Firstly, TB is named for the "Mycobacterium tuberculosis" bacteria - as such the disease and the bacteria are one and the same.
Yes, I know what is claimed, and in this thread we are both challenging long-held claims.
My understanding is that the "proof" of bacterial infection of various kinds is that the bacteria was found in the bodily fluids of people with the illness, but that COULD mean the bacteria are trying to clean up the problem, and not necessarily the cause of the problem.
Similar to the idea that cholesterol in the blood vessels is there to patch the harm done by the glucose that went through the blood vessel and caused the abrasion.
I don't know if there has been a direct observation study where bacteria directly caused a person or animal to get TB. Maybe so. I'm just not aware of such a study, so I challenge the idea unless someone can show the proof.
Smoking causes neither lung cancer nor heart disease.
In fairness, I said "increases risk," which does imply causation. AFAIK, there is a clearly established correlation, though I don't think anyone can really prove causation due to (in theory) it taking 20-30 years of regular smoking to cause.
The fact that correlation does exist is significant, IMO, since we can logically think of a potential pathway, and then those who smoke tend to have a problem in much greater numbers than those who do not.
In fact, the largest lung cancer scientific study ever conducted was with over 1000 participants, all of which had to have smoked for at least one pack per day for 20+ years. Only 10% of these people died of lung cancer. Case closed.
Not so fast. What is the percentage of the general population who has never smoked dying of lung cancer?
less than roughly 25% of those who suffer from [heart disease] were smokers at any point in their life, less than 15% being active, chronic smokers
Again, that misses the point. The question is not: What percentage of smokers did and did not "have X?" Rather, the question is: What is the percentage of smokers "have X" versus what percentage of non-smokers "have X?"
Lymphomas are the late healing stage of a "bone cancer" related to a profound self-devaluation conflict.
Maybe this is a problem I see with your thesis. It relies on psychological analysis, which is going to be impossible to prove. Nobody can possibly know all the emotions and psychological factors that MIGHT be at play in any particular individual, even within yourself. Interesting concept, but cannot be proven.
[Side note: Tom Cowan says that he starts at exploring psychological factors when trying to figure out what might be the cause of a problem.]
The only thing I can specifically point to in my case is a massive bed bug infection, and lymphoma occuring 8 months later. Since the lymphatic system is the body's system for cleansing toxins, it makes logical sense, and my real-world experience lines up with "cause-effect."
It also makes me suspect that bed bugs might have been the true cause of "small pox" of the American Indians, when they traded things for the White man's bedding and blankets.
Also, I never had any dignosis for bone cancer, and don't know anyone else with lymphoma who did. Not that it necessarily means much. Just that if I knew of it, it would lend credibility to your thesis, but I don't.
things like carpal tunnel syndrome, tennis elbow (bursitis), etc. are technically "bone cancers" that ultimately result in "lymphomas" that go undiagnosed
If they are undiagnosed, then how could you know they have it?
If this were true, then ask yourself why the Red Cross does not screen donated blood for cancer cells? There would be epidemics of cancer sprouting up on a non-stop basis as the vast majority of people who "have cancer" don't even know it.
I don't expect the Red Cross to want to do anything of real value. Talking about the executives who run it, not the people at the lower levels.
The reason a cancerous "cell" being inserted into another person via blood transfusion would not be a problem is that it is not their own cell. It would be a foreign protein and the donee's body would attack it. But within one's own body, it is not foreign.
Also, interesting to note that I came across someone once who said that blood transfusions are unnecessary and should never be done. All the person needs is fluid and electrolytes, but not the blood cells from someone else (which are foreign material that should be rejected). With enough fluid, they can create their own blood cells. Don't know much about it, but interesting.
I haven't found any scientifically verifiable evidence that points to long-term cumulative exposure to micro-doses of toxins, pesticides, etc. eventually leading to commonly encountered dis-eases.
I think the person doing the video in my OP did a good job of showing the cause-effect relationship of toxins/poisons to polio.
Granted, there are no clinical trials -- and there won't be as long as Germ Theory dominates the narrative.
it's impossible to completely avoid "psychological conflicts" forevermore as they aren't under your conscious control. However, it is possible to be aware of them when they happen, enabling you to be introspective in order to downgrade and lessen the intensity and duration of them, which ultimately results in much more graceful healing/restoration phases if and when they arise.
Two thoughts come to mind here:
(1) It seems to me like a "chicken and egg" conundrum. Which came first? I have no doubt that negative thoughts and emotional trauma can lead to poorer health. But if someone is of this mindset, and then they eat a poor diet, is it the emotional state or the cupcakes that caused the health problem?
Also, it would be necessary to psychologically evaluate every individual who both does and does not have a health problem to really figure it out for sure. This seems like an impossible task. So at best, we can say the emotional state is a factor. At best, it remains a thesis that is worth considering, insofar as we can try to identify where we might have emotional conflicts and try to resolve them, and that might lead to better health.
(2) Your statement here reminds me of Ayn Rand's explanation of what emotions ARE. What is an emotion? Why do we have them? Why do so many people seem to act emotionally and not rationally? Or in your thesis, what is a conflict and why do we have them?
Rand's view was that emotions ARE rational. They are our body's mechanism for giving us feedback about a stimulus we experience, either real world or internal thought, and how it relates to our values.
