ciggies and go for a run and I promise that you'll feel even better

I play football twice a week which definitely helps to get those vitamins and minerals moving around the body faster so yes, you do need exercise as well, but well done for assuming that i don't exercise...

I'd suggest you also watch The Beautiful Truth and Food Matters:
http://www.theopensource.tv/new-video-digital/the-beautiful-truth-video_b589213f6.html
http://www.theopensource.tv/james-colquhoun-and-laurentine-ten-bosch/food-matters-video_b78ebc9a6.html
http://www.foodmatters.tv/

Ever heard of Dr. Mercola? What do you think he says about nutrition and vitamins and minerals? He totally supports them and he must have the biggest health website on the net today and im sure you've never even been on his site.... typical.

Here's a science daily article on Vitamin E studies being fatally flawed because: "the levels of this micronutrient necessary to reduce oxidative stress are far higher than those that have been commonly used in clinical trials."

"In a new study and commentary in Free Radical Biology and Medicine, researchers concluded that the levels of vitamin E necessary to reduce oxidative stress -- as measured by accepted biomarkers of lipid peroxidation -- are about 1,600 to 3,200 I.U. daily, or four to eight times higher than those used in almost all past clinical trials. This could help explain the inconsistent results of many vitamin E trials for its value in preventing or treating cardiovascular disease"

This is the same situation for nearly ALL clinical studies into vitamins and minerals, they have all been LOW DOSE STUDIES! Do you hear me? So until scientists begin testing high dose vitamins, then there is only evidence coming from those people you just don't want to listen to, yes, the Nutritionalists, who you don't seem to have any respect for at all yet they are the ones studying this in depth! So obviously, they are the ones we should be listening to, don't you think?!

Di0genes

Pixel8 wrote: »

Ok, where's your proof for this statement then?

Actually you started this nonsense with this claim

less than 6% of all medical doctors, including Barret, know anything about vitamins or minerals,

Ever heard of Dr. Mercola? What do you think he says about nutrition and vitamins and minerals? He totally supports them and he must have the biggest health website on the net today and im sure you've never even been on his site.... typical.

I think you'll find nearly every doctor on the planet recommends Vitamins and Minerals.

They'll also not recommend Colloidal Silver instead of antibiotics.

Pixel8

Di0genes wrote: »

They'll also not recommend Colloidal Silver instead of antibiotics.

Zzzzz, another person who knows nothing about the history of Colloidal Silver... you seriously need to do some proper research on the history of silver being used as a natural antibiotic that viruses and parasites etc. have never developed an immunity to... just a bit better than antibiotics i reckon! And once again, the Japanese are using this information very successfully.

Read this and learn something: http://www.electrobiotics.com/What-Exactly-Is-Colloidal-Silver?&chapter=20

CiaranMT

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well, I'll say this for you - your reply is as intelligent and well-argued as it is classy.

LOL

Well put.

Di0genes

Pixel8 wrote: »

Zzzzz, another person who knows nothing about the history of Colloidal Silver...

No.

you seriously need to do some proper research on the history of silver being used as a natural antibiotic

Really? Source? Because the concept of Antibiotics have only been around since the 19th century.

that viruses and parasites etc. have never developed an immunity to... just a bit better than antibiotics

So in your mind viruses and parasites are werewolves?

i reckon! And once again, the Japanese are using this information very successfully.

Read this and learn something: http://www.electrobiotics.com/What-Exactly-Is-Colloidal-Silver?&chapter=20

That article doesn't mention the words Japan or Japanese in it.

It does have some fun stuff

In Perceptions Magazine May/June 1996, Mark Metcalf states: "I made a 16-ounce solution of well over 250 PPM and drank it. I repeated this procedure four days in a row, daily ingesting at least the equivalent of a 5-ppm solution! I did not eat yogurt or acidophilus or compensate for friendly bacteria loss in any way. The only side effect was that I seemed to feel better!"

That sounds scientific!

The rest is just a preposterous litany of cure alls.

AIDS! HIV! Athletes Foot! streptococcus!

I notice there is absolutely no evidence provided to support these claims.

