Minutus

> It's interesting that you (Carmi Hazen) mentioned the alkalinity of the body as a prerequisite for recovery from cancer.

=Adding alkalinity to the body is necessary to counter excess acidity in the circulatory fluids. Doing so increases oxygenation which is required to restore homeostasis. However, this will only slow down the cancer temporarily as it adjusts to the changed environment. Within the cancer the alkalinity is actually excessive and adding more alkalinity will only make matters worse. High dose alkalinity was the basis for the H.E. Sartori protocol which was improved upon by A. Keith Brewer. It is the most effective "end stage" treatment protocol and has turned many terminal cases around at the 11th hour. It can only be used for short periods of time and will kill the patient if continued too long.

It is not a prerequisite - a too alkaline blood results in 50% cancer rate. Carmi's theories do not hold any water.

=I did not say that alkalinity of the body is a precursor for cancer. What I said was that the blood is too alkaline, not the entire body with its various fluids. Within the tumors the pH is very different than outside of them. Their biological processes produce massive amounts of excreted lactic acid. As more and more acid accumulates, the blood draws out more alkalininty from the reserves and then from muscle and bone. The pH of the blood will be high. All of this is covered and documented in my book.

One needs a correct pH to be healthy - not alkaline, not acidic, but ideal. And it is by no means the only relevant factor in cancer recovery.
In the case I referred to for example, there was very alkaline pH (blood pH is what I refer to) when breast cancer occurred. Homeopathy fixed the cancer - but still there is the continued alkaline pH due to another underlying issue.
=I never said anything different and I totally agree with your last statement. You are reading much more into my statements than what I actually said.

Blogs are not useful as sources of any valid information - you need to use scientific works.
The claim here is that:
"There is little dispute that cancer is an ACIDIC condition which can be measured in terms of tumor pH."
Au contraire - there is ALL kinds of dispute - saying there is not, does not make it true! Anyone can make an unsubstantiated claim.
pH is not a determinant for possibility or probability of cancers forming. They form equally well in acidic or alkaline environment.

=I agree. What do you claim I said to the contrary? I don't recall making such statements. pH does in fact control pleomorphic transformation. Don't get on the "scientific" kick. There is nothing "scientific" about modern medicine, its all guess work and is most often wrong. Such terms are used to cloak gross ignorance. I never said that cancer was an acidic condition. Never have and never will. Where did you get that from? It didn't come from me.

There's a lot of hype out there about becoming more alkaline - it's incorrect!
The body functions optimally at the correct pH of blood and body tissues . Not more acidic. Not more alkaline.
The optimal pH is likely close to pH of 7.4. At this pH the body has the most efficient absorption and use of nutrients. Symptoms of illness tend to show if pH is outside the range of 7.35 to 7.45.
(Some claimed experts say 7.365 is ideal; others claim 7.461 is optimal for absorbing nutrients - they do not say which nutrients - but that is above the pH at which symptoms of illness occur.)

The point it - Most illnesses cause skewing of the pH, either to more alkaline (resulting in up to 50% cancer rates) or to more acidic - also resulting in increased cancer rates though I do to know the percentage.
Until someone proves otherwise, I consider pH to be an indicator of health and metabolic balance or imbalance and not a precursor of any specific situation such as cancer.

=No, pH is the control mechanism for pleomorphism. Rife & Kendall proved this beyond any doubt. Metabolic and hormonal imbalance produces shifts in pH, that is true, but saliva and urine testing only indicate the state at the moment as it changes throughout the day due to many factors including but not limited to diet. A far better test is to measure the urine phosphorus to calcium ratio. I also cover that in my book. A pH of 7.461 is highly indicative of cancer or some other degenerative disease going on somewhere in the body.

Www.lulu.com/comdyne Caveat Emptor! Carmi Hazen

I do nto know who invented that fiction.
You started out speaking about pleomorphism - which is the ability of some *bacteria* to alter their shape or size in response to environmental conditions. Rife saw it with his microscope. Whoever assumed that meant one organism changed into another one was mistaken - there is no such ting as a life cycle between viruses and fungi - except maybe in sci-fi stories!
In Rife's time,in 1932, light microscopes could not see a whole lot of what was really happening in the growth medium with the smaller living organisms (they were bacteria not viruses that Rife was seeing) - he managed to cause color changes to be viewed but could not prove what was causing that exactly.