If I told that somebody died, you might have a slight negative emotion since death itself is viewed as a negative. But you don't know who it is, and you know it happens to everyone, so the emotion is subdued. If I told you the person was 102 years old and lived a happy life, you might be almost a bit happy that they were so lucky in life. If I told you it was a little child and a very sad situation, your emotion might be more negative. If it was someone close to you who died tragically and early, it might be devastating. If it was someone who deserved to die, in your view, you might feel a righteous sense that justice was served.
In each of these cases, it is not really the individuals involved that affected your emotions. It was your own values. What YOU value in life is what your emotion is telling you about the stimulous of knowing (or even thinking about) something that happened (or might happen).
I have no doubt that emotions contribute to health that is less than what it could be with a more positive state of mind. But I do not believe in "positive thinking" for its own sake. And I do think that physical things can cause other physical effects.
But I will consider how your thesis seems to explain things, as I learn more about various non-Germ Theory theories.
Anyway, I'm out for today.
Thanks for the input.
Firstly, TB is named for the "Mycobacterium tuberculosis" bacteria - as such the disease and the bacteria are one and the same.
Yes, I know what is claimed, and in this thread we are both challenging long-held claims.
My understanding is that the "proof" of bacterial infection of various kinds is that the bacteria was found in the bodily fluids of people with the illness, but that COULD mean the bacteria are trying to clean up the problem, and not necessarily the cause of the problem.
Similar to the idea that cholesterol in the blood vessels is there to patch the harm done by the glucose that went through the blood vessel and caused the abrasion.
I don't know if there has been a direct observation study where bacteria directly caused a person or animal to get TB. Maybe so. I'm just not aware of such a study, so I challenge the idea unless someone can show the proof.
Smoking causes neither lung cancer nor heart disease.
In fairness, I said "increases risk," which does imply causation. AFAIK, there is a clearly established correlation, though I don't think anyone can really prove causation due to (in theory) it taking 20-30 years of regular smoking to cause.
The fact that correlation does exist is significant, IMO, since we can logically think of a potential pathway, and then those who smoke tend to have a problem in much greater numbers than those who do not.
In fact, the largest lung cancer scientific study ever conducted was with over 1000 participants, all of which had to have smoked for at least one pack per day for 20+ years. Only 10% of these people died of lung cancer. Case closed.
Not so fast. What is the percentage of the general population who has never smoked dying of lung cancer?
less than roughly 25% of those who suffer from [heart disease] were smokers at any point in their life, less than 15% being active, chronic smokers
Again, that misses the point. The question is not: What percentage of smokers did and did not "have X?" Rather, the question is: What is the percentage of smokers "have X" versus what percentage of non-smokers "have X?"
Lymphomas are the late healing stage of a "bone cancer" related to a profound self-devaluation conflict.
Maybe this is a problem I see with your thesis. It relies on psychological analysis, which is going to be impossible to prove. Nobody can possibly know all the emotions and psychological factors that MIGHT be at play in any particular individual, even within yourself. Interesting concept, but cannot be proven.
[Side note: Tom Cowan says that he starts at exploring psychological factors when trying to figure out what might be the cause of a problem.]
The only thing I can specifically point to in my case is a massive bed bug infection, and lymphoma occuring 8 months later. Since the lymphatic system is the body's system for cleansing toxins, it makes logical sense, and my real-world experience lines up with "cause-effect."
It also makes me suspect that bed bugs might have been the true cause of "small pox" of the American Indians, when they traded things for the White man's bedding and blankets.
Also, I never had any dignosis for bone cancer, and don't know anyone else with lymphoma who did. Not that it necessarily means much. Just that if I knew of it, it would lend credibility to your thesis, but I don't.
things like carpal tunnel syndrome, tennis elbow (bursitis), etc. are technically "bone cancers" that ultimately result in "lymphomas" that go undiagnosed
If they are undiagnosed, then how could you know they have it?
If this were true, then ask yourself why the Red Cross does not screen donated blood for cancer cells? There would be epidemics of cancer sprouting up on a non-stop basis as the vast majority of people who "have cancer" don't even know it.
I don't expect the Red Cross to want to do anything of real value. Talking about the executives who run it, not the people at the lower levels.
The reason a cancerous "cell" being inserted into another person via blood transfusion would not be a problem is that it is not their own cell. It would be a foreign protein and the donee's body would attack it. But within one's own body, it is not foreign.
Also, interesting to note that I came across someone once who said that blood transfusions are unnecessary and should never be done. All the person needs is fluid and electrolytes, but not the bloods cells from someone else. With enough fluid, they can create their own blood cells. Don't know much about it, but interesting.
I haven't found any scientifically verifiable evidence that points to long-term cumulative exposure to micro-doses of toxins, pesticides, etc. eventually leading to commonly encountered dis-eases.
I think the person doing the video in my OP did a good job of showing the cause-effect relationship of toxins/poisons to polio.
Granted, there are no clinical trials -- and there won't be as long as Germ Theory dominates the narrative.
it's impossible to completely avoid "psychological conflicts" forevermore as they aren't under your conscious control. However, it is possible to be aware of them when they happen, enabling you to be introspective in order to downgrade and lessen the intensity and duration of them, which ultimately results in much more graceful healing/restoration phases if and when they arise.
Two thoughts come to mind here:
(1) It seems to me like a "chicken and egg" conundrum. Which came first? I have no doubt that negative thoughts and emotional trauma can lead to poorer health. But if someone is of this mindset, and then they eat a poor diet, is it the emotional state or the cupcakes that caused the health problem?
