*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8161
    • View Profile
Re: Natural Medicine is better than Unnatural Medicine
« Reply #160 on: October 27, 2014, 08:26:42 PM »
Many animals are listed. If feces were full of terrible things which can cause illness, animals wouldn't be doing it left and right. Searching for a study isn't even required for this, simply thinking for ones own self.

"Animals do it in nature, therefore it is good" is a fallacious appeal to nature. You can do better than that, Tom. Where are your studies and sources?

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 6669
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Natural Medicine is better than Unnatural Medicine
« Reply #161 on: October 28, 2014, 01:23:13 AM »
If feces were full of terrible things which can cause illness, animals wouldn't be doing it left and right.
If feces is so good, then why are punji sticks coated with it?  Is it supposed to ward off infection?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10081
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Natural Medicine is better than Unnatural Medicine
« Reply #162 on: October 28, 2014, 06:56:12 AM »
Many animals are listed. If feces were full of terrible things which can cause illness, animals wouldn't be doing it left and right. Searching for a study isn't even required for this, simply thinking for ones own self.

"Animals do it in nature, therefore it is good" is a fallacious appeal to nature. You can do better than that, Tom. Where are your studies and sources?

Studies are not required, just your brain. If feces was dangerous to eat then evolution would have weeded out the animals who made a habit of eating feces, and that trait would not exist. This is not an appeal to nature. It is an appeal to intelligence. The behavior of wild animals is directly shaped by evolution. Therefore if they are eating feces, it must not be so risky and dangerous.

The concept that you are healthier when you stay away from dirt and feces is little more than media hype.

If feces were full of terrible things which can cause illness, animals wouldn't be doing it left and right.
If feces is so good, then why are punji sticks coated with it?  Is it supposed to ward off infection?

There is a big difference between eating things and putting them into your bloodstream. If you drink coffee it is fine. But if you injected a small amount of coffee into your bloodstream it would kill you. Some of the bacteria in the gut doesn't belong in other parts of your body. For example, e coli lives naturally in the lower bowels, but when it overgrows in the stomach it causes a lot of problems.

Ghost of V

Re: Natural Medicine is better than Unnatural Medicine
« Reply #163 on: October 28, 2014, 07:13:06 AM »
Some people fuck trees but that doesn't mean it's a good thing to do.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10081
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Natural Medicine is better than Unnatural Medicine
« Reply #164 on: October 28, 2014, 07:26:00 AM »
Some people fuck trees but that doesn't mean it's a good thing to do.

Weren't you just telling me that the conscious actions of man had nothing to do with evolution?

Ghost of V

Re: Natural Medicine is better than Unnatural Medicine
« Reply #165 on: October 28, 2014, 07:54:44 AM »
It was dogs, Tom. We were talking about dogs.

And no I never said that.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10081
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Natural Medicine is better than Unnatural Medicine
« Reply #166 on: October 28, 2014, 08:13:01 AM »
Well, when I brought up evolution you brought up domestication, implying that the conscious actions of man can run contrary to nature. It doesn't make your tree antecdote very strong.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 6669
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Natural Medicine is better than Unnatural Medicine
« Reply #167 on: October 28, 2014, 12:23:57 PM »
Many animals are listed. If feces were full of terrible things which can cause illness, animals wouldn't be doing it left and right. Searching for a study isn't even required for this, simply thinking for ones own self.

"Animals do it in nature, therefore it is good" is a fallacious appeal to nature. You can do better than that, Tom. Where are your studies and sources?

Studies are not required, just your brain. If feces was dangerous to eat then evolution would have weeded out the animals who made a habit of eating feces, and that trait would not exist. This is not an appeal to nature. It is an appeal to intelligence. The behavior of wild animals is directly shaped by evolution. Therefore if they are eating feces, it must not be so risky and dangerous.
How much vitamin c is there in feces?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9769
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Natural Medicine is better than Unnatural Medicine
« Reply #168 on: October 28, 2014, 01:25:09 PM »
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8161
    • View Profile
Re: Natural Medicine is better than Unnatural Medicine
« Reply #169 on: October 28, 2014, 02:12:08 PM »
Studies are not required, just your brain. If feces was dangerous to eat then evolution would have weeded out the animals who made a habit of eating feces, and that trait would not exist. This is not an appeal to nature. It is an appeal to intelligence. The behavior of wild animals is directly shaped by evolution. Therefore if they are eating feces, it must not be so risky and dangerous.

But Tom, you were so happy to post studies before, where are they now? I'm very disappointed Tom. I expect a higher quality exchange when I grace this thread again.

Re: Natural Medicine is better than Unnatural Medicine
« Reply #170 on: October 28, 2014, 03:40:18 PM »
You didn't answer my questions.  You claim that these wells cure diseases.  You said these claims about radioactive springs and vitamin C and all that are "absolutely true."  Can you prove that?  How do you know that these stories are true?  How do you know that they aren't fabrications?

I've seen these people post on the health forums I frequent. There are stories littered all around the internet about these things, from multiple sources. News organizations have reported on this spring over the last 150 years, and Vitamin C over the last 60. Corroboration from multiple unconnected sources constitutes evidence.

That doesn't answer my question.  I asked how you know these stories to be true and not fabrications.  How can you verify them?  How have you confirmed that these reports are true?  This seems important given how easy it would be for a multi-billion-dollar industry to generate a bunch of fake websites and testimonials to sell their products.  And since those firms have a demonstrable track record as thieves, frauds, and liars, this point isn't irrelevant. 

