Date:   5/5/2007 6:06:16 PM ( 17 y ago)
Hits:   5,659
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=864070

0 of 1 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

We DO think alike in many ways :)

And I don't dispute the 'generalities' of what you're saying. Sometimes I practically have to 'hog tie' my mother-in-law (the one that cured herself of liver cancer/Dr. Kelley)...because she's SO angry and accusative toward physician's. I CONSTANTLY remind her of the facts that they have NOT been educated correctly, how the med schools' course work was manipulated by Rockesmeller until lies became accepted as truths (or the truths were hidden). Sigh, it IS tough (as you well know).

Since I'm here...

<<
Regarding CZ, I think we ALL give ample leeway to this situation (almost all of us have 'been there done that' ourselves!). But when people clearly show the ability to learn the truth, and have been given the truth by many different posters in many different forms...yet they still continue to post the lies? Methinks that should be clearly pointed out and curtailed.

>>>And then we also have the variations of thoughts such as kelp due to experiences of some with arsenic apparently. One persons experience may not be another's. I have had nothing but great (miraculous) results with kelp over the years so the "arsenic" defense is a lie to me. My point being that a truth to one becomes and is a lie to another dependent upon not only world view and education, but also personal experience.<<<

You are SO good at 'politician's responses'. A good experience or bad experience isn't really the point, because all kelp contains 'natural' arsenic and some kelp contains high levels of 'chemical' arsenic - and that has been shown & proven to adversely affect people at various levels. Hence, I feel that to mention kelp supplementation without even MENTIONING arsenic, would be irresponsible. This is not a "what is a truth to one is a lie to another" situation. Your kelp either had very low levels of arsenic or your body is equipped to detox from it without symptoms being presented. That it had some level of arsenic cannot be disputed, and that it had potential for harm cannot be disputed. Those things don't seem to be 'subjective' in any way.

>>Kinda like magnesium as an antagonist or synergistic partner to calcium dependent upon ratios of each in the body. If one test showed antagonism, that group of "scientists" would think that way and maybe unawares of the all important ratio relationship or other synergistic co-factors that may be necessary to create the magnesium\calcium synergy such as vitamin D, selenium, Iodine and PTH.<<

Agreed & duly noted :) ...this IS subjective.


>>I think as the above example illustrates, this is why we have so very much conflicting information as it relates to health... medicos, chemists, biologists, all "know" what something does or does not do within their very narrow scope of work and then we sometimes read these VERY biased medical articles as if their findings are written in stone.

Gotta see the forest through the trees...<<<

I concur, but would like to add - just because we have conflicting information doesn't mean there ISN'T a solid truth to be found. :)

Yep, those distracting 'trees' can be QUITE bothersome.

All is well - I've had a major Iodine breakthrough myself this week. After a bit more 'theory testing' I hope to be posting before the middle of next week. (Think Zeta Potential - thinner blood - easier for the kidneys to cleanse :)

Uny
 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.04 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=864070