Also, it would be necessary to psychologically evaluate every individual who both does and does not have a health problem to really figure it out for sure. This seems like an impossible task. So at best, we can say the emotional state is a factor. At best, it remains a thesis that is worth considering, insofar as we can try to identify where we might have emotional conflicts and try to resolve them, and that might lead to better health.
(2) Your statement here reminds me of Ayn Rand's explanation of what emotions ARE. What is an emotion? Why do we have them? Why do so many people seem to act emotionally and not rationally? Or in your thesis, what is a conflict and why do we have them?
Rand's view was that emotions ARE rational. They are our body's mechanism for giving us feedback about a stimulus we experience, either real world or internal thought, and how it relates to our values.
If I told that somebody died, you might have a slight negative emotion since death itself is viewed as a negative. But you don't know who it is, and you know it happens to everyone, so the emotion is subdued. If I told you the person was 102 years old and lived a happy life, you might be almost a bit happy that they were so lucky in life. If I told you it was a little child and a very sad situation, your emotion might be more negative. If it was someone close to you who died tragically and early, it might be devastating. If it was someone who deserved to die, in your view, you might feel a righteous sense that justice was served.
In each of these cases, it is not really the individuals involved that affected your emotions. It was your own values. What YOU value in life is what your emotion is telling you about the stimulous of knowing (or even thinking about) something that happened (or might happen).
I have no doubt that emotions contribute to health that is less than what it could be with a more positive state of mind. But I do not believe in "positive thinking" for its own sake. And I do think that physical things can cause other physical effects.
But I will consider how your thesis seems to explain things, as I learn more about various non-Germ Theory theories.
Anyway, I'm out for today.
Thanks for the input.
Firstly, TB is named for the "Mycobacterium tuberculosis" bacteria - as such the disease and the bacteria are one and the same.
Yes, I know what is claimed, and in this thread we are both challenging long-held claims.
My understanding is that the "proof" of bacterial infection of various kinds is that the bacteria was found in the bodily fluids of people with the illness, but that COULD mean the bacteria are trying to clean up the problem, and not necessarily the cause of the problem.
Similar to the idea that cholesterol in the blood vessels is there to patch the harm done by the glucose that went through the blood vessel and caused the abrasion.
I don't know if there has been a direct observation study where bacteria directly caused a person or animal to get TB. Maybe so. I'm just not aware of such a study, so I challenge the idea unless someone can show the proof.
Smoking causes neither lung cancer nor heart disease.
In fairness, I said "increases risk," which does imply causation. AFAIK, there is a clearly established correlation, though I don't think anyone can really prove causation due to (in theory) it taking 20-30 years of regular smoking to cause.
The fact that correlation does exist is significant, IMO, since we can logically think of a potential pathway, and then those who smoke tend to have a problem in much greater numbers than those who do not.
In fact, the largest lung cancer scientific study ever conducted was with over 1000 participants, all of which had to have smoked for at least one pack per day for 20+ years. Only 10% of these people died of lung cancer. Case closed.
Not so fast. What is the percentage of the general population who has never smoked dying of lung cancer?
less than roughly 25% of those who suffer from [heart disease] were smokers at any point in their life, less than 15% being active, chronic smokers
Again, that misses the point. The question is not: What percentage of smokers did and did not "have X?" Rather, the question is: What is the percentage of smokers "have X" versus what percentage of non-smokers "have X?"
Lymphomas are the late healing stage of a "bone cancer" related to a profound self-devaluation conflict.
Maybe this is a problem I see with your thesis. It relies on psychological analysis, which is going to be impossible to prove. Nobody can possibly know all the emotions and psychological factors that MIGHT be at play in any particular individual, even within yourself. Interesting concept, but cannot be proven.
[Side note: Tom Cowan says that he starts at exploring psychological factors when trying to figure out what might be the cause of a problem.]
The only thing I can specifically point to in my case is a massive bed bug infection, and lymphoma occuring 8 months later. Since the lymphatic system is the body's system for cleansing toxins, it makes logical sense, and my real-world experience lines up with "cause-effect."
It also makes me suspect that bed bugs might have been the true cause of "small pox" of the American Indians, when they trading things for the White man's bedding and blankets.
Also, I never had any dignosis for bone cancer, and don't know anyone else with lymphoma who did. Not that it necessarily means much, but if I knew of it, it would lend credibility to your thesis, but I don't.
things like carpal tunnel syndrome, tennis elbow (bursitis), etc. are technically "bone cancers" that ultimately result in "lymphomas" that go undiagnosed
If they are undiagnosed, then how could you know they have it?
If this were true, then ask yourself why the Red Cross does not screen donated blood for cancer cells? There would be epidemics of cancer sprouting up on a non-stop basis as the vast majority of people who "have cancer" don't even know it.
I don't expect the Red Cross to want to do anything of real value. Talking about the executives who run it, not the people at the lower levels.
The reason a cancerous "cell" being inserted into another person via blood transfusion would not be a problem is that it is not their own cell. It would be a foreign protein and the donee's body would attack it. But within one's own body, it is not foreign.
Also, interesting to note that I came across someone once who said that blood transfusions are unnecessary and should never be done. All the person needs is fluid and electrolytes, but not the bloods cells from someone else. With enough fluid, they can create their own blood cells. Don't know much about it, but interesting.
