the other side of HIV-AIDS

Guest

hetZaad wrote:

It is at the same time insane to base ones objections on such a thing because any biologist will probably confirm that negative thoughts will cause the body to react [i.e. physically]. We've all heard of the relationship between heartburn and stress, after all.

You can think about it all day, you're not going to cure physical deformities with thoughts.

Speaking of "asking biologists," I wonder if you would apply the same standard to Pleomorphism. If a lot of biologists tell you it was discarded over a century ago because it couldn't stand up to repeatable testing (like Germ Theory could) then you will reject it right? If they tell you that it's been falsified would you be satisfied?

Quote:

That is a very helpful post. Thanks for the link. And i love it how you keep adding links that support my arguments and undermind your own.

And yet, you never seem forthcoming with any information about how such undermining has actually occurred. You're more interesting in stating THAT it has occurred, a form of posturing, than you are about actually demonstrating how it has occurred. In reality this is because it actually hasn't occurred. Wink

Number of posts: 92 Registration date: 2008-01-24

pearls to swine

_________________
pearls to swine

Guest

hetZaad wrote:

It's really funny you aren't even aware you doing it even after having had it pointed out to you.

Nice argument, I'll respond with an equally dismissive retort.
"NO U!"

hetZaad wrote:

Do I need to spell it out any clearer?

What I really need (or at least would really like) is for you to be less condescending.

Quote:

You quote a link on wikipedia and i followed the link which not only states that the monomorphic is a paradigm

You might not understand what a Paradigm is, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and explain it. You are incorrectly using this word as though it implied some kind of incorrectness, and using it as though it passed some kind of value judgment about what the contents of the paradigm are. This word is only employed to denote what is dominantly accepted at a specific period in time... it doesn't imply answers to the questions "why?", or "whether or not it's valid?" It's equally a misuse of language for you to use this word in an attempt to imply that Germ Theory is invalid simply Because it is the current Paradigm, as it would for me to just imply that it is correct because it is the current paradigm. The mentality that "because paradigms have changed in the past, this implies that all current paradigms are false and will change in the future" isn't necessarily true. This kind of Kuhnian argument is just dismissive. Instead of grappling the theories that are contrary to your own (in this case Genetics) you simply call it a Paradigm and dismiss it by assuming that it will be falsified at some point by someone. The word is completely unrelated to the accuracy or truth-value of what it is referring to. From wiki, "a set of practices that define a scientific discipline during a particular period of time." Thats it! Very Happy

The word is too broad to refer to a specific theory (like pleomorphism, or evolution, or germ theory), because this word is about what science is and how it is conducted at certain periods in time. If you're interested in understand more you can check out a book by the man who actually originated this term as it is used today. Thomas Kuhn, and the work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I'm sure it's on Amazon.

Quote:

but that the Pasteur Institute themselves confirmed that the champion of polymorphism was right and Pasteur himself was wrong.

We're not talking about polymorphism. Robert O Young, and your new-ager food diet cult, are advocates of Pleomorphism, though you misuse the term.

The disagreement about whether or not certain bacteria could change shape had nothing to do with Pleomorphism as it is advocated by Robert Young. Today, Pleomorphism isn't about Shape, but about Type. In the days of Pasteur and Beauchamp those two issues weren't distinguishable (I explain further below) and the assumption was that they were related, hence perceiving a change in shape or appearance must necessitate a change in type or function. Pleomorphists now claim that there is no such thing as a 'strain' or 'species' of bacteria, but that they are all one in the same and can shift In Type into another species in response to queues from inside the body completely unrelated to the external world (i.e., a typhoid bacillus could morph into a staphylococcus bacteria).

The disagreement between Pasteur and Beauchamp was "settled" by Madame Victor Henry when she showed that they could differ in shape (i.e., rods or cones vs spheroid structures). Keep in mind this all took place before any understanding of genetics deeper than the evidential results of selective breading of things like Cows. This disagreement occurred before any of these people understood that shape doesn't mean completely different species. The gene responsible for a given shape is not necessarily correlated to a specific function that would be as radically different between species of bacteria as are implied by the Pleomorphs. They (Pasteur etc..) didn't understand exactly how different these strains of bacteria actually are on the genetic level, and that this level actually ensures limitations on heritable changes from generation to the next. It wasn't even a well understood science until the mid 20th century.

To be a bit empathetic for a moment, It's very understandable how biologists then who could not enjoy the understanding that is available to us today could have made such an error. They see a spheroid structure under a microscope maybe rotate about a bit and look like a cone or a rod of some kind, or during the fast paced processes of cell reproduction some of them turn out to be a little bit different in shape and size than the rest. Seeing this subtle change could have easily lead someone to the misconception about the actual type of bacteria he was looking at because the confines of genetics again, weren't well understood. It was only in 1910 that Chromosomes were discovered. It wouldn't be until the mid 20th century that genetics really took off after the discovery of the double helix. Either way it's an understandable assumption to make, however incorrect.