RoboClam

I realise that silver can be and is used as an antimicrobial in disinfectants and such. However, how could colloidal silver be both antibacterial and antiviral? Both pathogens survive in different environments (intracelluarly for viruses and either intra or extracellularly depending on the bacteria). More importantly, antibiotics can be both broad and narrow spectrum, depending on the type of bacteria you are targeting. Broad spectrum antibiotics are not ideal, but it seems to me that if colloidal silver could kill bacteria, then it would not only target harmful bacteria; It would also kill the natural gut flora. It would seem to me that for it to be beneficial against all forms of harmful bacteria, then its mechanism of action would require it to have some form of cognition.

victorhelsing

Pixel8 wrote: »

So first you say i attack the people asking the questions, then you say "because you are wrong on this one" so you sound like you have ALREADY made your mind up about this no matter what anyone says, you just want the debate for some warped reason, Monty have you ever taken vitamin supplements or tried the Gerson Therapy? No, didnt think so, so how do YOU know it doesn't work and im wrong then? Going on something someone else has said instead of first hand experience? Well thats not very scientific!
Scientists test things out for themselves! They don't debate things til the cows come home, science is practical, it's not about what people think.

Nobody gives a damn what you *think* about Gerson, have you tried it yourself? No? Then shut up please and go do more research in the form of actually ingesting some vitamins, then report back.
I don't give a crap what you used to believe about something you never even tried for yourself, the height of arrogance... lol

It is useless to argue science with someone who does not believe in science. Each time one of the scientifically minded people point out the flaws in your reasoning or facts, you lash out again in your ignorance. That's ok, we should not take offense, because the points of logic and science we are making are irrelevant to your belief system.

Similarly, it is useless for you to argue faith healing with those who do not share your faith. When you repeat to us (again and again) how wonderful Gerson and other therapies are without providing any meaningful experimental data to back it up, why are you disappointed when we are not convinced?

But it is a little offensive when you claim that we are unable to understand these wonderful therapies because we are closed minded and ignorant. What gives you the right to judge? I have read Gerson's original book, and two books by his people, and found them utterly without scientific evidence to prove the effectiveness of their therapy. How many Gerson books have you read? How many books in biochemistry and pharmacology have you read to give you the right to be so dismissive of the broad range of knowledge acquired by generations of gifted minds before yours?

Your ignorance of conventional medicine does not give you the right to reject its value without foundation, and expect others to believe you.

Who would believe that a mold could cure a potentially fatal infection such as pneumonia or syphilis? Fleming did. He did not reject the proposition merely because it flew in the face of what he previously knew about biology and pharmacology. He insisted on learning more and finally discovered the truth. That is the scientific method.

Who would believe that milking a cow could prevent smallpox? Who would believe that taking the pus from a milkmaid could prevent smallpox in someone else? These are counterintuitive advances in modern medicine that were realized BECAUSE of the scientific method, not in spite of it. Smallpox has been completely ERADICATED by modern medicine, and it has NOTHING to do with coffee enemas, vitamin supplements or prayer.

It is fine to propose a hypothesis, no matter how silly. But then you must carefully describe how it works, and test it, and gather the scientific data necessary to prove (or DISprove) your hypothesis.

Gerson had a very broad claim for his therapy. Not only did it supposedly cure TB and syphilis, and brain cancer and colon cancer, but it also cures migraine headaches and just about anything else that ails you.

That's fine, as a hypothesis, even though it sounds a little bit crazy. The next step is to test it, carefully, and gather the necessary data to prove its effectiveness. This is not rocket science. You need to keep track of how many people are treated, how many are cured, and how many are not.

Why have the Gerson people failed to gather careful data on success rates for their therapies over the past 50 years? According to Howard Straus, people who are cured fail to keep in touch with the clinic so they just don't know what the numbers are. Does that sound believable to you, as a scientist? Does it shake your faith, even just a little bit?

Why has the wonderful group of Japanese physicians working with the Gerson therapy (several of whom were allegedly cured) failed to publish their results? Did you know it has been several years since they started their work? What are they waiting for? Is the vast medical conspiracy suppressing their results? Are they aware of the internet?