#Pleomorphism is well-known and has been researched by many, not just Rife. Naessens plotted it out graphically. You obviously know next to nothing about Rife's microscope. His photos appeared in the Smithsonian Institute's annual publication as well as the Franklin Institute the same year. 1944

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=nae ... tedIndex=0

http://www.rifevideos.com/1944_smithson ... scope.html
http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/ergonom_500-1.html
It most definitely is not!
The placenta is a controlled-growth tissue.
Cancer is tissue whose cells have damaged DNA and which grow in an UNcontrolled fashion.

#See: "The Trophoblastic Thesis of Cancer" http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/thesis.html
Many have tried and failed to disprove this theory since it was published around 1912
See: "World without Cancer" video here: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=wor ... 08&first=0

That's the east of our worries.
Impaired nutrition results in a shortage of good nutrients to run the mechanisms of the body - that's far more relevant.
If foods merely "rotted" in the intestines, that would be bacterial fermentation - not fungal. Even if fungi were present they would not "rot" food - (they'd lIkely be digested as microprotein). Bacteria do all the rotting work. Depending on what bacteria are present, that can even be beneficial!
A theory that holds no water.
What really happens is that cancer patients get radiation treatment for cancer, and it knocks out what's left of the immune system, as a result of which they can get an intestinal fungal infections. the rate of this is documented:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC495110/

It's no reason to suggest fungi penetrate intestinal walls much less cause cancer - that's back to front - fungal infection results AFTER cancer.
No - fungi invade only when the immune system is extremely compromised.
They do not cause cancer. In fact the toxins of fungi such as aspergillus are actually toxic to cancer cells and are used in some modern cancer treatments:-)
Not so. An acid pH is not healthy. You can try to wander about with concentrated sulfuric acid in your veins - it will not keep you alive!
On the contrary - It varies very narrowly in the blood and tissues, and needs to be slightly alkaline (pH 7.4, 7.0 being neutral. An acid pH is an indicator of a very ill person. Acceptable "normal" range is 7.35 to 7.45 - it's very narrow! and it is not acidic - acid is below 7.0)

There is no fungus of cancer.
Cancer does not involve fungus (except as a treatment).
They only THOUGHT they showed it.
There is no such tign sas a pleomorphic life cycle.
PLeomorphic bacteria can somewhat change shape to suit their needs in different growth media - bu there is no such ting as a bacteria turninginto somethig else besides a bacteria of the same type with a slightly different physical shape. Bacteria cannot turn into fungus or virus etc - no organism can turn into a different one.
Does not happen and is not possible.
Each living organism invokes its genetic code to determine what it looks like and how it replicates and also how the pleomorphism of bacteria works for that bacteria. It does not become a different bacteria in the process - it's still the same one. (Unless Monsanto gets hold of it that is - they stick gene bits for pesticides into plants - and go other nasty genetic things with far reaching consequences - but that's not a process in nature and is not pleomorphism).
Nope....though pH MIGHT be one possible factor in inducing survival by pleomorph activity.
Pleomorph bacteria change to another pleomorph state due to environmental changes that threaten survival.
An example:
The bacterium that causes Lymes disease (Borrelia burgdorferii) is in the spirochete category of bacteria and also happens to be a pleomorph. It cycles between a cyst form (to help it survive as the cyst has a surrounding wall that makes it impervious to many drugs) and a bio-film active form - which can function and replicate as opposed to just sitting there as a cyst form - but which is then much more susceptible to attack.
Escherichia coli is also a pleomorph - it can encapsulate to withstand environmental issues - usually lack of water or presence of drugs - but has to unencapsulate to grow and reproduce. THAT is what pleomorphism is about. Nothing changes form one organism into another. E coli remains E coli and Borrelia burgdorferii remains Borrelia burgdorferii in each respective pleomorph form.
Now you are jumping to a tumor. What capsule?
Cancers need no capsule and have none. They consist of cells much like the normal cells from which the cancer arises.
Cancer stem cells are tissue specific. Breast Cancer stem cells are behind a breast cancer tumor - including any metastasized version of it in a new location - it is still breast tissue if the primary cancer is breast cancer.
of nothing except that bacteria perform pleomorph activity.
They have great imaginations and a great lack of scientific knowledge and understanding.
In another email you sneer at electron microscope photographs.
They indeed show static pictures of surfaces and of cross sections inside and of detailed structure - but at a detailed level that shows what one is looking at - not like the Rife pictures that are just colors that change - and which can be interpreted in dozens of ways.