I haven't found any scientifically verifiable evidence that points to long-term cumulative exposure to micro-doses of toxins, pesticides, etc. eventually leading to commonly encountered dis-eases.
I think the person doing the video in my OP did a good job of showing the cause-effect relationship of toxins/poisons to polio.
Granted, there are no clinical trials -- and there won't be as long as Germ Theory dominates the narrative.
it's impossible to completely avoid "psychological conflicts" forevermore as they aren't under your conscious control. However, it is possible to be aware of them when they happen, enabling you to be introspective in order to downgrade and lessen the intensity and duration of them, which ultimately results in much more graceful healing/restoration phases if and when they arise.
Two thoughts come to mind here:
(1) It seems to me like a "chicken and egg" conundrum. Which came first? I have no doubt that negative thoughts and emotional trauma can lead to poorer health. But if someone is of this mindset, and then they eat a poor diet, is it the emotional state or the cupcakes that caused the health problem?
Also, it would be necessary to psychologically evaluate every individual who both does and does not have a health problem to really figure it out for sure. This seems like an impossible task. So at best, we can say the emotional state is a factor. At best, it remains a thesis that is worth considering, insofar as we can try to identify where we might have emotional conflicts and try to resolve them, and that might lead to better health.
(2) Your statement here reminds me of Ayn Rand's explanation of what emotions ARE. What is an emotion? Why do we have them? Why do so many people seem to act emotionally and not rationally? Or in your thesis, what is a conflict and why do we have them?
Rand's view was that emotions ARE rational. They are our body's mechanism for giving us feedback about a stimulus we experience, either real world or internal thought, and how it relates to our values.
If I told that somebody died, you might have a slight negative emotion since death itself is viewed as a negative. But you don't know who it is, and you know it happens to everyone, so the emotion is subdued. If I told you the person was 102 years old and lived a happy life, you might be almost a bit happy that they were so lucky in life. If I told you it was a little child and a very sad situation, your emotion might be more negative. If it was someone close to you who died tragically and early, it might be devastating. If it was someone who deserved to die, in your view, you might feel a righteous sense that justice was served.
In each of these cases, it is not really the individuals involved that affected your emotions. It was your own values. What YOU value in life is what your emotion is telling you about the stimulous of knowing (or even thinking about) something that happened (or might happen).
I have no doubt that emotions contribute to health that is less than what it could be with a more positive state of mind. But I do not believe in "positive thinking" for its own sake. And I do think that physical things can cause other physical effects.
But I will consider how your thesis seems to explain things, as I learn more about various non-Germ Theory theories.
Anyway, I'm out for today.
Thanks for the input.
Firstly, TB is named for the "Mycobacterium tuberculosis" bacteria - as such the disease and the bacteria are one and the same.
Yes, I know what is claimed, and in this thread we are both challenging long-held claims.
My understanding is that the "proof" of bacterial infection of various kinds is that the bacteria was found in the bodily fluids of people with the illness, but that COULD mean the bacteria are trying to clean up the problem, and not necessarily the cause of the problem.
Similar to the idea that cholesterol in the blood vessels is there to patch the harm done by the glucose that went through the blood vessel and caused the abrasion.
I don't know if there has been a direct observation study where bacteria directly caused a person or animal to get TB. Maybe so. I'm just not aware of such a study, so I challenge the idea unless someone can show the proof.
Smoking causes neither lung cancer nor heart disease.
In fairness, I said "increases risk," which does imply causation. AFAIK, there is a clearly established correlation, though I don't think anyone can really prove causation due to (in theory) it taking 20-30 years of regular smoking to cause.
The fact that correlation does exist is significant, IMO, since we can logically think of a potential pathway, and then those who smoke tend to have a problem in much greater numbers than those who do not.
In fact, the largest lung cancer scientific study ever conducted was with over 1000 participants, all of which had to have smoked for at least one pack per day for 20+ years. Only 10% of these people died of lung cancer. Case closed.
Not so fast. What is the percentage of the general population who has never smoked dying of lung cancer?
less than roughly 25% of those who suffer from [heart disease] were smokers at any point in their life, less than 15% being active, chronic smokers
Again, that misses the point. The question is not: What percentage of smokers did and did not "have X?" Rather, the question is: What is the percentage of smokers "have X" versus what percentage of non-smokers "have X?"
Lymphomas are the late healing stage of a "bone cancer" related to a profound self-devaluation conflict.
Maybe this is a problem I see with your thesis. It relies on psychological analysis, which is going to be impossible to prove. Nobody can possibly know all the emotions and psychological factors that MIGHT be at play in any particular individual, even within yourself. Interesting concept, but cannot be proven.
[Side note: Tom Cowan says that he starts at exploring psychological factors when trying to figure out what might be the cause of a problem.]
The only thing I can specifically point to is a massive bed bug infection, and lymphoma occuring 8 months later. Since the lymphatic system is the body's system for cleansing toxins, it makes logical sense, and my real-world experience lines up with "cause-effect."
It also makes me suspect that bed bugs might have been the true cause of "small pox" of the American Indians, when they trading things for the White man's bedding and blankets.
Also, I never had any dignosis for bone cancer, and don't know anyone else with lymphoma who did. Not that it necessarily means much, but if I knew of it, it would lend credibility to your thesis, but I don't.
things like carpal tunnel syndrome, tennis elbow (bursitis), etc. are technically "bone cancers" that ultimately result in "lymphomas" that go undiagnosed
If they are undiagnosed, then how could you know they have it?
