Can anyone provide me with information or a source of information about
distilling my own vinegar?? . . . also info about vinegar’s role in
homeopathy.
Thank you,
T. Staph
tst…@epix.net
I would just like to take a few lines and thank everyone who has
responded to my request for info on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I will
go through all the messages and try some of the suggestions out.
Just wanted to say thanx here in public to all the folks that cared.
Lenny
My grandmother (86) has recently found out she has high blood pressure
(195/110)! The doctor told her that he doesn’t want to give her medication to
lower it because she is also getting dizzy and he fears that not enough
oxygen is getting to her brain. So, he left her with the situation and told
her to stop smoking (heavy smoker for 65 years). Are there any vitamins/herbs
etc. that can help in this situation?
Thanks -please e-mail directely to n…@enabel.ccinet.ab.ca
**********************************************************
Via ENABEL – Communications & Information Network
**********************************************************
PSORIASIS a treatment with good resalts and no side effects.
Get a free information today, it is wonderfull thing.
***1-800-765-SKIN***
I am highly recomended. E-MAIL me your impression.
Goodluk
MAAYAN
——-
Article 29369 of alt.folklore.herbs:
Xref: freenet.carleton.ca alt.folklore.herbs:14698
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.herbs
Path: freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!cg300
From: cg…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Sarah Dalle)
Subject: Midwives & herbs
Message-ID: <D9oGo0.83o@freenet.carleton.ca>
Sender: cg…@freenet.carleton.ca (Sarah Dalle)
Reply-To: cg…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Sarah Dalle)
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 02:09:36 GMT
Lines: 34
Hi out there,
I was in Honduras this past winter with a friend and we had the luck of
running into some ethnobotanists at the University of Honduras. We offered
to volunteer on any projects they had going on, and with their
encouragement we ended up doing our own project in an area they hadn’t
studied much, talking to midwives about the herbs they recommend to
pregnant women, use during the birth, and afterwards.
It was a truly inspirational experience, just having the opportunity to
talk to such interesting, wise, old women, and in the end we talked to
about 20 women and recorded the use of almost 80 herbs, used for anything
from fertility to miscarriages to expulsing the placenta. What almost all
the women told us, though, was that their grandmothers had known and used
many more herbs that they do now. Like everywhere "modern" medicine is
displacing traditional knowledge in these communities as health clinics
and hospitals become more accessible, and begin to "retrain" midwives
according to conventional methods.
Our project was the first effort to specifically attempt to document
the fading knowledge of these women in Honduras and we would love to
continue the work. We would love to record their knowledge and work to
encourage health professionals in Honduras to become familiar with this
knowledge and incorporate it into their training programs. Many midwives
felt that because herbal methods were not included in these programs that
they shouldn’t be used, they should adopt the "new ways".
The problem is the work we did was entirely funded out of our own
pockets, and our pockets are now empty. Does anybody have suggestions as
to herb foundations, university programs or other institutions which might
be worth contacting in search of funding? A master’s thesis in this area
might be a possibility, if I could find the right supervisor. Also if
anyone knows of any literature related to midwives & herbs, or any other
information/ideas/inspirations please post or e-mail me!
Sarah Dalle
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* PSORIASIS NEWSGROUPE *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
****alt.support.psoriasis*****
a news groups for a knolege and ideas about psoriasis and
new treatments.
GET A FREE CLINICALY NEWSLETTER ON PSORIASIS, E-MAIL me or
by simply call —- 1-800-764-SKIN——-
***Maayan.
In message ID <3rc88p$…@redhotmomma.ssr.com> on 6/10/95, Scott Ballantyne
<s…@ssr.com> wrote:
: You are responding to a post by Richard Jacobson. I’m the one that
: wants you to present the factoids about cancer from other cultures
: and healing systems – in particular I’m interested in how much
: better or worse the ancient Chinese system of healing (which you
: seem to favor) did at cancer than we do.
:
: I’ve asked you for this a few times now, and I’d appreciate it if
: you’d cough up the data and stop avoiding the issue.
:
: sdb
We have no statistics on which to judge, but in modern Chinese hospitals ‘New
Medicine’ is being practiced, which combines Western
surgico-chemo-radiotherapeutic methods with Chinese methods of reducing
side-effects. The evidence of the value of this synthesis is quite promising.
Given that many Western chemotherapeutic agents are in fact herbally-derived, if
it were possible to focus on this treatment only and derive stats from that,
that would be the correlatable cure group. Given that the usual side-effects of
chemotherapy are debilitating, it would not be surprising that a therapy that
reduced such side-effects would enhance survival.
East-Asian traditional healing has many methods of ‘side-effect’ management,
which are much more specific (and therefore often more effective) than the OTC
and prescription products by which they are usually managed in the West (this is
easily demonstrated to be true of most acute minor illnesses). In addition, many
herbals that are not in the category of ‘chemotherapeutic agents’ are
anti-carcinogenic, enhance organ function, improve mood or subjective sense of
energy, enhance metabolism, or improve sleep (among other things).