Cancer stem cells occur for each type of cancer. The latest research shows that these - and the normal tissues where a cancer can form - both change forms from a static one that replicates fast - to a mobile one that can send a cell of in a new direction but which cannot replicate en route.
IN the case of the cancer stem cell, this change to mobile form versus static form (called epithelial form), is triggered by a heat shock protein (specifically HSP 27) and that is what results in a metaastasis of the cancer to a new area - where it changes back to epithelial form so it can multiply. The multiplication/replication - is triggered by a micro-RNA gene fragment.

SO this is the PHYSICAL mechanism of cancer - not a fungus as out of date theories have suggested.
It's not 1932 any more. It's almost 2013. Progress in understanding the MECANISM of cancer - HAS been made!

ANy new theory you want to come up with need to fit the newly known FACTS.
The above is shown as fact - not colored lights open to interpretation - but visible and chemically present triggers with specific target areas on the cells that are visible under the electron microscope - and which respond predictably to triggers of receptors on the surface - even if they are not doing the boggie woogie all in one picture - a series of pictures is really no big deal - much as a movie consists of still frames:-)

SO we know at a very detailed level what cancer looks like and consists of.
Sorry but there's no fungus involved.

#I'm not going to spend any more time arguing with you. I suggest that you read my book and get better educated. This tit-for-tat scenario is accomplishing nothing. This "don't hold water" repetition is insulting and I'm not going to drop down to your level. Your points are moot. You obviously don't understand cancer. It's a simple metabolic disorder, nothing more. It can easily be cured by diet and tens of thousands have done so.
www.lulu.com/comdyne Caveat Emptor! Carmi Hazen

Not "the" control mechanism - It is ONE possible trigger for bacteria to encyst.
Not relevant here as bacterial change between active and encysted forms is absolutely nothing to do with cancer.

Most of your theories are based on the level of knowledge that was available in the EARLY 20th century, around 1932, 1944, area. Knowledge has grown exponentially as has scientific ability to check things out.
For example, modern science has only corroborrated what homeopathy showed in Hahnemann's time.
That's NOT the case for Rife's conclusions.
Excuse me but that is full of assumptions that are invalid, and none of it flies at all with the new research showing how cancer stem cells work, and how EACH type of cancer has its OWN type of stem cell, with its OWN specific types of receptors on the surface - and how the receptors of the stem cell are COMON with the basic cell type. So breast cells have the receptors of breast cells - and breast stem cells have the receptors of breast cells.
Lung cells have the receptors of lung cells (each with specific functions) and so do LUNG stem cells.
The uniformity between cancer types is NOT there (contrary to 1912 theory you use).
These FACTS which can be seen under a microscope (not Rife's but a real modern one which can differentiate the structures mentioned - all of them functionally corroborrated chemically in the lab) make a total nonsense of of the theory from 1912, and certainly turn ALL the basic assumptions of this thesis upside down.
It is very easy to follow this up PubMed. It's what any writer of any new theory needs to do as background research!
Building a new book on old and invalid research assumptions is not wise or valid.
DO you promise?


Happy New Year.

Namaste,
Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

The part of the equation that you apparently don't see is that our entire medical system is totally inept and corrupt. Modern science isn't accurate or truthful. Every discovery gets filtered through a review board before it appears in any professional journal. We haven't learned anything new in the past 80 years. Doctors back then were curing cancer routinely and so are many of the alternative practitioners of today. The medical pioneers saw the condition for what it really is, a nutritional deficiency. Cancer is a disease of civilization. There are clusters around the world where populations have never seen any of out modern diseases. When these people adopted western eating habits, these diseases emerged. It had nothing to do with gene expressions or the fact that granny had a dowager's hump. Cells malfunction due to their environment. It is always the external forces acting upon the cell that causes its reactions. What happens after that fact is moot and looking at the DNA/RNA doesn't really matter when the disease can be cured by making appropriate modifications to one's diet and lifestyle. Modern medical research is simply a facade. It's nothing but smoke and mirrors.