If this were true, then ask yourself why the Red Cross does not screen donated blood for cancer cells? There would be epidemics of cancer sprouting up on a non-stop basis as the vast majority of people who "have cancer" don't even know it.
I don't expect the Red Cross to want to do anything of real value. Talking about the executives who run it, not the people at the lower levels.
The reason a cancerous "cell" being inserted into another person via blood transfusion would not be a problem is that it is not their own cell. It would be a foreign protein and the donee's body would attack it. But within one's own body, it is not foreign.
Also, interesting to note that I came across someone once who said that blood transfusions are unnecessary and should never be done. All the person needs is fluid and electrolytes, but not the bloods cells from someone else. With enough fluid, they can create their own blood cells. Don't know much about it, but interesting.
I haven't found any scientifically verifiable evidence that points to long-term cumulative exposure to micro-doses of toxins, pesticides, etc. eventually leading to commonly encountered dis-eases.
I think the person doing the video in my OP did a good job of showing the cause-effect relationship of toxins/poisons to polio.
Granted, there are no clinical trials -- and there won't be as long as Germ Theory dominates the narrative.
it's impossible to completely avoid "psychological conflicts" forevermore as they aren't under your conscious control. However, it is possible to be aware of them when they happen, enabling you to be introspective in order to downgrade and lessen the intensity and duration of them, which ultimately results in much more graceful healing/restoration phases if and when they arise.
Two thoughts come to mind here:
(1) It seems to me like a "chicken and egg" conundrum. Which came first? I have no doubt that negative thoughts and emotional trauma can lead to poorer health. But if someone is of this mindset, and then they eat a poor diet, is it the emotional state or the cupcakes that caused the health problem?
Also, it would be necessary to psychologically evaluate every individual who both does and does not have a health problem to really figure it out for sure. This seems like an impossible task. So at best, we can say the emotional state is a factor. At best, it remains a thesis that is worth considering, insofar as we can try to identify where we might have emotional conflicts and try to resolve them, and that might lead to better health.
(2) Your statement here reminds me of Ayn Rand's explanation of what emotions ARE. What is an emotion? Why do we have them? Why do so many people seem to act emotionally and not rationally? Or in your thesis, what is a conflict and why do we have them?
Rand's view was that emotions ARE rational. They are our body's mechanism for giving us feedback about a stimulus we experience, either real world or internal thought, and how it relates to our values.
If I told that somebody died, you might have a slight negative emotion since death itself is viewed as a negative. But you don't know who it is, and you know it happens to everyone, so the emotion is subdued. If I told you the person was 102 years old and lived a happy life, you might be almost a bit happy that they were so lucky in life. If I told you it was a little child and a very sad situation, your emotion might be more negative. If it was someone close to you who died tragically and early, it might be devastating. If it was someone who deserved to die, in your view, you might feel a righteous sense that justice was served.
In each of these cases, it is not really the individuals involved that affected your emotions. It was your own values. What YOU value in life is what your emotion is telling you about the stimulous of knowing (or even thinking about) something that happened (or might happen).
I have no doubt that emotions contribute to health that is less than what it could be with a more positive state of mind. But I do not believe in "positive thinking" for its own sake. And I do think that physical things can cause other physical effects.
But I will consider how your thesis seems to explain things, as I learn more about various non-Germ Theory theories.
Anyway, I'm out for today.
Thanks for the input.
Firstly, TB is named for the "Mycobacterium tuberculosis" bacteria - as such the disease and the bacteria are one and the same.
Yes, I know what is claimed, and in this thread we are both challenging long-held claims.
My understanding is that the "proof" of bacterial infection of various kinds is that the bacteria was found in the bodily fluids of people with the illness, but that COULD mean the bacteria are trying to clean up the problem, and not necessarily the cause of the problem.
Similar to the idea that cholesterol in the blood vessels is there to patch the harm done by the glucose that went through the blood vessel and caused the abrasion.
I don't know if there has been a direct observation study where bacteria directly caused a person or animal to get TB. Maybe so. I'm just not aware of such a study, so I challenge the idea unless someone can show the proof.
Smoking causes neither lung cancer nor heart disease.
In fairness, I said "increases risk," which does imply causation. AFAIK, there is a clearly established correlation, though I don't think anyone can really prove causation due to (in theory) it taking 20-30 years of regular smoking to cause.
The fact that correlation does exist is significant, IMO, since we can logically think of a potential pathway, and then those who smoke tend to have a problem in much greater numbers than those who do not.
In fact, the largest lung cancer scientific study ever conducted was with over 1000 participants, all of which had to have smoked for at least one pack per day for 20+ years. Only 10% of these people died of lung cancer. Case closed.
Not so fast. What is the percentage of the general population who has never smoked dying of lung cancer?
less than roughly 25% of those who suffer from [heart disease] were smokers at any point in their life, less than 15% being active, chronic smokers
Again, that misses the point. The question is not: What percentage of smokers did and did not "have X?" Rather, the question is: What is the percentage of smokers "have X" versus what percentage of non-smokers "have X?"
Lymphomas are the late healing stage of a "bone cancer" related to a profound self-devaluation conflict.
Maybe this is a problem I see with your thesis. It relies on psychological analysis, which is going to be impossible to prove. Nobody can possible know all the possible factors at play, even within yourself. Interesting concept, but cannot be proven.
