Thanks for the links! I'm still wading through a few google pages...oh, the fun
Now...the second one is selling colloidal silver. That doesn't bode well for an objective source, unfortunately.
Onto the Health Hotline link. It shows many alleged uses for CS - again, I have no doubt that it does have some great potential, not least as an
anti-viral/anti-microbial. However - there's still nothing to show reliable proof of any anti-cancer benefits. Anti-viral does not
If you look at my updated post, it has info. re cancer in the new link.
Still wading through material now - will report back
One thing though (I think someone else mentioned this): it's very true that some cancers are triggered by virii. Killing the virus greatly
reduces (if not outright negates) the possibility of that cancer. But this is not the case in every type of cancer
I'm still trying to find non-rumour information about the AIDS patient/CS link.
Re: the Hallelujah diet. A good basic raw foods diet is possible - this isn't a new idea. BUT - and it's a big "but" (pardon the expression!)
- there MUST be adequate vitamin and mineral intake ...and articles such as
and this bit
suggest that raw-food diets lead to worrying decreases in B12 levels.
this by a doc who does support alternative methods
, but is concerned about the lack of B12 in non-animal
Now, about Stephen Barrett. As a retired psychiatrist, he's of course going to be subjected to accusations of hidden agendas, etc etc. So is any
doctor, if we're honest - the very second a medical professional debunks, argues against or attempts to disprove a popular alternative theory,
they're generally considered "part of the conspiracy". I'm sure in some cases, this might indeed be true! But to disallow the entire concept
of a non-profit watchdog-like committee (like NCAHF) seems to suggest a refusal to consider that there might be some truth in that committee's
findings - and we're all about denying ignorance, surely?
To further what I'm sure will accompany more accusations, please take a look at this
, where Dr Barrett has had to actually take legal action (successfully) against certain detractors. I don't know enough about him to
defend him (even if I wanted to); rather, the point I'm trying to make is that being against something doesn't always mean you have a hidden agenda
other than that which is stated (in his case, the health of Joe Average).
In addition, many many doctors "have links" to the FDA (and by extension, the pharmaceutical industry). It would be worrying if they didn't; the
FDA needs to have medical experts to testify, observe, carry out, regulate and be involved in clinical trials. If this were to change, the entire
regulatory process would be in jeopardy, and the public would find themselves facing a much greater danger - unregulated, unvalidated substances
saturating the market.
There are a great many doctors who also regularly speak out against
(variously) FDA procedures; pharmaceutical incentives and the ethical
issues therein. Point being, having links to the pharma industry and/or FDA is not a reliable indication that you have a hidden agenda, or that
you're mixed up in unethical research practices, or worse. It simply means that - like most of the medical profession - you have to deal with a
whole boatload of red tape and mountains of paperwork.
Back to my research....