In the end, if you wish to believe that the Gerson therapy is the definitive cure for syphilis, tuberculosis or cancer, you are welcome to do so, even if the proponents refuse to provide scientific evidence of its effectiveness.

But you don't have the right to call those who refuse to accept your belief closed minded and ignorant. I have read at three Gerson books, and corresponded directly with the Gerson clinic, before reaching my conclusion. I watched several of the Gerson videos, including "Dying to have known" and its apparent sequel "A beautiful truth", as well as other videos of Charlotte Gerson, before reaching my conclusion.

And on top of everything else, I have my own experimental evidence, from a strong Gerson believer who went down to the Gerson clinic to cure a serious medical problem with diet and coffee enemas. He came back without success and I set him up with a urologist and he is doing quite well, 25 years later (presumably due to the delayed beneficial effects of the Gerson therapy).

I am delighted to learn of all the benefits you have achieved with Vitamin C. Since I believe Vitamin C to be relatively harmless, I have personally experimented with high doses, without meaningful benefit. I have read two books by Linus Pauling, and respect him greatly. However, I must point out (since you are apparently ignorant of this) that Pauling won two Nobel Prizes. The first was for physical chemistry, a subject not related to vitamin C or its beneficial effects on animals. The second Nobel prize was the Peace Prize, for his opposition to the Vietnam war. While his pacificism and motivations are commendable, they do not lend additional authority to his later claims about Vitamin C, which cannot be reproduced in any credible study. (Incidentally, I am familiar with the later studies attempting to reproduce his claims for benefit - are you?)

Good luck with your heavy smoking, by the way. I know many smokers who believe that taking vitamin supplements, running or otherwise being good souls will somehow protect them from the effects of tobacco. There's plenty of scientific evidence to the contrary, but I know you are a main of faith, so I won't bother to argue science on that.

RGDATA!

victorhelsing wrote: »

How many books in biochemistry and pharmacology have you read to give you the right to be so dismissive of the broad range of knowledge acquired by generations of gifted minds before yours?

Your ignorance of conventional medicine does not give you the right to reject its value without foundation, and expect others to believe you.

QFT, i would have thanked this post twice if i could

Pixel8

RoboClam wrote: »

I realise that silver can be and is used as an antimicrobial in disinfectants and such. However, how could colloidal silver be both antibacterial and antiviral? Both pathogens survive in different environments (intracelluarly for viruses and either intra or extracellularly depending on the bacteria). More importantly, antibiotics can be both broad and narrow spectrum, depending on the type of bacteria you are targeting. Broad spectrum antibiotics are not ideal, but it seems to me that if colloidal silver could kill bacteria, then it would not only target harmful bacteria; It would also kill the natural gut flora. It would seem to me that for it to be beneficial against all forms of harmful bacteria, then its mechanism of action would require it to have some form of cognition.

Interesting post RoboClam, all pathogens including viruses, bacteria, fungus and parasites are all negatively charged, the positively charged ions in colloidal silver reverse the polarity of negatively charged ions in viruses, parasites etc. and then the immune system can remove them from the body because their protective membrane breaks down when their polarity is reversed. It's to do with Silver having spare electrons on its outer orbit.

Read the colloidal silver link i posted, it explains a lot and so does the rest of that website. There's a video of a guy on youtube doing experiments on colloidal silver in fish tank water that was left outside for a few days (to develop more bacteria etc. ) and he also tests milk to see how long it will take for normal milk left in a glass to go off and how long it will take for a glass of milk to go off with a teaspoon of colloidal silver added to it.
The milk with colloidal silver is still drinkable and liquidy a few days after the normal milk turned to cheese almost, fairly interesting test which backs up the fact that people used to drop a silver coin in milk years ago to stop it from spoiling so fast. Here's the test:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_-Jp28XIwY

Now why is it that no parasites, viruses or bacteria have ever developed an immunity to silver? And if this really is true, and it is, then why do medical doctors use artificial antibiotics at all when bacteria, parasites and viruses always eventually develop an immunity to them, usually 10-15 years after the antibiotic is introduced?

It seems to me like antibiotics are purely money based half solutions to health which can constantly keep making money with new antibiotics that are developed whereas Silver never needs an upgrade so therefore, way less money to be made plus you can't patent Silver!

