- I'm sorry that you find my tone insulting; I was simply looking at what you had written, and going where the evidence (or lack) took me. It is true that I tend to be blunt in my opinions, and I often need to be reminded to tone things down. Having reviewed my previous comment, I cannot see where I have erred - feel free to point out which parts you found insulting or condescending, though.
- I have no problem with an open mind. My problem is with assumptions without evidence.
- I'm terribly sorry if I misread what you meant about drugs with a 60% success rate, but if doctors knew who the 40% were before-hand they would try science-based alternatives. What alternatives are you suggesting for that 40% (once they are discovered)?
Let me repeat: What is a 'toxic load'? How is it defined? How do you measure it? Who discovered it? How can one increase or decrease one's 'toxic load'? Where is a peer-reviewed paper that describes its working?
I will ignore your spelling, but again you are making a claim without evidence. Show me the evidence, so I have some actual context rather than simply being asked to believe what someone wrote on the Internet.
Can you please explain what you mean by this statement? It sounds like the kind of double-speak employed by people like Deepak Chopra - who knows all the words, but hasn't a clue what they mean and so simply throws them into a blender to see what comes out.
Oh no... once again the rabbit hole leads to Big Pharma. No, pharmaceutical companies do not (generally) work for the good of humanity but for their shareholders. No, this does not mean that they have discovered the secrets to curing all disease but are withholding it - competitive pressure alone prevents that.
Yes, pharmaceutical companies are motivated to create new medications - but claiming they simply counter symptoms ignores the evidence. Have you had polio lately, or chicken pox? Maybe smallpox? Wait - that was eradicated. How? Medicine - produced synthetically. How many people have been dying of AIDS lately? You might see these examples as minor irrelevancies to 'an holistic view' - but the reality is that either medicine works or it's called 'alternative'.
Again, you mention this 'toxic load' - and again leave me baffled.
HOW DARE YOU! You are defending parents whose neglect has led to the progression of cancer beyond any hope of treatment, and denigrating the people who do their best to save children's lives against the efforts of their parents to trust in 'alternative' medicine.
Cancer is not easily treated, and not all cancer is curable - especially when it is not acted upon quickly. My father and my father-in-law both died of cancer. My nephew had a rare form of it when he was six or seven, but received the necessary treatment and is now a healthy adult.
Cancer has not been 'solved' by the medical and research communities, but that is not through lack of trying. There is no one 'cancer' - there are hundreds of types of it! Even then, millions of lives have been saved by getting the proper medical treatment in a timely manner - how many cancer survivors do you know (or even know of via reputable sources) who have relied upon 'alternative' therapies?
You are defending parents whose children have died through their criminal neglect, and then blaming their deaths on this 'toxic load' for which you have provided zero evidence!
Sorry? I thought I was the 'insulting, condescending' one.
No, I do not know your cat's circumstances. I was not there, I did no tests, I diagnosed no condition and prescribed no medication. I did suggest some possible, realistic alternatives to magic water, but that is all.
No, you don't even know that. You are simply assuming that correlation is causation.
Ever been in a car? Do you have air conditioning or heating in your home? Paint on the walls? Anything other than wooden or dirt floors? Science thinks well outside whatever square you are thinking about, and without it you would not be able to send messages on an Internet! Maybe you should try listening to one or two science podcasts that discuss things other than profit - such as The Infinite Monkey Cage, or Crowd Science, or even the Ri Science Podcast. At the moment you seem to have an incredibly distorted view of what science is and does in the world.
What heavy metals are contained in vaccines? What carcinogens? Again, you have put forward a claim without any evidence.
And still you go with 'toxic loads'! Please, I want to know more about these. Can you link some basic evidence in support of your claims? Because at the moment you're just spouting buzzwords.