Posts
Comments
<Video is not even systematic data. It's beyond easy to manipulate.> There's zero info in that comment as to the topic; it seems purely polemic to me, since I already agreed to the possibility of manipulating videos etc.
<Oddly enough, Nature doesn't care what vested interests think.> Of course it doesn't, and I never said it would. The whole issue is about which sources to trust, and coming up with some meta-analysis of BigPharma not repressing 100% of what ever doesn't win you a single inch of ground: if that study says BigPharma prefers something they produce to something else by 10%, then mms must be... a fraud? Do they even test mms? You're silent about that, so let me guess: they don't.
Yes, it does mention it in the third sentence, check it out again... weaving the outcome in up front is a telltale sign of insincerity - if you know before, what you'll find out later...
< which minimizes expenses & time> well, maybe they have no money - ever thought about that?
Interesting, you're so much into "systematic and meta-analysis"... you also tap into some higher knowledge, don't you?
Is that maybe the true reason you're so agitated? Me and my kind... you don't have the slightest clue to what or who I am, but you seem to have an image of "my likes" in your head - let's stick to arguments, okay?
Speaking of which: your links don't seem to cover mms... so why are they in your post? n=1 experiments - the path to truth? You seem not to have tested it, but still know so much about it... how come?
Finally: I never said I was either part of "the solution", nor a "bystander"... so what's the "problem"?
I see your point. Watching a video or picture, or whatever, for that reason, is no proof of anything. Those are easy to manipulate, I think we can agree on that. But what I want to hint to here, is the fact that we have vested interests on one side and virtually no profit on the other side. So which one do you belive? You post some link with 'exposing material', which is asserting in its third sentence, that the stuff is dangerous etc. and that that's an established fact... reading is believing, too. I've heard of some people (acquaintences) in africa witnessing the effects of mms, and that made me listen up. Look at this indepentend "help-your-self" community for example:
http://www.globalresourcealliance.org/
It's second hand info in the end again, but with our butts in front of a machine, its the best we can do...
You're right, a video showing the red cross administering a treatment to malaria to african children is very likely to be cut from pieces by 'a partisan' to... to what? We should really be relying on wikipedia and the FDA to even the odds between BigPharma and... and whom?
No, it isn't: Anyone familiar with the linguistic havoc sociological theory of systems deigns to inflict on its victims will assure you of that!
Are you aware of the FIELD STUDY the RED CROSS conducted in Uganda and was naive enough to let people record on video before they realized how powerful the cure actually was? They tried denying it afterwards... but that was three video tapes and hundreds of witnesses too late. Here's the video link, if somone here is actually interested in what's going on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jY2yab0uLc
To cut to the chase: from 154 malaria-infected people, 100% were cured after 48 hours. And that's verified by the red cross (unwittingly though)! Today, every 40 secs someone dies of malaria... i.e. the issue is of crucial importance and should lead people of "high epistemic standards" - as I understand the author of this article views him/herself - to inquire into the subject more deeply and responsibly than to clamour about its use as chemical-industrial detergent. Speaking of which: Did it not appear to you, that Natriumchlorite is one of the most commonly used and sold and CHEAP chemicals around the world? How do you make a bug out of that? When setting up a scam, wouldn't it be more tempting to sell something you cannot get on ervery corner for next to nothing? Same, of course, goes for citric acid (the other ingridient).
So... where are you getting your info from? Is it really just wikipedia and the FDA? And you're rambling about human stupidity... well, there you go.