Tentative conclusions can be drawn from this set of observations.
–Paul || p_iann…@pop.com
–
There are so many companies producing so many kinds of
pychnogenol that it’s confusing.
What is the real, authentic, stuff?
How do you know?
Thank you.
Joe Vitale
******************************************************************
Joe "Mister Fire!" Vitale is a powerhouse copywriter.
He is a direct marketing specialist and author of several books,
including "The Seven Lost Secrets of Success!" and
(for the American Marketing Association)
"The AMA Complete Guide to Small Business Advertising."
303 Mill Stream Ct
Houston, TX 77060
FAX: 713-999-1313
Phone: 713-999-1110
email: mrf…@blkbox.com
[This article may be copied and distributed freely, provided that it not be
changed or cut in any way. This message and the closing copyright notice
must be included. It may not be published commercially without express
permission from the author.]
The Risk-AIDS Hypothesis
by John Lauritsen
For a decade and a half we have been subjected to AIDS propaganda. We
have been indoctrinated into ever-changing and ever-more-elaborate AIDS
mythologies. Over 100,000 papers have been written on "AIDS." The jargon,
the technobabble must run to hundreds of words by now. It all seems
hopelessly complicated–far beyond the comprehension of a mere layman, a
non-specialist.
And yet, at bottom, "AIDS" is really rather simple. My goal in this
talk is to cut through the trappings and mystifications of "AIDS," to lay
bare and articulate its fundamental assumptions and contradictions. I want
to bring us back to the Reality Principle: to see things as they really are.
My entire message can be expressed in three brief points:
1. There is no such thing as "AIDS."
2. HIV is not harmful.
3. People with "AIDS" diagnoses became sick in the ways
that they did because of health risks in their lives —
especially drugs.
1. There is no such thing as "AIDS."
The so-called Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome or "AIDS" is not a
coherent, single disease entity. It has neither symptoms nor diagnostic
criteria of its own. Other diseases, such as mumps, measles, polio, chicken
pox, rabies, gonorrhea, malaria, salmonella, the common cold, or bubonic
plague, can readily be described and diagnosed. Not "AIDS," which is defined
entirely in terms of other, old diseases, in conjunction with dubious test
results and even more dubious assumptions. Although people are undeniably
sick, "AIDS" itself does not really exist; it is a phoney construct.
The AIDS surveillance definition of the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) has changed several times, and it contains its own contradiction.
Nevertheless, the core definition of "AIDS" can be expressed by the
following formula (for which I am indebted to Peter Duesberg):
INDICATOR DISEASE + HIV = AIDS
In conjunction with HIV, an "AIDS-indicator disease" becomes "AIDS." In
the absence of HIV, the "AIDS-indicator disease" is called by its old name.
INDICATOR DISEASE – HIV = INDICATOR DISEASE
Let’s try a couple of examples:
TB + HIV = AIDS
TB – HIV = TB
DEMENTIA + HIV = AIDS
DEMENTIA – HIV = CRAZY
At last count there are 29 "AIDS-indicator diseases," not one
of which is new. All of them have causes other than HIV.
1. Bacterial infections, multiple or recurrent (applies only to children)
2. Candidiasis of bronchi, trachea, or lungs
3. Candidiasis of esophagus (either a "definitive diagnosis" or a
"presumptive diagnosis")
4. Coccidioidomycosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
5. Cryptococcosis, extrapulmonary
6. Cryptococcosis, chronic intestinal
7. Cytomegalovirus disease other than retinitis
8. Cytomegalovirus retinitis (either a "definitive diagnosis" or a
"presumptive diagnosis")
9. HIV encephalopathy (dementia)
10. Herpes simplex, with esophagitis, pneumonia, or chronic mucocutaneous
ulcers
11. Histoplasmosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
12. Isosporiasis, chronic intestinal
13. Kaposi’s sarcoma (either a "definitive diagnosis" or a "presumptive
diagnosis")
14. Lymphoid interstitial pneumonia and/or pulmonary lymphoid hyperplasia
(either a "definitive diagnosis" or a "presumptive diagnosis")
15. Lymphoma, Burkitt’s (or equivalent term)
16. Lymphoma, immunoblastic (or equivalent term)
17. Lymphoma, primary in brain
18. Mycobacterium avium or M. kansasii, disseminated or extrapulmonary
(either a "definitive diagnosis" or a "presumptive diagnosis")
19. M. tuberculosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary (either a "definitive
diagnosis" or a "presumptive diagnosis")
20. Mycobacterial diseases, other disseminated or extrapulmonary (either a
"definitive diagnosis" or a "presumptive diagnosis")
21. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (either a "definitive diagnosis" or a
"presumptive diagnosis")
22. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
23. Salmonella septicemia, recurrent
24. Toxoplasmosis of brain (either a "definitive diagnosis" or a
"presumptive diagnosis")
25. HIV wasting syndrome
On 8 December 1992 a letter was mailed by the CDC to State Health
Officers, informing them: "On January 1, 1993, an expanded surveillance
definition for AIDS will be effective." The following AIDS-indicator
conditions were added to the list:
26. A CD4+ T-lymphocyte count <200 cells/microliter (or a CD4+ percent <14)
27. Pulmonary tuberculosis
28. Recurrent pneumonia (within a 12-month period)
29. Invasive cervical cancer
The AIDS-indicator diseases are extremely heterogeneous. Many of the
diseases are caused by funguses, for example, candidiasis,
coccidioidomycosis, cryptto- coccosis, histoplasmosis, and pneumocystis
carinii. Others are caused by bacteria, like salmonella. Others, by
mycobacteria, like tuberculosis. Still others, by viruses, like
cytomegalovirus or herpes. And still others, like the various cancers and
neoplasms, including lymphoma and Kaposi’s sarcoma, have no established
etiology. And still others, like dementia or wasting, are poorly defined and
can have many different causes.
