Express your nature.

Upload, Share, and Be Recognized.

Join with Facebook
or join manually
X
Comments:

Old Comments:

2008-03-28 02:15:42
Eh... they are my bearded dragon's favorite food....
2008-03-24 07:41:46
*takes deep breath* I'll try to be brief... Ok then, show me the court cases. I believe court cases belong to the public record don't they? About funding- They are not funded by "conventional medical sources" as you call them. From wiki- "[...]no salaried employees at Quackwatch, Inc. [...] funded mainly by small individual donations, commissions from sales on other sites to which they refer, and profits from the sale of publications, and self-funding by Barrett. Stated income also is derived from sponsored links for which they receive a commission on products ordered including Amazon books, ConsumerLab.com, Healthgrades, and Netflix.[1]"................So you agree that proper scientific studies have NOT been done, and that that's why alternative medicine is just that, alternative?......... About energy fields- If our top notch, extremely expensive and sensitive instruments cannot detect the energy fields you are talking about, how do you know they exist? Did you know that we can detect SINGLE photons? Any so called energy field would be easily detectable by today's technology......About Royal Raymond Rife- Besides that DVD, what sources do you have? You said that there was a great banquet and whatnot... where? when? by whom? Where are the scientific papers he published? You made a lot of claims, but didn't support any of them. If you're talking about the dinner On November 20, 1931, you are just factually incorrect. They were honoring Dr. Arthur I. Kendall as well as Rife... not because of his cancer cures, but because of his microscopes which had nothing to do with his cancer quackery.
2008-03-24 07:07:08
I am afraid your information about quackwatch winning is false! They have lost several cases and appeals over the last eighteen months. I have received the reports! The problem is that quackwatch are paid for 'by' conventional medical sources, which has a great deal of money to throw at sabotaging alternative medicine, in order to protect its own corrupt basis. My only acceptance of what we call conventional medicine (CM) is in accident and emergency. But CM is not always up to the mark in this regard either. As far as 'scientific' evidence of the verification of alternative medicine, I concur that - if the money were available - proper scientific studies should be done. But one of the problems in this area, and this is where the 'orthodox' person becomes unstuck, is that there are many areas of energy fields that have not been detected by conventional science, for the simple reason that the instrumentation is not available. I would mention just one of dozens of scientists of the 'alternative' mode who, when it was found that his discovery for curing even so-called terminal illnesses was going to adversely affect the pocketbooks of conventional medical doctors, he was vilified and his life destroyed. After many years of thorough scientific experiments and research, and with the backing of wealthy sponsors, he designed and built his instruments, which were the most advanced in the world. After lengthy demonstrations of the total effectiveness of his cures he was heralded as a great scientist by the cream of the American medical establishment, at which all of this was laid out at a special banquet in his honour. Soon after, the medical establishment did their sums and found that they would be the great losers. In reality it was probably the bankers of the pharmaceutical industry that put on the squeeze. So they then started spreading rumour, etc. and eventually denying that they ever knew him. That great human being was Royal Raymond Rife. Some dedicated people have put together a DVD called: The Rise and Fall of a Scientific Genius - The Forgotten Story of Royal Raymond Rife. To conclude, a true scientist in my understanding, in whatever field, should have an open mind about all phenomena. If he or she is unable to explain whatever matter they are investigating, then they should have an open mind about the conclusion, if any. Once the scientist makes a judgement upon a matter about which they do not have all the scientific facts, then that scientist is a pseudo-scientist. They are not genuine scientists. That applies to the medical field as well. And returning to the quackwatchers, they are frauds with rocks on their shoulders.
2008-03-24 06:21:49
Actually no, while quackwatch has been sued multiple times, they have always won (in the cases that have actually gone through). Tell me, philip, why do you think it is that the scientific community accepts some things while dismissing others? It's because some things are scientific and others are not. Do you have any scientific training whatsoever? I don't have much formal scientific training, I admit, but I do know that it is very easy to manipulate statistics in order to make it seem like some things work when they don't. This is what proponents of alternative medicine do. And it is EXPECTED that some studies will show an effect of something- just by pure probability. AM is alternative BECAUSE it has never been shown to work under controlled circumstances in well-designed studies. In order to evaluate the efficacy of any given intervention, you HAVE to look at the entire scientific literature on the matter, and pay very close attention to how well the study was conducted. Oftentimes with alternative medicine you find that the smaller and less well controlled the study was, the bigger the effect you see... while the bigger and better control studies show no statistically significant effect (or possibly negative effects).
2008-03-24 05:46:01
And I forgot to add: Dandelion root makes a good coffee. I used to drink it years ago. However, like any potent food, if you have too much it will do you no good.
2008-03-24 04:46:46
I know they're edible and nutritious, but one of the five most nutritious plants on the planet? could you give me a source? I love it that you grow them for food. I'd eat them myself, but I don't have anywhere to grow them and pretty much every place I've seen them growing was near a road or some other source of pollution. And aren't the roots bad for you in large quantities (of course, what isn't bad for you in large quantities?)? I've heard that you can make a coffee substitute from their roots, but that you shouldn't drink it regularly because it could make you sick.
2008-03-24 04:02:13
Thanks for the edification Bob1. My little knowledge of the dandelion as a plant is that it is one of five of the most nutritious plants on the planet. Every part of the plant is edible - flowers, leaves and root. The young leaves and flowers are good in salads. I have a bed of dandelions that I grow for food.
2008-03-24 03:09:37
Dandelion, very nutritious.