It's a no brainer once you realise the politics behind it all.

King Mob

Pixel8 wrote: »

Interesting post RoboClam, all pathogens including viruses, bacteria, fungus and parasites are all negatively charged, the positively charged ions in colloidal silver reverse the polarity of negatively charged ions in viruses, parasites etc. and then the immune system can remove them from the body because their protective membrane breaks down when their polarity is reversed. It's to do with Silver having spare electrons on its outer orbit.

Lol, techno-babble.

Pixel8

victorhelsing wrote: »

It is useless to argue science with someone who does not believe in science.

Im a very scientific person actually, i just don't let the politics of science blind me like most of you wannabe scientists do. I don't hold out for peer reviewed science when there are lots of other ways to find the truth about stuff, for instance, trying it yourself!

Also, to call me ignorant of conventional medicine is some assumption to make when you know nothing about me or what i've tried in the past for my conditions. I've tried conventional medicine my whole life, going to see numerous specialists about my eyes who all told me the same thing which did nothing to improve my eyes. I also had a leg problem for years that doctors hadn't got a clue about so don't tell me i know nothing about conventional medicine, i know a lot about it and i've tried a lot of it myself and it NEVER worked for me. Vitamins are the one thing i've tried lately that ARE working for me. When have you ever had conditions with your body that conventional medicine couldn't fix? Probably never by the sounds of it...

Im also not religious at all but wouldn't go so far as to call myself Atheist, i'd be an Agnostic, if anything... comparing vitamin therapy to faith based religion is strange to say the least.

For a scientific person yourself, you seem to have based a lot of your conclusions on one person you know trying the Gerson Therapy and not having success with it, ONE person. Sorry, but thats most unscientific.

Im not saying conventional medicine has done nothing for humanity, it has done a lot in a lot of different areas, i agree with that. My main point about conventional medicine is to do with CHRONIC diseases like Cancer, Diabetes and Heart Disease mainly. They are the diseases that conventional medicine does NOT know how to cure because conventional medicine does NOT address the root cause of the problem. Nutrition does.

If, say, Chemo *cured* cancer then why is it that most people who have had cancer and done chemo, develop cancer again and have to go back for more chemo. This just goes to show that chemo is not curing cancer, it's suppressing it temporarily like most artificial drugs, they suppress things temporarily, they don't cure. That is why once you go on a prescription drug related to heart disease or whatever, you're on it for life (Statins).

I find it hilarious that none of you have addressed the Cancer Death Rate graphs i posted before on this thread, those graphs are from Cancer.org which is run by conventional medical people, not conspiracy theorists! Yet you all just ignore the graphs like as if they were photoshopped lol REAL scientific...

victorhelsing

Pixel8 wrote: »

Im a very scientific person actually, i just don't let the politics of science blind me like most of you wannabe scientists do. I don't hold out for peer reviewed science when there are lots of other ways to find the truth about stuff, for instance, trying it yourself!

Your repeated statements prove that you know nothing about science, which is the systematic and deliberate search for the truth.

A scientist often believes he is right about a particular idea, but always knows that he may be wrong, and actively seeks to prove or disprove his own conclusions.

You have mastered the ability to believe you are right (which we call faith, an essential component of religion), but have utterly failed to test your conclusions in a rational, reproducible and convincing way (that's the science part, in case you did not know).

In the scientific search for truth, one must be able to discriminate fact from fiction. And once you have a collection of facts, you are required to use ALL of them; you cannot select only those that prove your thesis and discard those that refute it.

Your comments about silver display this kind of ignorance. It is true that silver has a free electron to give when interacting with other elements, but the exact same can be said for other elements in the same column of the periodic table, such as copper and gold. All of these elements are excellent electrical conductors because they share this property; we use copper primarily for wiring since it is less expensive than silver or gold. If you think silver has magic mystical health giving properties, why not use copper in the same way?

Oops - guess that great idea is already taken! http://www.purestcolloids.com/history-copper.php It seems that another one of those alternative medicine alchemists has discovered a way to turn copper into gold. If only those so-called "scientists" were as open minded, modern medicine would not be so inadequate.

