|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
From: Pat (ti211310a080-1557.bb.online.no)
In Reply to: So you ALSO believe the Zapper cures cancer and AIDS....LOL posted by Pat on June 2, 2003 at 11:22 am:
Pat, please read mith more care what I write! I wrote: "Zapper is just a 1% of all that she suggests." Guess why this text is BOLD ... because I want you to read it carefully! If you follow her protocol, your body will get rid of cancer or AIDS, or MS naturally. If you are interested, I can give you links and emails to stories written by real people, people who cured Cancer, MS, AIDS, CFS... Just as our body is able to produce tumor, so it is also able to reverse that process, and to "dissolve" tumor. But, tell me , what do you really know about science? Cancer, AIDS, MS, like heart disease, is a multidimensional disease. It is nearly impossible to study the effects of diet, cleansing, house cleanup, therapeutic agents, and other influences in the traditional research framework. Investigating several variables calls for dozens of experiments and impossible amounts of research funding. You spent billions of dollars on researching a protocol that can not be patented, and without a patent, you will never be able to earn that money back. So, it for sure smell like poor business, and noboy will ever invest billions of dollars in such research. Drug companies, which fund many of the studies for new drugs, have little interest in pursuing alternative treatments, since they are generally inexpensive and cannot be patented. Money can only be earned with the drug that can be patented. You can not patent anything that exist in the nature. For example, there is no money to be made from spending millions of dollars on research to show that vitamin C helps to fight cancer, since anyone can buy the substance at the corner drugstore. The traditional experimental approach calls for checking one substance at a time, and this leads to a search for a "magic bullet" to cure cancer. However, the very nature of this traditional research method ignores the multidimensional nature of the disease. What we need is new ways to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative cancer therapies. Your stetemnt "... Zapper cures cancer ... " shows that you also believe that one day people will find that "magic bullet", while you totally neglect the fact that Zapper is just a part of much wider protocol. It is like saying: "So, you believe that humans can live with Vitamin C, only." Vitamin C is important, but it also takes other 50 life essentials to stay healthy, to live, to reproduce: Do you now see how stupid it sounds your statement: Natural therapies are often individually suited for every single patient. How many patients, that many therapies. Just like the cancer diet. As many people, so many diets. They can not be evaluated as one single therapy. Natural therapies are holistic therapies, dealing and working with body, mind, spirit, and environment. We still does not have a science to evaluate it. In other words, most natural programs for curing cancer can not be proved effective by the same means as conventional therapies. Breaking program in peaces and evaluating every single piece rarely give positive results. Of course there are studies that have studied only effects of dietary supplementation with very few supplements, and many actually gave positive results. ( selenium, germanium, beta- carotene, H2O2,...) Practitioners offering alternative cancer therapies generally oppose double-blind studies because they regard it as immoral to give half the patients inactive sugar pills or distilled water injections when these people are in desperate need of real help. The main criticism that the medical establishment has of alternative cancer treatments is a lack of traditional scientific testing and documentation. One reason for the absence of mainstream research on alternatives is that the funding institutions that dole out the money for cancer research do not support research into alternative cancer therapies. This situation creates a double bind for alternative therapies. They are criticized for not having adequate research to document their effectiveness, yet funding is not made available for studies. Treatments like psychotherapy, visualization, and support groups receive little funding for research because they are not drugs, and the traditional medical community tends to be suspicious of anything that identifies a mental aspect to a disease. You can find more info here: http://curezone.com/diseases/cancer/faq.htm
|