It really doesn't matter much because we are just getting sicker and sicker. The reason, of course, is that there is no money in cures and lets face it, western medicine is all about the money. It matters not as to what the cells do in this or that form of cancer. We can look under every rock if we want to and describe what we see down to the atomic level. So what? There still is no cure nor will there ever be. Cancer is big business and they will do everything in their power to keep it that way.

Only the truth was published 80 years ago, toady everything published, no matter how deep the research into this or that gene, cootie, or whatever, is a lie. What was published so long ago worked and if one follows the protocols outlined in my book they will very likely rid their bodies of cancer. That is why I wrote the book. There is nothing new under the sun... Caveat Emptor! Carmi Hazen

-------------------------------------------------------------
No, pH is the control mechanism for pleomorphism. Rife & Kendall proved this beyond any doubt.

Not "the" control mechanism - It is ONE possible trigger for bacteria to encyst.
Not relevant here as bacterial change between active and encysted forms is absolutely nothing to do with cancer.

Most of your theories are based on the level of knowledge that was available in the EARLY 20th century, around 1932, 1944, area. Knowledge has grown exponentially as has scientific ability to check things out.
For example, modern science has only corroborrated what homeopathy showed in Hahnemann's time.
That's NOT the case for Rife's conclusions.
Excuse me but that is full of assumptions that are invalid, and none of it flies at all with the new research showing how cancer stem cells work, and how EACH type of cancer has its OWN type of stem cell, with its OWN specific types of receptors on the surface - and how the receptors of the stem cell are COMON with the basic cell type. So breast cells have the receptors of breast cells - and breast stem cells have the receptors of breast cells.
Lung cells have the receptors of lung cells (each with specific functions) and so do LUNG stem cells.
The uniformity between cancer types is NOT there (contrary to 1912 theory you use).
These FACTS which can be seen under a microscope (not Rife's but a real modern one which can differentiate the structures mentioned - all of them functionally corroborrated chemically in the lab) make a total nonsense of of the theory from 1912, and certainly turn ALL the basic assumptions of this thesis upside down.
It is very easy to follow this up PubMed. It's what any writer of any new theory needs to do as background research!
Building a new book on old and invalid research assumptions is not wise or valid

An article on BBC Online in October 2010 highlighted the practice of medical journals NOT publishing negative results of drug trials. No medical practitioner can make an informed decision without critical evaluation.
ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11521873
I had already heard allusion to this on BBC 'Case Notes' Radio 4 when the head of the British Phramaceutical Association claimed it was the medical journals that were refusing to publish the negative results. What a convoluted world we live in!
Julie
om: comdyne2002
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 1 January 2013, 11:19
Subject: Re: Cancer? ...was Re: [Minutus] Re: Magnesium hydrate

The part of the equation that you apparently don't see is that our entire medical system is totally inept and corrupt. Modern science isn't accurate or truthful. Every discovery gets filtered through a review board before it appears in any professional journal. We haven't learned anything new in the past 80 years. Doctors back then were curing cancer routinely and so are many of the alternative practitioners of today. The medical pioneers saw the condition for what it really is, a nutritional deficiency. Cancer is a disease of civilization. There are clusters around the world where populations have never seen any of out modern diseases. When these people adopted western eating habits, these diseases emerged. It had nothing to do with gene expressions or the fact that granny had a dowager's hump. Cells malfunction due to their environment. It is always the external forces acting upon the cell that causes its reactions. What happens after that fact is moot and looking at the DNA/RNA doesn't really matter when the disease can be cured by making appropriate modifications to one's diet and lifestyle. Modern medical research is simply a facade. It's nothing but smoke and mirrors.