Of course, many elements or compounds in sufficient concentrations can be toxic when applied to living cells, bacterial or animal or human. There is no magic to this, and it is something that scientific minds discovered long ago. Topical iodine kills bacteria (it is used to sterilize prior to surgery, for example), but it also kills "normal" or "healthy" cells. Pour some on your eye and report back on your results, if you don't believe me.

But iodine or silver's ability to kill cells has nothing to do with all pathogens having a positive or negative charge. That's just silly, and any scientist can tell you so. To begin, all cells and animals are made of water, proteins and minerals. All of these have positive AND negative charge.

When you studied organic chemistry (in your scientific training), you learned the importance of the relative negative charge of oxygen (including when it is part of living compounds) and how that drives chemical reactions. But water has a relative positive side too, on the hydrogen.

Proteins are chains of amino acids. Amino acid gets its name, as you know, from the amino group on one end (NH3/4) which is positively charged, and the acid (carboxylic) on the other end, which is negatively charged.

And minerals can be positive or negative; salt (sodium chloride) is essential to life, and that's why we like its taste. It contains sodium (generally positive charge) and chloride (generally negative charge), and that's why it absorbs so readily in water (which has both positive and negative charges).

So the part about pathogens being magically susceptible to silver because they have only one charge (allegedly different than human cells or friendly bacteria) is, in scientific terms, pure bullsh*t.

Your belief systems have nothing to do with the scientific method. You decide what you want to believe, either by making it up yourself or reading it from someone else who did, and then cobble together a logically and factually defective justification for your belief.

But remember that faith is only convincing to those who share it. Truth and science are convincing to those who do not. Truth is non denominational, and so is science.

When Einstein insisted 100 years ago that gravity and acceleration were the same, and that the speed of light was constant, and that gravity could bend light, and necessarily bend time, these bizarre were roundly rejected by the scientific community for many years. Scientists did not share Einstein's faith. But neither Einstein nor the scientific community were stopped by the rejection; both actively worked for several years to carefully derive the math and design the experiments necessary to prove (or disprove) their positions. That is science.

For the most part, those in the alternative medicine community (or industry, if you prefer) have the first part right. Like Einstein, they make outrageous and counterintuitive claims. But unlike Einstein, who was a great scientist, they simply ignore the second part, which is to design careful and deliberate experiments to prove (or disprove) their outrageous claims. They merely insist these claims should be accepted, on FAITH. You can dress it up however you like; acceptance by an act of faith is religion, not science.

P.S. In case my reply is difficult for you to understand, I will address your original quote in a very specific way. "Im a very scientific person actually, i just don't let the politics of science blind me like most of you wannabe scientists do. I don't hold out for peer reviewed science when there are lots of other ways to find the truth about stuff, for instance, trying it yourself!"

I get paid every day to work in a scientifically based profession (I actually hold two degrees in different fields, both based on science). I am not a "wannabe scientist".

I don't let the "politics of science" blind me either. As far as I am concerned, science and truth are non-denominational, they are not faith based or popularity (political) contests. Einstein felt the same way about this, but that did not relieve him of the obligation to prove his position with careful experiment and convincing mathematics.

In contrast to you, I DO hold out for the peer reviewed science. It allows me to filter the truth from the opinions of crackpots and profiteers.

Although I occasionally experiment on my own, I always find the results of a study in which 100 or 1000 cases are considered more convincing than my own single case.

Di0genes

Is it possible to love a poster after just 6 posts?

Iwannahurl

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yes, the scientists have tested this. They found that there is little or no sign that it does anything. i.e. Gerson Therapy is probably bull****.

I'm well out of touch with the GT and its standing in the world of science medicine.

Was there an RCT done on the GT? Can you post a link to the paper in PubMed or the actual journal?

Monty Burnz

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Was there an RCT done on the GT? Can you post a link to the paper in PubMed or the actual journal?

Oops - that reference should have been to Pauling's vitamin megadosing idea rather than GT. I've no idea if GT has been put to the test - but you would imagine that it's advocates would have a very good reason to do so or to fund such testing if it works?

Pixel8

victorhelsing wrote: »

In the scientific search for truth, one must be able to discriminate fact from fiction. And once you have a collection of facts, you are required to use ALL of them; you cannot select only those that prove your thesis and discard those that refute it.

