Posted on 11/29/2005 9:31:13 AM PST by Sub-Driver
You'd be wasting your time and money if you didn't start with a non-specialist. Even a psychiatrist could rule out heart disease if your pains were something else.
In the case of some folks on this thread, I'd recommend starting with a shrink.
I think I'll join you placemarker.
You want to generate an auto-immune response?
More likely is leftist government trying to breed docile populations.
Suicide is a human process.
That might be a persuasive argument to some people, but it is not a scientific argument. It is just another variation on the old underlying metaphysical, theological assumption, used to great effect by Darwin, that God wouldn't have created it this way because it's not 'perfect'.
Cordially,
"Drugs kill, real food heals. It's that simple" editor-surveyor
"I don't find this in the Bible." js1138
What you do find in the Bible is that Jesus spent a huge chunk of His time healing people of their various diseases. If it were true that an organic, whole grain diet were the answer to all mankinds health woes, then you'd find no illness until recent history, and history does not bear that out.
I certainly believe that our modern diet contributes to many of the health problems we have today. However, I don't believe that *organic* foods have some special, almost magical, ability to *heal* people. Probably the only benefit of organic is that it is not damaging your body any further, and I do believe that many of the additives that are put into foods are harmful.
Because of a food allergy my daughter has to certain red dyes, I googled them and got the FDA website. Hardly a bastion of natural remedies, but I was shocked at some of what I found out on that site about preservatives, dyes, and flavorings. By the FDA's own admission, based on the info provided, these things are NOT good for you. It would be worth checking out for any interested.
Here is a link to the FDA site:
/www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/colorfac.html
"It is just another variation on the old underlying metaphysical, theological assumption, used to great effect by Darwin, that God wouldn't have created it this way because it's not 'perfect'."
Not *perfect* to us. Just because it doesn't make sense to us, doesn't mean that there's no good reason for it. And even if science can't find a good reason *now*, doesn't mean one doesn't exist and won't be found someday.
I wouldn't want to be a lemming in a bad year.
My suspicion is the motivation lies more in the domain of the MBA.
My father got his M.D. around 1930. There were no antibiotics. Except for surgery, most of medicine revolved around good bedside manner and hoping your patient was one of the 70 percent who got better on their own.
I have no illusions about medicine. It's a mess and always will be. There will always be a list of ailments for which there are effective treatments, a list for which there are statistically effective treatments, and a list for which there is bedside manner.
There is scarcely any disease -- even AIDS or tetanus -- for which there are no instances of spontaneous recovery. The ideal stomping ground for the quack is the ailment that has a significant percentage of spontaneous remissions. The remissions only have to last long enough for the patient to sign the endorsement.
"There is scarcely any disease -- even AIDS or tetanus -- for which there are no instances of spontaneous recovery"
Rabies. There have been a few "recoveries" that appear to be legitimate, but they were hardly "spontaneous".
I haven't looked at rabies. the survival rate after onset of symptoms looks pretty grim, but perhaps there are people with natural immunity.
At any rate, even with modern medicine, most people recover or experience remissions from most illnesses without intervention. Quackery thrives in this arena.
The problem arises when quack medicine invades a space for which the disease is potentially fatal and the medicine is generally effective.
Food can heal simply by not preventing healing. Most 'foods' today are not accepted by the body as food. they do damage that acumulates over time, and eventually the damage is enough to cause a crisis that we call illness.
II Chronicles 16:12-14
16:12 And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the LORD, but to the physicians.
16:13 And Asa slept with his fathers, and died in the one and fortieth year of his reign. 16:14 And they buried him in his own sepulchres, which he had made for himself in the city of David, and laid him in the bed which was filled with sweet odours and divers kinds of spices prepared by the apothecaries' art: and they made a very great burning for him.
Obviously the king had diabetes, and trusted the physicians (bad move)
That is clearly not a human skull, thus it is evidence only of your obsessive falacy.
First of all, II Chronicles 16:12-14 is not the verse you referred me to.
Second, the new verse you quoted does not say that a particular diet will cure all diseases -- the statement of yours I dispute.
You seem to be promoting dietary quackery on one hand and Christian Science on the other, and claiming they are the same thing.
Thank you for your professional opinion on this matter. And your background for this claim is...?
700 ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.