The only thing I can specifically point to is a massive bed bug infection, and lymphoma occuring 8 months later. Since the lymphatic system is the body's system for cleansing toxins, it makes logical sense, and my real-world experience lines up with "cause-effect."
It also makes me suspect that bed bugs might have been the true cause of "small pox" of the American Indians, when they trading things for the White man's bedding and blankets.
Also, I never had any dignosis for bone cancer, and don't know anyone else with lymphoma who did. Not that it necessarily means much, but if I knew of it, it would lend credibility to your thesis, but I don't.
things like carpal tunnel syndrome, tennis elbow (bursitis), etc. are technically "bone cancers" that ultimately result in "lymphomas" that go undiagnosed
If they are undiagnosed, then how could you know they have it?
If this were true, then ask yourself why the Red Cross does not screen donated blood for cancer cells? There would be epidemics of cancer sprouting up on a non-stop basis as the vast majority of people who "have cancer" don't even know it.
I don't expect the Red Cross to want to do anything of real value. Talking about the executives who run it, not the people at the lower levels.
The reason a cancerous "cell" being inserted into another person via blood transfusion would not be a problem is that it is not their own cell. It would be a foreign protein and the donee's body would attack it. But within one's own body, it is not foreign.
Also, interesting to note that I came across someone once who said that blood transfusions are unnecessary and should never be done. All the person needs is fluid and electrolytes, but not the bloods cells from someone else. With enough fluid, they can create their own blood cells. Don't know much about it, but interesting.
I haven't found any scientifically verifiable evidence that points to long-term cumulative exposure to micro-doses of toxins, pesticides, etc. eventually leading to commonly encountered dis-eases.
I think the person doing the video in my OP did a good job of showing the cause-effect relationship of toxins/poisons to polio.
Granted, there are no clinical trials -- and there won't be as long as Germ Theory dominates the narrative.
it's impossible to completely avoid "psychological conflicts" forevermore as they aren't under your conscious control. However, it is possible to be aware of them when they happen, enabling you to be introspective in order to downgrade and lessen the intensity and duration of them, which ultimately results in much more graceful healing/restoration phases if and when they arise.
Two thoughts come to mind here:
(1) It seems to me like a "chicken and egg" conundrum. Which came first? I have no doubt that negative thoughts and emotional trauma can lead to poorer health. But if someone is of this mindset, and then they eat a poor diet, is it the emotional state or the cupcakes that caused the health problem?
Also, it would be necessary to psychologically evaluate every individual who both does and does not have a health problem to really figure it out for sure. This seems like an impossible task. So at best, we can say the emotional state is a factor. At best, it remains a thesis that is worth considering, insofar as we can try to identify where we might have emotional conflicts and try to resolve them, and that might lead to better health.
(2) Your statement here reminds me of Ayn Rand's explanation of what emotions ARE. What is an emotion? Why do we have them? Why do so many people seem to act emotionally and not rationally? Or in your thesis, what is a conflict and why do we have them?
Rand's view was that emotions ARE rational. They are our body's mechanism for giving us feedback about a stimulus we experience, either real world or internal thought, and how it relates to our values.
If I told that somebody died, you might have a slight negative emotion since death itself is viewed as a negative. But you don't know who it is, and you know it happens to everyone, so the emotion is subdued. If I told you the person was 102 years old and lived a happy life, you might be almost a bit happy that they were so lucky in life. If I told you it was a little child and a very sad situation, your emotion might be more negative. If it was someone close to you who died tragically and early, it might be devastating. If it was someone who deserved to die, in your view, you might feel a righteous sense that justice was served.
In each of these cases, it is not really the individuals involved that affected your emotions. It was your own values. What YOU value in life is what your emotion is telling you about the stimulous of knowing (or even thinking about) something that happened (or might happen).
I have no doubt that emotions contribute to health that is less than what it could be with a more positive state of mind. But I do not believe in "positive thinking" for its own sake. And I do think that physical things can cause other physical effects.
But I will consider how your thesis seems to explain things, as I learn more about various non-Germ Theory theories.
Anyway, I'm out for today.
Thanks for the input.
Firstly, TB is named for the "Mycobacterium tuberculosis" bacteria - as such the disease and the bacteria are one and the same.
Yes, I know what is claimed, and in this thread we are both challenging long-held claims.
My understanding is that the "proof" of bacterial infection of various kinds is that the bacteria was found in the bodily fluids of people with the illness, but that COULD mean the bacteria are trying to clean up the problem, and not necessarily the cause of the problem.
Similar to the idea that cholesterol in the blood vessels is there to patch the harm done by the glucose that went through the blood vessel and caused the abrasion.
I don't know if there has been a direct observation study where bacteria directly caused a person or animal to get TB. Maybe so. I'm just not aware of such a study, so I challenge the idea unless someone can show the proof.
Smoking causes neither lung cancer nor heart disease.
In fairness, I said "increases risk," which does imply causation. AFAIK, there is a clearly established correlation, though I don't think anyone can really prove causation due to (in theory) it taking 20-30 years of regular smoking to cause.
The fact that correlation does exist is significant, IMO, since we can logically think of a potential pathway, and then those who smoke tend to have a problem in much greater numbers than those who do not.
In fact, the largest lung cancer scientific study ever conducted was with over 1000 participants, all of which had to have smoked for at least one pack per day for 20+ years. Only 10% of these people died of lung cancer. Case closed.
