At 06:05 AM 08/03/2000 -1000, you wrote:
>Dave:
>
>>        There is but one cause and one cure of disease. The cause: the body's
>>inability to comprehend itself or it's environment. The cure: to remove
>>interference to the body's ability to adapt to mental, physical, and
>>chemical stresses. The body senses itself internally and externally through
>>the nervous system. If there is interference to this communication highway
>>disease is the result.
>

>In some cases medicines may be doing exactly that.

        640 million nerve impulses every second just to maintain autonomic
function. About 150 trillion cells in the body. Are you saying we can throw
in 1 or 50 substances from the outside in and improve the health/function
of the body?
        Please name one drug that can improve the health of the body? I don't
believe you can because drugs simply treat symptoms and not the root cause
of disease. The nervous system is the pathway which Innate Intelligence
takes to control and coordinate every function in the body. If there is not
full communication it is impossible for the body to reach it's full health
potential.

> But your simplistic and
>non-useful cause/cure scenerio is wanting.

        Check your ego. Sometimes things are that easy.

>
>>>Wild animals succomb to disease as well.
>>
>>        No shit, really?
>
>Yes, really. And wild animals are very likely better able to "remove
>interference to the body's ability to adapt to mental, physical, and
>chemical stresses" than you ever will be able to. But they get sick and
>die. Imagine that.

        Who says they can't get "sick"? If they adapted how is it they died?

>
>Indeed, I find more swaying evidence that vaccines can be effective from
>their use in livestock than humans.

        How many of these researchers have their children vaccinated?
        How many of the animals have a conscious? Do they drive cars? Do they eat
doughnuts and beer?
        The only drug to prove it's effectiveness over time is the placebo.
Whatever happened to "first do no harm"?

>
>>
>>> You may be quilty of romanticising
>>>"nature" just as you demonize human endeavor.
>>
>>        You create thoughts for me? Where in the hell did you get this
>>from? How
>>is choosing not to take pills, powders, and potions romanticizing? It is an
>>impossibility to heal the body with the ingestion of a drug. You are simply
>>trading not seeing a symptom that your body is struggling for the side
>>effect of the drug. This can be useful if you are in need of crisis care as
>>when you've reached the material limits of your body like the severing of a
>>limb. Never do drugs increase your health like Wall Street would have us
>>believe.
>
>Why is it all so black and white? Impossibilities and never.

        Can someone be kinda pregnant or sorta dead? Living in a grey area is not
somewhere I want to be.

> All you can see is someone (me, supposedly) arguing for pills and potions
when that is
>not the case. I am arguing against your simplistic rant on disease and
>nature.

        What doesn't agree with your view is a rant? Please enlighten me oh wise
one about the power of drugs! I suppose the poor defenseless drug companies
need protection from my personal view? I choose not to take drugs. You and
everyone else for that matter can take drugs all you/they want. I have
found a better way for myself and would like to share the philosophy behind
it. If you disagree with it that's fine by me.

>
>
>>        Romanticizing is having more faith in a pill than in the
>>intelligent force
>>that animates life.
>
>Romanticizing is believing only the good about about something and ignoring
>the rest--like you do regarding your "primordial subluxation". ;)
>
>Secola  /\  Nieft
>[log in to unmask]

        I'll stick to my simplistic views and continue to clean up the failures of
medicine. I have always used this simple approach and without deviation the
person's health improves. Does this mean that no one dies? Hardly.
        There are now more diseases with iatrogenic causes than there were
diseases before the advent of medicine. Is this too easy to understand?
People nor animals become diseased for a lack of drugs. Just as health will
not always improve because one stops taking drugs.

Dave