Both components of the AIDS-defining formula are absurd. The
AIDS-indicator disease part is absurd because the diseases have nothing in
common. Although the central idea of "AIDS" is immune deficiency, some of
the AIDS-indicator diseases — like the cancers, wasting, and dementia —
have nothing whatever to do with immune deficiency.
The HIV part of the formula is also absurd, because it is almost always
based on invalidated and unreliable antibody tests; because it is sometimes
based on "presumptive" diagnoses (in other words, on guesses); and above all,
because HIV is not pathogenic.
Since the very definition of "AIDS" is absurd, it necessarily follows:
"There is no such thing as ‘AIDS.’"
2. HIV is not harmful.
Molecular biologist Peter Duesberg has argued that it is not in the
nature of retroviruses to cause serious illness, and HIV is a completely
typical retrovirus.
HIV’s consistent lack of biochemical activity is a salient reason for
rejecting the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. There are different ways of evaluating
the activity of a microbe, just as there are different ways of evaluating the
activity of a human being (such things as motion, heartbeat, breathing, body
temperature, etc.). Right now I’m giving a talk. If I were running the 100
meter race, I would be much more active; if I were asleep, I would be much
less active; and so on. HIV is consistently inactive, even in patients who
are dying from so-called "AIDS." It therefore cannot cause disease, any more
than a human being could rob a bank at the same time he was lying in a coma.
3. People with "AIDS" diagnoses became sick in the ways that they
did because of health risks in their lives — especially drugs.
The basic idea here is that different "risk groups" and different
individuals are getting sick in different ways and for different reasons. We
need to find out what factors have affected their health in ways that caused
them to develop one or more of the 29 old illnesses that qualify for a
diagnosis of "AIDS."
With regard to any specific risk group, the question is not, "Why have
these people developed AIDS?", but rather, "Why are these people sick?".
Let’s take the risk groups one at a time:
*Why Are Intravenous Drug Users Getting Sick?*
Intravenous drug users (IVDUs) are the second largest risk group for
"AIDS" in the U.S., and their illnesses are the easiest to explain. They
have acquired AIDS-illnesses as a toxicological consequence of the heroin,
cocaine, and other drugs that they have put into their bodies. According to
the prevailing AIDS paradigm, they got sick because they shared needles,
thereby acquiring HIV infection, which caused their illnesses. There are
three problems with this hypothesis: 1) No study has ever been done to
determine if all, or even most, IVDUs with "AIDS" diagnoses ever did share
needles (most IVDUs, in fact, do not share needles), 2) the hypothesis
ignores the harmful consequences of putting chemicals into the body, and 3)
HIV is not pathogenic.
The clinical profile of an IVDU with "AIDS" is emaciation (wasting) and
one or more lung diseases. And yet, for a hundred years, the classic profile
of a chronic heroin user has been emaciation and lung disease. Heroin is bad
for the health and bad for the immune system; on top of that, it suppresses
the respiratory system. The consequences are tuberculosis or one or another
form of pneumonia: emaciation and lung disease.
More than a decade before the first cases of "AIDS" were reported, the
distinguished British epidemiologist, Gordon Stewart, was studying drug
addicts in the United States. His team made the following observations:
They were often extremely emaciated, suffering from
wasting diseases, various weird blood-borne infections with
skin bacteria, Candida and Cryptococci, which would not
ordinarily be regarded as pathogenic in their own right….
We didn’t find Kaposi’s sarcoma and we didn’t find
Pneumocystis (carinii pneumonia) but, then, we weren’t
looking for it. [Quoted by Jad Adams in AIDS: The HIV Myth,
New York, 1989.]
In his paper, "AIDS Acquired by Drug Consumption and Other Noncontagious
Risk Factors," Peter Duesberg cites many medical references that indicate:
"From as early as 1909 evidence has accumulated that addiction to
…
read more »
Powered by WordPress