Re: Ashwagandha or Maca?

>Virtually everything you post indicates a solid belief in >'science' as it's known "today". I know that 'science' as >it is today, will be totally different "tomorrow" (just as >it was different "yesterday").

Exactly, which is why we have to keep up on the most recent research. Although this also applies to herbs. And again the healers you proclaim are so great are very old school. They did not have the knowledge we have today of some of the potential problems of some of the herbs they use. Remember that at one time they used herbs like Oleander as a heart drug. This was a very dangerous practice due to the fact that the cardiac glycosides in the plant could vary from plant to plant and from day to day or hour to hour. There was no way to really know dosing. Luckily we came up with safer alternatives by progressing in herbal medicine. You seem to want to stay in the dark ages and refuse to accept the fact that sometimes an herb must be altered to get the desired effect. I proved this to you with numerous examples but you are more interested in arguing than learning.

Furthermore, I do more with natural medicine than you do. I work with a very large number of herbs, and they are 99.9% of the time in their natural form. Not altered from their natural state with hot water or alcohol. If you would have paid more attention to what I originally said and have said since I RARELY use or recommend extracts. Again you prefer to argue than to pay attention to what was really said. As I also pointed out to you though, there are times where an extract or other compound, such as ALA are the best choice. For instance since the original poster mentioned hemochromotosis, ALA was the best choice. What herb would you have recommended in its natural state that would address hemochromotosis? Keep in mind that herbs contain iron and vitamin C, both bad ideas for this condition.

You really should not be so quick to be close minded. This is a not a path to becoming a great healer. A great healer will realize that God not only gave us the herbs to heal, but also the knowledge to use other methods of healing. Let me give you another basic example. Electro-therapy has been around since ancient Greek and Roman times. They used electric eels and rays to zap people as a cure for many diseases. In fact modern Science has found that even as little as 1 volt of electricity can destroy a virus. If we come up to modern times we have used this information to help people in effective, but non-natural ways. Tesla was curing people of diseases back in the 1800s. Lakhovsky in 1908, Rife and Moray in the 1930s...... Even today we use man-made electricity in TENS units. I used mad-made electricity to grow the end of my thumb back after it got cut off in a table saw accident. Again, God not only gave us herbs, but also knowledge. If we choose to limit our knowledge and ignore what other avenues that have been opened up to us then we will never truly be a great healer.

>The blood is CONSTANTLY changing (no current blood test >can reveal this)

Which is why if you read my posts you would have seen that I am not a big fan of lab tests.

>and that fact that we are symbiotically dependent on >microorganisms that are much smaller that what 'science' >even addresses, means anything built atop the 'faulty >scientific foundation' is likely to be erroneous.

Not really. Many things can be demonstrated, which is called evidence. You seem to be stuck on the world is flat mentality. We learned a long time ago that this is erroneous and we have moved forward with the new evidence that we have found. Just because the original premise that the world was flat though does not mean the world did not exist though. So because I pointed out an error in Christopher's formula does that mean the whole premise of his formulations must also be faulty? If not then why do you apply it to modern Science and medicine, but not on old outdated and somewhat faulty formulations from an old school healer? There really is no difference.

>Once again, what we do & believe is NOT similar at it's >fundamental level (no matter how many times you continue to >insist that it is); anybody that believes Dr. Schulze & >Christopher are 'old school' & outdated is no peer of >mine... and I politely & respectfully ask you to STOP >insinuating that you are.

I am not insinuating anything, I am merely pointing out a fact. You just keep sticking your head in the sand thinking that if you don't acknowledge it that it will not exist. Sorry, but reality does not work that way. If you can prove to me that you can find your hot teas and tinctures out in nature just as nature made them then I will accept what you are claiming. Otherwise you are falsely claiming to use herbs just as nature provided even though they do not exist this way in nature. Furthermore, your denial does not change the fact that you are isolating compounds by making teas and tinctures. The only difference between you and a lab is that they do it on a larger scale. When I use quercetin as an isolate it is going to be extracted from its herbal base (in this case yellow onion skins) in water or alcohol, just as you are doing. Then it is separated from its solids or other insolubles, just as you are doing. After that is the only minor change. In their case they will use a membrane to isolate the quercetin, as where the body will do the separation once it is ingested.

>just please, stop calling me.

I am not calling you. I am responding to erroneous statements. And you respond to my postings. So it is a two way street. Whether you choose to respond or not is just that YOUR CHOICE. Tweet