Dear Admin,
Please redistribute this post where applicable or the de-railing room or delete it entirely.
I started this thread in good faith, as all of my writings of over 60 years.
I am almost ashamed that I started this thread, It has devolved un-rightly into a mish-mash of tightly-held ideas by those who profess a sort of neutrality but have been conditioned into still a main-stream/sewer view of the universe.
In the event, I will no longer participate in this thread as it is going nowhere positive.
**************************************************************
It is very difficult for me to respond to the effects of my last post, please indulge.
I have no intention of promulgating my ideas/notions upon anyone, nor them upon me.
You will have to indulge me in my answers which are in BOLD and between [...]
Re: Engineering 'disease'
Postby patrix on December 12th, 2017, 4:56 pm
Dear pov603 and sharpstuff,
I will cool it. Welcome to the discussion.
[Sharpstuff: I started this thread.]
Something that seem to differ between you and me sharpstuff it that I'm not willing to automatically exclude any possibility when it comes to how disease is engineered. And diet seems to be a big fat juicy target so to speak. Not only has the wording about diet been removed from the Hippocratic oath "I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment."(
https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main ... ekey=20909) but doctors get practically no education on basic human nutrition.
[Quote: but doctors get practically no education on basic human nutrition.]
So far as I am aware, that is a truism. 'Doctors' are not educated in human nutrition (nor are Veterinarians) because they are 'educated' in 'germ' theories! As far as I am concerned, if medical practice, of any sort, relies upon the theory that Nature produces a self-destructive mechanism (they call them 'pathogens' to sound erudite) then there can be no reason why we are here in the first place! We would self-destruct.]
Could you please enlighten me sharpstuff on why you take this stance?
[I take no stance. I rely on the K.I.S.S. principle (Keep It Simple...?)]
patrix
Member
Posts: 167
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am
Top
Re: Engineering 'disease'
Postby Peter on December 12th, 2017, 5:00 pm
Sharpstuff my attitude to this forum is that I do a lot of research, just out of interest, and if I think the thread will benefit from it I’ll post it. I agree with what I think you are getting at – people with an axe to grind, whether it’s fruitarianism or eating only uncooked food for example, will frighten off decent posters.
That goes for you too as you seem to be trying to draw a line but then coming back with your own axes to grind.
[Yes, I admit I have axes to grind. I am appalled by the fact that sentient beings still find a problem with dismissing the simple in favour of the complex, derived from the simple being manipulated into the complex. In point of fact 'science' (whether it be physics or medical or whatever), still derives from the theory that the universe is constructed from 'atoms' or some 'particle' or other. I dispute this most heavily as it explains nothing of Nature as presented by Nature and of which we are part for whatever.]
To take your two axes:
1 I doubt many here believe in the germ theory of disease.
[I am not too sure about that, as with 'atom' theory, there are lingering doubts.] And I believed that before and independently of reading some of Pasteur’s relatively recently released archive (published by George Washington University iirc) where he admitted he was a fraud.
[He sure was and thank goodness but it won't appear in any media accessible to the proletariat.]
2 There is nothing “new” about New German Medicine.
[Realy? Some earlier references might be useful. Have you studied embryology to any depth?] I stated in a recent post that I believe in the power of mind over health. However stress causing cancer is an odd evolutionary response so it can’t be anywhere near the whole picture even if it has any validity.
[I may believe in the 'evolution' of ideas/notions and practical applications of certain man-made endeavours but I do not apply that to human 'development'. Humans (as other animals) adapt to environments so far as they can without interference from other 'humans' and the enviroment in which they live, hence light skins, dark skins dark hair, light hair. How could one deny that?] And however much you will good health if you eat a lot of refined carbs you are likely to get cancer, heart/artery problems or both.
[How can you claim to 'will' good health?]
Edit: refined carbs eg sugar being the biggest change to our recent diet by far, followed by other disappointments like vegetable oils. But, coming back to the original point, I'll state my findings, post some links, and then it's up to the Gods (ie I don't really care).
['It's up to the Gods (I don't really care). That says it all.]
Peter
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: January 3rd, 2017, 7:46 pm
Top
Re: Engineering 'disease'
Postby agraposo on December 12th, 2017, 9:57 pm
patrix » 12 Dec 2017, 00:27 wrote:
Meat on the other hand we can eat raw and get a nutritional benefit from doing so.
I won't participate anymore in a forum where people admit such repugnant habits. Bye.
agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 10:48 pm
Top
Re: Engineering 'disease'
Postby Peter on December 12th, 2017, 11:58 pm
agraposo » December 12th, 2017, 8:57 pm wrote:
patrix » 12 Dec 2017, 00:27 wrote:
Meat on the other hand we can eat raw and get a nutritional benefit from doing so.
I won't participate anymore in a forum where people admit such repugnant habits. Bye.
You often hear about a particular vegetable as being a “super-food”. I’ve heard tomatoes, broccoli and kale described such but the only real super-food is animal organs. No non animal food remotely compares in nutritional value. We don’t eat the organs any more. Not so long ago we did - my parents did when young. I wouldn’t even know where to buy them.
The Eskimos, at least until recently, ate animal organs raw. They tossed the lean muscle meat, which is unfortunately all we now value, to their dogs. Wild predators eat the organs of their prey first.
I eat tinned sardines at least, which is the whole fish (minus the tail which I separate). And it's raw. Tiny things but eating quite a few of them may help.
Peter
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: January 3rd, 2017, 7:46 pm
Top
Re: Engineering 'disease'
Postby patrix on December 13th, 2017, 4:28 am
agraposo » December 12th, 2017, 9:57 pm wrote:
patrix » 12 Dec 2017, 00:27 wrote:
Meat on the other hand we can eat raw and get a nutritional benefit from doing so.
I won't participate anymore in a forum where people admit such repugnant habits. Bye.
Well that's your prerogative agraposo. But to avoid any misunderstanding I just want to make it clear that I myself have been guilty of "outspoken ignorance" when it comes to satellites and rockets in vaccum. And I am grateful to those who pointed that out to me. We live and we learn.
But if you view consuming essential nutrients as repugnant then this is probably not the place for you. Perhaps you can find some friends at that dog clinic Thomas Seyfried mentioned in the video I linked to earlier who didn't believe in feeding dogs raw meat.
https://youtu.be/SEE-oU8_NSU?t=31m5s
[And so say all of us!]
sharpstuff or maybe bluntstuff?