Not so fast. What is the percentage of the general population who has never smoked dying of lung cancer?
less than roughly 25% of those who suffer from [heart disease] were smokers at any point in their life, less than 15% being active, chronic smokers
Again, that misses the point. The question is not: What percentage of smokers did and did not "have X?" Rather, the question is: What is the percentage of smokers "have X" versus what percentage of non-smokers "have X?"
Lymphomas are the late healing stage of a "bone cancer" related to a profound self-devaluation conflict.
Well, now your are into the realm of psychological analysis, which is going to be impossible to prove for your thesis. Nobody can possible know all the possible factors at play, even within yourself.
The only thing I can specifically point to is a massive bed bug infection, and lymphoma occuring 8 months later. Since the lymphatic system is the body's system for cleansing toxins, it makes logical sense, and my real-world experience lines up with "cause-effect."
It also makes me suspect that bed bugs might have been the true cause of "small pox" of the American Indians, when they trading things for the White man's bedding and blankets.
Also, I never had any dignosis for bone cancer, and don't know anyone else with lymphoma who did. Not that it necessarily means much, but if I knew of it, it would lend credibility to your thesis, but I don't.
things like carpal tunnel syndrome, tennis elbow (bursitis), etc. are technically "bone cancers" that ultimately result in "lymphomas" that go undiagnosed
If they are undiagnosed, then how could you know they have it?
If this were true, then ask yourself why the Red Cross does not screen donated blood for cancer cells? There would be epidemics of cancer sprouting up on a non-stop basis as the vast majority of people who "have cancer" don't even know it.
I don't expect the Red Cross to want to do anything of real value. Talking about the executives who run it, not the people at the lower levels.
The reason a cancerous "cell" being inserted into another person via blood transfusion would not be a problem is that it is not their own cell. It would be a foreign protein and the donee's body would attack it. But within one's own body, it is not foreign.
Also, interesting to note that I came across someone once who said that blood transfusions are unnecessary and should never be done. All the person needs is fluid and electrolytes, but not the bloods cells from someone else. With enough fluid, they can create their own blood cells. Don't know much about it, but interesting.
I haven't found any scientifically verifiable evidence that points to long-term cumulative exposure to micro-doses of toxins, pesticides, etc. eventually leading to commonly encountered dis-eases.
I think the person doing the video in my OP did a good job of showing the cause-effect relationship of toxins/poisons to polio.
Granted, there are no clinical trials -- and there won't be as long as Germ Theory dominates the narrative.
it's impossible to completely avoid "psychological conflicts" forevermore as they aren't under your conscious control. However, it is possible to be aware of them when they happen, enabling you to be introspective in order to downgrade and lessen the intensity and duration of them, which ultimately results in much more graceful healing/restoration phases if and when they arise.
Two thoughts come to mind here:
(1) It seems to me like a "chicken and egg" conundrum. Which came first? I have no doubt that negative thoughts and emotional trauma can lead to poorer health. But if someone is of this mindset, and then they eat a poor diet, is it the emotional state or the cupcakes that caused the health problem?
Also, it would be necessary to psychologically evaluate every individual who both does and does not have a health problem to really figure it out for sure. This seems like an impossible task. So at best, we can say the emotional state is a factor. At best, it remains a thesis that is worth considering, insofar as we can try to identify where we might have emotional conflicts and try to resolve them, and that might lead to better health.
(2) Your statement here reminds me of Ayn Rand's explanation of what emotions ARE. What is an emotion? Why do we have them? Why do so many people seem to act emotionally and not rationally? Or in your thesis, what is a conflict and why do we have them?
Rand's view was that emotions ARE rational. They are our body's mechanism for giving us feedback about a stimulus we experience, either real world or internal thought, and how it relates to our values.
If I told that somebody died, you might have a slight negative emotion since death itself is viewed as a negative. But you don't know who it is, and you know it happens to everyone, so the emotion is subdued. If I told you the person was 102 years old and lived a happy life, you might be almost a bit happy that they were so lucky in life. If I told you it was a little child and a very sad situation, your emotion might be more negative. If it was someone close to you who died tragically and early, it might be devastating. If it was someone who deserved to die, in your view, you might feel a righteous sense that justice was served.
In each of these cases, it is not really the individuals involved that affected your emotions. It was your own values. What YOU value in life is what your emotion is telling you about the stimulous of knowing (or even thinking about) something that happened (or might happen).
I have no doubt that emotions contribute to health that is less than what it could be with a more positive state of mind. But I do not believe in "positive thinking" for its own sake. And I do think that physical things can cause other physical effects.
But I will consider how your thesis seems to explain things, as I learn more about various non-Germ Theory theories.
Anyway, I'm out for today.
Thanks for the input.
Firstly, TB is named for the "Mycobacterium tuberculosis" bacteria - as such the disease and the bacteria are one and the same.
Yes, I know what is claimed, and in this thread we are both challenging long-held claims.
My understanding is that the "proof" of bacterial infection of various kinds is that the bacteria was found in the bodily fluids of people with the illness, but that COULD mean the bacteria are trying to clean up the problem, and not necessarily the cause of the problem.
Similar to the idea that cholesterol on the blood vessels is there to patch the harm done by the glucose that went through the blood vessel and caused the abrasion.