One quick observation that debunks Pleomorphism immediately is the existence of epidemics where diseases caused by contagious bacteria spread across populations. Another quick observation that debunks this immediately is our ability to reliably develop vaccinations for specific strains of diseases caused by specific bacteria, and successfully treat them. If they were as volitile and random as Pleomorphs assert, there would be no way to contain these bacteria, and disease would probably wipe us out due to our inability to build up reliable immune systems.

Beauchamp and his allies felt that bacteria are really one big family, and that a bacteria (e.g., salmonella) can revert back to a primitive prototype bacteria, which can then re-differentiate into a different type of bacteria altogether (perhaps an e. coli species or typhus). This orgy of random mutations is not presented with respect to characteristics being passed from generation to generation and that this limitation on potentially inherited traits constrains what mutations could even happen, this random mutation is presented as though a single bacterium without respect to genetic limitations in type could in fact transform itself on the genetic level into something completely different if it receives a queue from the body and then transform again and again ad infinitum.

To be charitable for a moment, Beauchamp can't really be held at fault in my opinion, because it is not his fault that the understanding wasn't yet available for him to grasp genetics. It took many brilliant minds to discover and develop that field. The new-agers who abuse and disregard genetics today I think are at fault and can be ridiculed and be made fun of.

Quote:

With the CNN interview on YouTube Dr. Young goes on to explain how pH levels relate to fat stored in the body because the fat is used to store acids in. This is a helpful link because it helps to explain what i was talking about.

He doesn't explain the process, he just asserts that this is the mechanism by which fat build ups occur. There is a big difference. A calorie isn't an Acid, if you consume 6000 calories of the healthiest food you can find on a daily basis, and you sit on your ass all day... well... do the math. That fat isn't going to be a product of an "overly acidic" diet.

Another consequence of the pleomorphic renunciation of (or ignorance of) genetics is that they ignore some fatty tissue buildup can actually be natural for a person. Diet is extremely important, but it is not a primary. If you are genetically predispositioned to store a lot of access caloric intake in your ass, you will unless you work very hard at that through exercise and probably some supplements. That rings true no matter how healthy your diet is. Same for people with high cholesterol, or high blood pressure, or asthma.

Another consequence of the pleomorphic dietary approach to life is that it ignores ailments which are completely unrelated to your diet. Asthmatic Bronchitis jumps to mind immediately because I had that as a child. Alzheimer's Disease is a good example. The unique fungal growth on Tree Man (which modern medicine has actually cured now).

Quote:

Yet you say i NEVER explain myself.

Right, and I still say you don't. You refer to other sources (which I merrily debunk) or you just assert that you are correct.

Quote:

I feel like i'm talking to a brick wall here. But not a whailing wall but a whining one. If you don't bother decently reading my posts why do you react?

Your value judgment "decently" is irrelevant, and I've responded intelligently to all of your posts. Including this one.

Quote:

There is another option: you do read, you do try to understand, yet you simply don't get it. In that case i hope it now finally computes.

i.e., "Ur Dum!!!!!!!!"
That is a nice civilized way to end your post after having reasserted all of the assertions I've already explained and debunked once (and now twice) before.

Number of posts: 92 Registration date: 2008-01-24

pearls to swine

_________________
pearls to swine

Guest

You just reacted again, by dismissing the argument because you have no answer.

Number of posts: 92 Registration date: 2008-01-24

pearls to swine

_________________
pearls to swine

Guest

Lynn Margulis is a brilliant and fascinating scientist. I just finished listening to an interview between her and Kevin Barrett on his talk show. One of the things they spoke of was AIDS and she was quite informative about the nature of the issue. It's an hour show*, interrupted by the usual incredibly ignorant mind numbing "paytriot" type advertising that pays for non-mainstream radio. I recommend it. She also provides ancillary informational sources to examine.

This woman is a delight to listen to aside from the interesting information she plays with.

- NonE

*actually it's a two hour show, but this link is to the second hour where one of the topics is AIDS. The show is on WTPRN.COM and it's called Truth Jihad Radio, two hours on every Sat. and Sun. This is the Aug 10, 2008 show.

» Side effects of Viagra
» Rectogesic - side effects?
» citilopram side effects
» medications and side effects
» Keningau banyak AIDS

the other side of HIV-AIDS

the other side of HIV-AIDS

Similar topics

Similar topics