You appear to be saying that there stories must be true because there are a lot of them on the internet.  There are lots of Yeti and UFO stories on the internet.  Do you believe in those?  What about all of the multiple sources and testimony on the internet that disputes your vitamin C claims?  Don't those count as evidence?

Let's talk about Linus Pauling.  Let's also talk about Hoffman-La Roche, the pharmaceutical company that used to dominate the vitamin C market until being convicted of leading a price-fixing cartel in the largest anti-trust case ever decided in the US.  Guess what?  They funded and reviewed Pauling work.  Whoops.

So what? They may have thought that there was a chance that Vitamin C would become a standard treatment at the time and their domination of the Vitamin C market would become extremely valuable. That's good on them for supporting a natural substance.

So what?  Are you serious?  Maybe that would be a reasonable way to think about it if the very same company that funded the studies hadn't been convicted of fraud.  Not just fraud.  Price fixing.  They have overtly displayed a willingness to be deceptive in order to make more money.  Nothing that comes from the Linus Pauling Institute or any affiliated institution can be trusted.  They are proven frauds.

And aren't you the one that says that big pharma never spends money to research "natural" cures because they can't make any money off of it?  Isn't that what your whole narrative against traditional medicine?  They "can't patent nature" or whatever, so they suppress natural cures?

The Mayo clinic used low oral doses in an attempt to refute Pauling's work, when the work clearly called for high dose Intravenous Vitamin C.

See this article: Vitamin C, Linus Pauling was right all along. A doctor's opinion

So if I found peer-reviewed medical literature refuting the efficacy of high dose, intravenous vitamin c, would you take it seriously?  Why or why not?

There's nothing wrong with buying natural substances from a pharmaceutical company running a supplement company on the side. Good on them. They need to refrain from fixing prices, however, and move more towards healthier natural solutions.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with it.  I'm talking about its implications.  You're missing my point completely.  Let me try and better explain:

To my knowledge, your indictment of traditional medicine begins and ends with "Big pharma can't patent the natural things that make you better, so they make unnatural things they can patent to make their money; to that end, they suppress knowledge of natural cures and maybe even go as far as trying to make you sick to keep you in the system."  Correct me if I'm wrong.

The problem is that this doesn't explain the facts.  Big pharma funds the research on natural cures.  Big pharma has a near-monopoly on the sale of natural cures.  It's so lucrative, and their monopoly is so thorough, that they were even able to run a price-fixing vitamin cartel.  It didn't even break up.  It just moved to China.  You're a sucker and a shill.

Big pharma doesn't need to suppress anything.  They're selling the things you say they don't sell and are trying to suppress.  If vitamin C cured cancer, big pharma would be all over that.  As I've demonstrated, big pharma already tried and succeeded to convince people that vitamin C cures cancer.  You're one of those people.  They are not trying to suppress vitamin C research.  They're the ones doing the research.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Ghost of V

Re: Natural Medicine is better than Unnatural Medicine
« Reply #171 on: October 28, 2014, 04:43:43 PM »
Well, when I brought up evolution you brought up domestication, implying that the conscious actions of man can run contrary to nature. It doesn't make your tree antecdote very strong.

Would you say that tree fuckers were created via evolution?

*

Offline Fortuna

  • *
  • Posts: 2969
    • View Profile
Re: Natural Medicine is better than Unnatural Medicine
« Reply #172 on: October 28, 2014, 06:26:42 PM »
Just make sure you sprinkle some vitamin c on your poop before you eat it.

*

Offline Hoppy

  • *
  • Posts: 1149
  • Posts 6892
    • View Profile
Re: Natural Medicine is better than Unnatural Medicine
« Reply #173 on: October 29, 2014, 04:07:59 PM »
Many animals are listed. If feces were full of terrible things which can cause illness, animals wouldn't be doing it left and right. Searching for a study isn't even required for this, simply thinking for ones own self.

"Animals do it in nature, therefore it is good" is a fallacious appeal to nature. You can do better than that, Tom. Where are your studies and sources?

Studies are not required, just your brain. If feces was dangerous to eat then evolution would have weeded out the animals who made a habit of eating feces, and that trait would not exist. This is not an appeal to nature. It is an appeal to intelligence. The behavior of wild animals is directly shaped by evolution. Therefore if they are eating feces, it must not be so risky and dangerous.
How much vitamin c is there in feces?
markjo just mix yours in a glass of oj, and stop asking this idiotic question.
God is real.

Re: Natural Medicine is better than Unnatural Medicine
« Reply #174 on: December 13, 2014, 02:59:09 PM »
Let's talk about Linus Pauling.  Let's also talk about Hoffman-La Roche, the pharmaceutical company that used to dominate the vitamin C market until being convicted of leading a price-fixing cartel in the largest anti-trust case ever decided in the US.  Guess what?  They funded and reviewed Pauling work.  Whoops.

So what?

If you were working for the Army and gave us a study proving that there was no corruption in Army finances, your work would absolutely be invalid.

Legitimate evidence comes from an outside source - external auditors, peer review by unconnected persons, etc. This should not be difficult to understand.

I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10081
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Natural Medicine is better than Unnatural Medicine
« Reply #175 on: December 13, 2014, 06:24:12 PM »
As I stated, legitimate evidence comes from outside sources. Pauling's work is vindicated by other people who are not Pauling. There is not just one single man showing benefits from Vitamin C.

Was the NBC segment showing that people have been cured of cancer with Vitamin C IV therapy funded by the Vitamin C industry? Are the many people claiming benefit from Vitamin C little more than shills?

What about all of those university and clinical research papers I linked? Were those institutions paid off by the Chinese Vitamin C industry to write those papers?