It really doesn't matter much because we are just getting sicker and sicker. The reason, of course, is that there is no money in cures and lets face it, western medicine is all about the money. It matters not as to what the cells do in this or that form of cancer. We can look under every rock if we want to and describe what we see down to the atomic level. So what? There still is no cure nor will there ever be. Cancer is big business and they will do everything in their power to keep it that way.

Only the truth was published 80 years ago, toady everything published, no matter how deep the research into this or that gene, cootie, or whatever, is a lie. What was published so long ago worked and if one follows the protocols outlined in my book they will very likely rid their bodies of cancer. That is why I wrote the book. There is nothing new under the sun... Caveat Emptor! Carmi Hazen

----------------------------------------------------------
No, pH is the control mechanism for pleomorphism. Rife & Kendall proved this beyond any doubt.

Not "the" control mechanism - It is ONE possible trigger for bacteria to encyst.
Not relevant here as bacterial change between active and encysted forms is absolutely nothing to do with cancer.

Most of your theories are based on the level of knowledge that was available in the EARLY 20th century, around 1932, 1944, area. Knowledge has grown exponentially as has scientific ability to check things out.
For example, modern science has only corroborrated what homeopathy showed in Hahnemann's time.
That's NOT the case for Rife's conclusions.
Excuse me but that is full of assumptions that are invalid, and none of it flies at all with the new research showing how cancer stem cells work, and how EACH type of cancer has its OWN type of stem cell, with its OWN specific types of receptors on the surface - and how the receptors of the stem cell are COMON with the basic cell type. So breast cells have the receptors of breast cells - and breast stem cells have the receptors of breast cells.
Lung cells have the receptors of lung cells (each with specific functions) and so do LUNG stem cells.
The uniformity between cancer types is NOT there (contrary to 1912 theory you use).
These FACTS which can be seen under a microscope (not Rife's but a real modern one which can differentiate the structures mentioned - all of them functionally corroborrated chemically in the lab) make a total nonsense of of the theory from 1912, and certainly turn ALL the basic assumptions of this thesis upside down.
It is very easy to follow this up PubMed. It's what any writer of any new theory needs to do as background research!
Building a new book on old and invalid research assumptions is not wise or valid

This is a very well known practice supported by the FDA and USDA and CDC in the United States.
It operates on a level that should be considered criminal and scandalous. However, it is rare that
this practice gets mentioned at all.
Recall about 2-3 yrs ago the Lancet was called on the carpet for publishing biased articles.
And the so-called Meta-analysis of Homeopathy printed in the Lancet used heavily cherrypicked
articles and then misinterpreted those results.
The BMJ has also published articles on the bias and fraud in medical/drug research reports.
What adds salt to this public wound, is that so much of this research is paid for by we, the people!
tanya
From: JULIE GRIFFITHS
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 6:34 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Cancer? ...was Re: [Minutus] Re: Magnesium hydrate

An article on BBC Online in October 2010 highlighted the practice of medical journals NOT publishing negative results of drug trials. No medical practitioner can make an informed decision without critical evaluation.
ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11521873
I had already heard allusion to this on BBC 'Case Notes' Radio 4 when the head of the British Phramaceutical Association claimed it was the medical journals that were refusing to publish the negative results. What a convoluted world we live in!
Julie
om: comdyne2002
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 1 January 2013, 11:19
Subject: Re: Cancer? ...was Re: [Minutus] Re: Magnesium hydrate

The part of the equation that you apparently don't see is that our entire medical system is totally inept and corrupt. Modern science isn't accurate or truthful. Every discovery gets filtered through a review board before it appears in any professional journal. We haven't learned anything new in the past 80 years. Doctors back then were curing cancer routinely and so are many of the alternative practitioners of today. The medical pioneers saw the condition for what it really is, a nutritional deficiency. Cancer is a disease of civilization. There are clusters around the world where populations have never seen any of out modern diseases. When these people adopted western eating habits, these diseases emerged. It had nothing to do with gene expressions or the fact that granny had a dowager's hump. Cells malfunction due to their environment. It is always the external forces acting upon the cell that causes its reactions. What happens after that fact is moot and looking at the DNA/RNA doesn't really matter when the disease can be cured by making appropriate modifications to one's diet and lifestyle. Modern medical research is simply a facade. It's nothing but smoke and mirrors.