I don't know if there has been a direct observation study where bacteria directly caused a person or animal to get TB. Maybe so. I'm just not aware of such a study, so I challenge the idea unless someone can show the proof.
Smoking causes neither lung cancer nor heart disease.
In fairness, I said "increases risk," which does imply causation. AFAIK, there is a clearly established correlation, though I don't think anyone can really prove causation due to (in theory) it taking 20-30 years of regular smoking to cause.
The fact that correlation does exist is significant, IMO, since we can logically think of a potential pathway, and then those who smoke tend to have a problem in much greater numbers than those who do not.
In fact, the largest lung cancer scientific study ever conducted was with over 1000 participants, all of which had to have smoked for at least one pack per day for 20+ years. Only 10% of these people died of lung cancer. Case closed.
Not so fast. What is the percentage of the general population who has never smoked dying of lung cancer?
less than roughly 25% of those who suffer from [heart disease] were smokers at any point in their life, less than 15% being active, chronic smokers
Again, that misses the point. The question is not: What percentage of smokers did and did not "have X?" Rather, the question is: What is the percentage of smokers "have X" versus what percentage of non-smokers "have X?"
Lymphomas are the late healing stage of a "bone cancer" related to a profound self-devaluation conflict.
Well, now your are into the realm of psychological analysis, which is going to be impossible to prove for your thesis. Nobody can possible know all the possible factors at play, even within yourself.
The only thing I can specifically point to is a massive bed bug infection, and lymphoma occuring 8 months later. Since the lymphatic system is the body's system for cleansing toxins, it makes logical sense, and my real-world experience lines up with "cause-effect."
It also makes me suspect that bed bugs might have been the true cause of "small pox" of the American Indians, when they trading things for the White man's bedding and blankets.
Also, I never had any dignosis for bone cancer, and don't know anyone else with lymphoma who did. Not that it necessarily means much, but if I knew of it, it would lend credibility to your thesis, but I don't.
things like carpal tunnel syndrome, tennis elbow (bursitis), etc. are technically "bone cancers" that ultimately result in "lymphomas" that go undiagnosed
If they are undiagnosed, then how could you know they have it?
If this were true, then ask yourself why the Red Cross does not screen donated blood for cancer cells? There would be epidemics of cancer sprouting up on a non-stop basis as the vast majority of people who "have cancer" don't even know it.
I don't expect the Red Cross to want to do anything of real value. Talking about the executives who run it, not the people at the lower levels.
The reason a cancerous "cell" being inserted into another person via blood transfusion would not be a problem is that it is not their own cell. It would be a foreign protein and the donee's body would attack it. But within one's own body, it is not foreign.
Also, interesting to note that I came across someone once who said that blood transfusions are unnecessary and should never be done. All the person needs is fluid and electrolytes, but not the bloods cells from someone else. With enough fluid, they can create their own blood cells. Don't know much about it, but interesting.
I haven't found any scientifically verifiable evidence that points to long-term cumulative exposure to micro-doses of toxins, pesticides, etc. eventually leading to commonly encountered dis-eases.
I think the person doing the video in my OP did a good job of showing the cause-effect relationship of toxins/poisons to polio.
Granted, there are no clinical trials -- and there won't be as long as Germ Theory dominates the narrative.
it's impossible to completely avoid "psychological conflicts" forevermore as they aren't under your conscious control. However, it is possible to be aware of them when they happen, enabling you to be introspective in order to downgrade and lessen the intensity and duration of them, which ultimately results in much more graceful healing/restoration phases if and when they arise.
Two thoughts come to mind here:
(1) It seems to me like a "chicken and egg" conundrum. Which came first? I have no doubt that negative thoughts and emotional trauma can lead to poorer health. But if someone is of this mindset, and then they eat a poor diet, is it the emotional state or the cupcakes that caused the health problem?
Also, it would be necessary to psychologically evaluate every individual who both does and does not have a health problem to really figure it out for sure. This seems like an impossible task. So at best, we can say the emotional state is a factor. At best, it remains a thesis that is worth considering, insofar as we can try to identify where we might have emotional conflicts and try to resolve them, and that might lead to better health.
(2) Your statement here reminds me of Ayn Rand's explanation of what emotions ARE. What is an emotion? Why do we have them? Why do so many people seem to act emotionally and not rationally? Or in your thesis, what is a conflict and why do we have them?
Rand's view was that emotions ARE rational. They are our body's mechanism for giving us feedback about a stimulus we experience, either real world or internal thought, and how it relates to our values.
If I told that somebody died, you might have a slight negative emotion since death itself is viewed as a negative. But you don't know who it is, and you know it happens to everyone, so the emotion is subdued. If I told you the person was 102 years old and lived a happy life, you might be almost a bit happy that they were so lucky in life. If I told you it was a little child and a very sad situation, your emotion might be more negative. If it was someone close to you who died tragically and early, it might be devastating. If it was someone who deserved to die, in your view, you might feel a righteous sense that justice was served.
In each of these cases, it is not really the individuals involved that affected your emotions. It was your own values. What YOU value in life is what your emotion is telling you about the stimulous of knowing (or even thinking about) something that happened (or might happen).
I have no doubt that emotions contribute to health that is less than what it could be with a more positive state of mind. But I do not believe in "positive thinking" for its own sake. And I do think that physical things can cause other physical effects.
But I will consider how your thesis seems to explain things, as I learn more about various non-Germ Theory theories.
Anyway, I'm out for today.
Thanks for the input.