Re: questions for for Montygram- copper supplement


"montygram" <nazztrader@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1127163055.099529.23920@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> It's an issue of prevention.

Those that come down with disease didn't eat enough coconut oil and those
who did not come down with disease eat enough coconut oil. Nice.

You can make your body biochemically
> stable, and then the "bugs" won't get you, except in very rare
> circumstances or in the case of "emergency medicine," when particular
> kinds of extreme biochemical activity may be needed (though it often
> does long term harm). Coconut oil's beneficial properties are now well
> known (lauric acid, for example), but what isn't as well understood
> (mainly because nutritionists and epidemioligists are "running the
> show" when biochemists should be) is that packing your body with
> saturated fatty acids is one of the most intelligent things a person
> can do for long term health.

And long term health by eating coconut oil has already been proven by the
biochemist who should be running the show?

>
> As far as "modern medicine," where is the vaccine for "HIV" that we
> were promised by about 1985?

I didn't know that the definition of modern medicine included promises kept
or not. I thought is was progress and evidenced based.

Where is the cure from your side? Why hasn't your side made "modern
medicine" irrelevent?

Competing sides here.

Where is the cure for cancer that was
> supposed to occur by 1980?

There is no such thing as "cancer". There are cancers and yes if you look at
childhood leukemia and lymphomas you indeed see cures.

How many cases has coconut oil cured? Oh I forgot if the person gets cancer
it's because he didn't eat enough coconut oil and if he didn't get cancer
then he's OK. How convenient of you. Think of all those cases of cancer that
coconut oil prevented.

What can you actually cure? You can poison
> bugs with antibiotics, but that can be done with much less toxicity
> with anti-growth substances (e.g., white tea), but again, the point is
> that there shouldn't be a problem in the first place. When there is a
> "bug" going around, and I feel a bit run down, I use MSM, white tea,
> and I chew on some zinc, and I haven't had a cold in a couple of years
> now, even though everyone else around me gets it.

Think of all those colds you prevented by taking MSM and tea.
It's amazing. Those people taking MSM and tea with colds didn't take enough
to cure them.
Colds are caused by a virus so regular antibiotics don't do much for them.
Anti-growth substances on a virus I guess keep the viruses from growing to
be king size super viruses the size of a baseball.
>
> There are cures for these minor things, but "modern medicine" is mostly
> about poisoning people and hoping that somehow something good will
> occur. In the case of most cancer drugs, they use horrible poisons,
> which lead to the cancer growth being disrupted for a while (as well as
> terrible side effects), and then they say it's a great success. Even
> Nobel Prize winners working in this field agree, and I have quoted them
> here in previous posts.

That part is true. The first antibiotic to treat syphilis was an arsenical
compound that eventually killed a few people and put Dr Erhlich on trial in
Germany. One of the allegations was he was making money on the drug but it
also killed people.
Progress can be slow but it is indeed progress. Nothing is perfect.
The alternative is to allow people like you treat cancer patients and that
is called "hospice care". Thank you.

>
> But they have no other framework because they do not understand the
> underlying mechanisms, which are tied to actual laws of nature. I
> suggest that anyone who is interested in this approach read Peter
> Duesberg's "Inventing the AIDS Virus." Forget about the "AIDS"
> material in the book if you'd like - the rest of it presents a
> biochemical understanding of "medical" phenomena, and it has
> applications of nutrtion as well. For example, PUFAs can stimulate

Yes I understand your laws of nature pertaining to relating the entire
universe on a FUFA basis.

> And I guess Robert is ignorant of all the "experts" going around
> talking about how genes, DNA manipulation, etc. are going to cure all
> diseases within the next year or so.

I don't listen to promises from both sides. Nor does anybody else. Promises
are for generating research funds. It is hype for money.

They said that about "AIDS,"
> cancer, and all kinds of other things.

You mean just like you have said that about FUFA's. You have learned well.
Now where's the beef?

They were wrong and you are right. Show me the cures in HIV and cancer with
your FUFA's theory.

They have failed, mainly
> because they are no longer doing science, as I have pointed out when
> people cite "studies" that are terribly flawed. I presented my views
> on why people would attack someone who just wants to stick with the
> scientific method, so I won't reiterate that here. I would add,
> though, that some "experts" become very arrogant, and would never admit
> that they are wrong,

It is not needed for someone to admit being wrong. It is more important that
someone prove that they are right.

Show me right now the cures you have generated with HIV and cancer. I am not
saying just keeping it in check but cures.
All you do is criticize modern medicine and put up nothing on your side.
Biochemists using rats is your evidence. Cancer cells being flooded with
1000's of over concentrated chemicals out of any realistic phsysiological
range as a cancer treatment?
Where are the patients being treated by your break through research?



even when the evidence is staring them in the
> face. "Defending one's turf" and "not rocking any boats" seems to take
> precedence over trying to help people, as we learned with Katrina (for
> those who didn't realize this previously).
> I will be doing a post about the debate between Enig and Peat soon, in
> which some of these issues will be fleshed out.
>
> Again, if anyone needs my help, I am here for you, free of charge.
> What you will get is a biochemical view of the issue or problem - one
> that is founded on basic scientific principles, and is sometimes as
> simple as looking at a periodic table of elements.
>
Bull*** rhetoric above buddy.
You have a poster give you a chemical level of copper and laboratory results
and you say that it is not necessary to you and you need symptoms instead of
lab results in order to help people.
Now you are talking about the periodic table?
Find copper on it and tell the lady your plan.


.