I try to take everything in that i come across about a subject and i spend a lot of time researching things, im constantly looking for the facts about everything, the truth about everything, im not trying to push any agenda except the agenda of truth, so even if this stuff was false, i'd be the first to tell everyone. But i really don't think it is at all and i do believe the wool has been pulled over all our eyes for a long time about a lot of things including Health, Banking, Law, Ancient History and Alternative Energies, its time for it all to come out into the open.

Male Cancer Death Rates:



Female Cancer Death Rates:



So, lets take those Cancer Death Rate charts from 1930 - 2006 that i posted a few pages ago and again to make it easier, none of you have even commented on them or even denied that they're true, you talk about taking all facts in and you haven't even acknowledged the charts... don't you want to know if they ARE true or not? and if they are true then what does that mean? That conventional cancer treatment is not getting any better in the last 81 years, so its time to start looking for something that actually works! Something that cures 100% of the time, not 2-3% of the time, how bad does that stat suck?

Or how about these stats published in the journal Clinical Oncology in December 2004, the results of this study were astounding, showing that chemotherapy has an average 5-year survival success rate of only just over 2 percent for all cancers! :



The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

There must be some pretty bad science going on if we're all happy with a Chemo success rate of 2.3%, is something not terribly wrong here? And how much does it cost for this chemo, who's really making the killing here? Chemo is €100's of thousands more expensive than all 3 health alternatives i've mentioned and it has the lowest success rate, so why would anyone in their right mind try chemo first?!

I don't know about all of you who haven't tried alternative health but Im finding great results from Vitamins, Colloidal Silver and Blood Zapping from my own personal experiments and experiences with them and its the same with some friends who have done this with me, what tests have *you* done on Vitamins, Colloidal Silver or Blood Electrification yourself? And i don't mean, what have you read about them, i'm asking what personal experience do you have of high dose Vitamins, Colloidal Silver or Blood Electrification??? Have you ever even tried any of them yourself? If not, then really, you need to do more research, and you call yourself a scientist... What have you got to lose by trying it out? It could save you an awful lot of nay saying if you just tried it...

There are thousands out there just like me, reporting about their positive experiences of these particular health methods all across the net on forums just like this one, and what have they got to gain from telling you this info? Absolutely nothing, no agenda, other than to educate and spread the positive info so others can benefit too. Don't knock it til you try it, thats all i can say.

victorhelsing

"There must be some pretty bad science going on if we're all happy with a Chemo success rate of 2.3%, is something not terribly wrong here? And how much does it cost for this chemo, who's really making the killing here? Chemo is €100's of thousands more expensive than all 3 health alternatives i've mentioned and it has the lowest success rate, so why would anyone in their right mind try chemo first?!"

Well, there are lots of ways to look at data, and that's one of the reasons scientists are so insistent about keeping, and publishing, these data.

There is no dispute that chemotherapy for solid tumors (those excluding the blood system and the lymphomas) are generally poor. For the best treated tumors, they can have rather dramatic cures (Lance Armstrong, as an example, had tumors in his lungs and even required surgery for tumors in his brain, only to later go on to win several Tour de France trophies - when prior to his malignancy, he had none).

Of course, the individual dramatic case of Lance Armstrong is not an argument that chemotherapy has a wonderful success rate, just as enthusiastic individuals in the Gerson videos claiming cure do not tell you much about the overall success rate.

On the unlikely chance that you are actually interested in understanding these data, and not merely wishing to claim (yet again) that modern medicine is terrible, I can offer the following analysis.

The dramatic drop in stomach cancers is almost impossible to attribute to medicine; it is almost certainly related to diet, and improved means of processing and storing food. Gastric cancer is almost unheard of in the states, yet extremely common in Japan and China, where colon cancer is rare.

Since the American diet is arguably not improving over the past 50 years, it seems likely that the 40% drop in fatality due to colon cancer (my grandfather died from this) is due substantially to modern medicine. It is similarly interesting that breast cancer is falling dramatically during the same period, probably for the same reason, since American diets have not been improving, and widespread acceptance of the Gerson therapy is unlikely to be impacting these data.

