New link added to website: Scientific Studies

[Guest guest]

I just added a new link to our website in case anyone is

interested. It exposes the corrupt nature of modern " Scientific "

Studies, and also provides several other links to support the fact

that the scientific studies should not be the sacred cow that many

believe they are.

" Scientific " Study problems exposed

Read not only the main article, but the related articles on the

right sidebar.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/ghostwriting/

[Guest guest]

--- In gallstones , " Vince Richter " <new_man85@h...>

wrote:

>

> I just added a new link to our website in case anyone is

> interested. It exposes the corrupt nature of modern " Scientific "

> Studies, and also provides several other links to support the fact

> that the scientific studies should not be the sacred cow that many

> believe they are.

>

> " Scientific " Study problems exposed

> Read not only the main article, but the related articles on the

> right sidebar.

>

> http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/ghostwriting/

This article seem to refer only to other articles and references

given to ghost writers, nothing mentioned about data. This mean that

they are reviews, not research articles. So are they refering to

reviews or research articles?

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

The point of the exposing of the corrupt nature of the studies is to

help everyone understand that just because something is " studied

scientifically " there is no reason to trust the study. Financial

interests, egos, and academic competition have skewed the data on so

many occasions that now legal and promoted drugs and surgeries are

hurting and killing people.

Conversely, hundreds of years old wisdom is still valid even though

there has been no finacial incentive to do the studies to " prove "

it. Rest assured that just because one or more of us wonder if

something is true or not is not going to be motivation enough for a

study to be conducted. Just because something shows great promise

of helping millions of people, even if it HAS helped millions of

people over hundreds of years, is no motivation to perform an

expensive study. The only motivation to perform an expensive study

is the hope of a larger profit than the cost of the study. Any

substance or procedure which can't be patented, legally monopolized,

and peddled on enough people to profit is not going to be studied.

I've found more help with alternative, a.k.a non-scientifically

studied, substances and methods, than with the

conventional " wisdom " . I've chosen to look further and deeper than

the profit motivated medical model to safegaurd my health.

Like said, magnesium relaxes smooth muscle. Try a flush and

find out what happens. Then, compare your results with what you've

heard other people have experienced. You would then be doing

research of your own that would be more relevant than much of the

research that costs a lot more.

I understand not wanting to take any chances with our health: I sure

don't We only have one body and one life to live. I want to get

this right the first time To do that I've looked beyond the

methods that don't give me the health I want. Drugs and surgery

don't attract me. The " studies " show that Drugs and surgery are all

I need. The non-studied methods seem to work best for me and a

growing number of people are finding the same to be true.

Vince

> >

> > I just added a new link to our website in case anyone is

> > interested. It exposes the corrupt nature of

modern " Scientific "

> > Studies, and also provides several other links to support the

fact

> > that the scientific studies should not be the sacred cow that

many

> > believe they are.

> >

> > " Scientific " Study problems exposed

> > Read not only the main article, but the related articles on the

> > right sidebar.

> >

> > http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/ghostwriting/

>

>

> This article seem to refer only to other articles and references

> given to ghost writers, nothing mentioned about data. This mean

that

> they are reviews, not research articles. So are they refering to

> reviews or research articles?

>

>