 |
Reply
| |
For example, we can read something about this people in this web
http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/terrain/lost_history_of_medicine.htm
They were "alternative" scientists, opposed to the Pasteur principles.
They said things that I think are similar to many thinks you have said Hans. I don't know if you were totally aware of what this guys said and did before you exposed your views. I supposed yes because If I am not wrong you teach history of science. In any case, could you tell us which thinks you agree and you disagree with them?
For example, a think that sounds bizarre for me: "Disease begins when our bodies turn acidic"
And in that web even give "molecular arguments" to supports this principle
But you Hans talk bout arachidonic acid (bad) and mead acid (good), i.e., two acids, therefore in this case it seems a contradiction with that.
So, could you clarify all this mess?
Thanks |
|
 First
Previous
2-3 of 3
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| |
I only know of some of these people. It's not always easy to tell if they were on to some really important, because there is no scientific literature beyond what they themselves have written (about their claims). However, if you take a look at the links, you will see:
www.gilbertling.org and http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/cv.htm
I have looked into the experiments discussed on these sites and they are worth reading about, though you may need to have a couple of textbooks nearby.
Moreover, some doctors or scientists may have discovered some useful things in their clinical practice, and since I don't have clinical experience, there is no way I could really say if they appear to be on to something. The point I make is that the "mainstream" evidence is now strong enough to support an alternative explanation of things like "infectious disease" and "chronic disease," but for several reasons, this evidence has not replaced the current dogma, which is based largely upon "germ theory" notions. I would say that one of my strengths is that I don't get involved with things that are difficult or impossible to determine, but instead I try to "break things down" to the simplest "building blocks." After doing this, one can then try to assimilate the more complex bits of information. An example is the cholesterol/heart disease notion. It may be true for at least some people that high LDL is correlated with "heart disease," but when you brea |
|
Reply
| |
Continuation from the above post:
...break things down to the simplest level (that possesses clarity) you realize that oxidized LDL is the problem, leading to a series of events that can result in "heart disease." Thus, higher LDL might be a little worse than "normal" LDL, if too much of it is oxidized, but this seems to be a rather unimportant point in any case, because it's easy to prevent LDL from getting oxidized in amounts that are likely to be dangerous. There is also the issue of having AA in one's cells, which seems to make the situation a lot worse, because the problems caused by the oxLDL in arteries, for example, leads to a chronic inflammatory problem, which essentially means that AA is being released and made into dangerous molecules. o be determined before claims are made, though there still is the question about what else is eaten at the same time, and what is actually causative. A point I often make is that most scientists seem to have a psychological or intellectual need for very simple explanations, and appear incapable of dealing with the complexities of things like diet. |
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