It really doesn't matter much because we are just getting sicker and sicker. The reason, of course, is that there is no money in cures and lets face it, western medicine is all about the money. It matters not as to what the cells do in this or that form of cancer. We can look under every rock if we want to and describe what we see down to the atomic level. So what? There still is no cure nor will there ever be. Cancer is big business and they will do everything in their power to keep it that way.

Only the truth was published 80 years ago, toady everything published, no matter how deep the research into this or that gene, cootie, or whatever, is a lie. What was published so long ago worked and if one follows the protocols outlined in my book they will very likely rid their bodies of cancer. That is why I wrote the book. There is nothing new under the sun... Caveat Emptor! Carmi Hazen

----------------------------------------------------------
No, pH is the control mechanism for pleomorphism. Rife & Kendall proved this beyond any doubt.

Not "the" control mechanism - It is ONE possible trigger for bacteria to encyst.
Not relevant here as bacterial change between active and encysted forms is absolutely nothing to do with cancer.

Most of your theories are based on the level of knowledge that was available in the EARLY 20th century, around 1932, 1944, area. Knowledge has grown exponentially as has scientific ability to check things out.
For example, modern science has only corroborrated what homeopathy showed in Hahnemann's time.
That's NOT the case for Rife's conclusions.
Excuse me but that is full of assumptions that are invalid, and none of it flies at all with the new research showing how cancer stem cells work, and how EACH type of cancer has its OWN type of stem cell, with its OWN specific types of receptors on the surface - and how the receptors of the stem cell are COMON with the basic cell type. So breast cells have the receptors of breast cells - and breast stem cells have the receptors of breast cells.
Lung cells have the receptors of lung cells (each with specific functions) and so do LUNG stem cells.
The uniformity between cancer types is NOT there (contrary to 1912 theory you use).
These FACTS which can be seen under a microscope (not Rife's but a real modern one which can differentiate the structures mentioned - all of them functionally corroborrated chemically in the lab) make a total nonsense of of the theory from 1912, and certainly turn ALL the basic assumptions of this thesis upside down.
It is very easy to follow this up PubMed. It's what any writer of any new theory needs to do as background research!
Building a new book on old and invalid research assumptions is not wise or valid

Clearly, you speak for yourself:)

I find it helpful to learn - including from good new research - EVERY year.
Knowing how to read and interpret and assess what the research shows (original research, not someone's conclusions from it) , is an essential skill IMO - and using that skill prevents any hoodwinking by those whose greed exceeds their compassion - and allows for beneficial use of new knowledge, especially that which supplants old assumptions.

Namaste,
.........Irene
REPLY TO: only
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Yes but since we do not use drugs, does that matter?

The research which is useful is things like metabolic findings - as those are also useful to drug companies - they use them to invent drugs and have no reason to hide their results.
We on the other hand- can use them to target homeopathy and for other understanding of the body's metabolism, an essential prerequisite to well managed homeopathic practice.

For example if you are looking for a remedy for red cell anemia - the repertory will give you hundreds of options - but if you know the metabolic process involved, (for example damaged blood vessels causing leakage into the body cavity - or else maybe toxin levels that smash red cells - or else a parasite eating them - etc) that metabolic knowledge allows further rubrics that will help you find the RIGHT anemia remedy. So knowing the metabolic issues of a specific pathology - from good research - can be essential to resolving critical fast cases well.
Failing to use the new research knowledge on how the system functions - or what makes a breast stem cell become a breast cancer stem cell - is like tossing the baby out with the bathwater (bathwater being superficial drug approval type "studies" and babies being good new knowledge of what happens metabolically in normal versus ill cell/body systems.)

Namaste,
Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Perhaps you can turn your newly acquired unbiased scientific knowledge to treat yourself. Condescension is often a symptom of macrochephalic disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly, you speak for yourself:)

I find it helpful to learn - including from good new research - EVERY year.
Knowing how to read and interpret and assess what the research shows (original research, not someone's conclusions from it) , is an essential skill IMO - and using that skill prevents any hoodwinking by those whose greed exceeds their compassion - and allows for beneficial use of new knowledge, especially that which supplants old assumptions.