At the same time, it is useful to note that the overall fatality rate of many other cancers (most of which are considerably less common) is remaining steady, despite the increasing lifespan and expected tendency to experience more cancer as the genetic material degrades with age and environmental exposures to sun, radiation, toxins, etc.

Of course, lung cancer fatalities have been increasing nicely during the same period, with a relatively modest downturn in recent times. This is almost certainly due to the increased popularization of smoking that occurred with development of mass media (movies, television, print advertising) that become widespread during and especially following the second world war.

The discordance between the dropping fatality rates for major cancer (in the presence of increasing age and worsening dietary habits) and the poor outcomes from chemotherapy is relatively easy to explain. Breast and colon cancer are being detected earlier, and surgically removed, before they can spread throughout the body.

So it is interesting that you point out these charts, showing about a 40% decrease in fatality related to breast and colon cancer, during the very years AFTER Gerson introduced his therapy. Since it is widely accepted that American diet is not improving, and average lifespan has been increasing, I think it is reasonable to attribute a fair bit of this improvement to developments in medicine, admittedly on the side of earlier detection and surgical removal.

Since these are the charts and data that interested you so much, presumably because they showed you how terrible modern medicine is at treating cancer, I return the question to you. What percentage of the people treated by the Gerson clinic in the past 50 years have been cured of their breast or colon cancer? Does it approach 40%? Based on the conversations I've had with them, and review of all available sources on the subject, I am convinced it is WELL below 5%.

Along this line, I am struck by the story that Howard Straus wrote me about his fiance, who had a "BCC" (presumably basal cell carcinoma) that was treated (and allegedly cured) with the Gerson diet. Even sizable BCC are virtually 100% curable with surgery since they are extremely slow to metastasize, and easy to detect since they commonly occur on the face. It leaves open the question of how many of these people with extremely curable cancers the Gerson clinic would be willing to treat, and what is their success rate with them?

Now we are back to the children's game; I'll show you mine if you show me yours. I have shown you the respect of responding to your endless questions about these data on conventional medicine and cancer fatalities. When are you going to show me your data on success rates (similarly detailed) for any of those wonderful alternative "therapies"? And please, no onesies or twosies of amazing success stories documented on videos or other infomercials. How about some nice graphs with numbers like you've shown me here?

Monty Burnz

Seeing as we are posting our graphs twice, I'll do the same.




You claimed that nobody addressed your case that the total number of fatalities from cancer has not decreased over the decades - I already made the point that more people are living longer lives, not dying of other diseases first, making it far more likely that they would develop and succumb to cancer. You, on the other hand, weren't able to explain in any logical way the huge jumps in survival rates in the graph that I have posted.

Pixel8

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You claimed that nobody addressed your case that the total number of fatalities from cancer has not decreased over the decades - I already made the point that more people are living longer lives, not dying of other diseases first, making it far more likely that they would develop and succumb to cancer. You, on the other hand, weren't able to explain in any logical way the huge jumps in survival rates in the graph that I have posted.

You still haven't addressed my graphs... the source of my graphs prove that cancer success rates are as low as 2.3%, what do your graphs prove? They seem to say something else, but what have you posted to back up that your graph is actually accurate? No PubMed link, no source link, no explanation as to what your graph even means, just assumptions and childish arguments...

Overall survival rates increasing are irrelevant to this discussion, far too many variables involved there, all that proves is that people with cancer are living a bit longer, but a similar percentage of them are still dying of cancer eventually...! we are only interested in how many people have died of Cancer in the last 81 years and my graphs show that cancer treatment is as bad now as it was back then.

Monty Burnz

Pixel8 wrote: »

No PubMed link, no source link, no explanation as to what your graph even means, just assumptions and childish arguments...

Where are your PubMed links? The sources of the graph I posted are IN the graph. I'm not exactly hiding anything. And you are asking what my graph proves: it proves that children and young adults have seen huge improvements in survival rates due to modern medical treatments for cancer. Your previous attempt to explain this was totally illogical and implausible, so you may want to try to explain it away again.

Will you please highlight my 'childish' arguments, or else withdraw that insult?