Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 In a message dated 8/9/03 7:08:36 AM, rawfood writes: Nice site however the site links to QUACKWATCH, where QUACKWATCH is a scam medical fraud and should be EXPOSED for the quacks they represent. Since when has the " MEDICAL " , " PHARMACEUTICAL " or " FDA " not been delirect in their duty. Shame on them! Please unlink QUACKWATCH! EX: Please look into the official White House. Truthful internet information should start at the top with the White House and DOD! The package insert to the anthrax vaccine clearly states " Pregnant women should not be vaccinated against anthrax unless the potential benefits of vaccination clearly outweigh the potential risks to the fetus. " White House says " Pregnant women should be vaccinated only if absolutely necessary. " http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/anthrax-faq.html#q10 Need I say more? Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 I would not worry too much about that link. Honor their journey, even though you do not agree with their methods or approach - that way you will remain detached from their anger and negativity. They live in the world of hypothesis and theories - not truth. They do not support cures, because there is no money in cures. People stop coming to the professionals when you cure them. I know, because I was practicing as a clinical nutritionist in the 1990's. My clients were made up of those who went the traditional route and were never helped. It was my diagnostic skills that helped me identify the causes of their conditions and the approach needed to permanently eliminate their condition. By permanent, I include if they were taking any supplements, they no loner needed the supplements. They have no scientific way of evaluating truth. Fear and guilt are used to control others. They live in the world of politics. They have no control over people who are intuitive guided to use raw foods to regain their health When the church condemns a book, it becomes the best seller - maybe you too will be a best seller. I would thank them for being on their link - that means anyone who discovers their link to you can have the opportunity to examine this group and evaluate us on our own merits and not by the opinions of others. That means we should not be like those who are in charge of that web site. We should not read what someone else wrote and blindly accept the written word as the gospel truth. When we read something, we should say: " according to ...., but I have not had the opportunity to evaluate these statements to confirm or disprove its validity. " The more object we are the more we are respected. If we speak from experience, no one can refute your experience. Fred Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 Your response is nicely stated. It seems that objectivity is difficult to find these days. At one time I was caught in the subject stance. Fortunately I overcame it. There is so much peace in the objective outlook. Each and everyone of us is searching. Like Edison we'll find many ways of not doing something. Not everyone is helped by just one method. Wouldn't you agree? Diane fred lieberman <fred_lieberman wrote: I would not worry too much about that link. Honor their journey, even though you do not agree with their methods or approach - that way you will remain detached from their anger and negativity. They live in the world of hypothesis and theories - not truth. They do not support cures, because there is no money in cures. People stop coming to the professionals when you cure them. I know, because I was practicing as a clinical nutritionist in the 1990's. My clients were made up of those who went the traditional route and were never helped. It was my diagnostic skills that helped me identify the causes of their conditions and the approach needed to permanently eliminate their condition. By permanent, I include if they were taking any supplements, they no loner needed the supplements. They have no scientific way of evaluating truth. Fear and guilt are used to control others. They live in the world of politics. They have no control over people who are intuitive guided to use raw foods to regain their health When the church condemns a book, it becomes the best seller - maybe you too will be a best seller. I would thank them for being on their link - that means anyone who discovers their link to you can have the opportunity to examine this group and evaluate us on our own merits and not by the opinions of others. That means we should not be like those who are in charge of that web site. We should not read what someone else wrote and blindly accept the written word as the gospel truth. When we read something, we should say: " according to ...., but I have not had the opportunity to evaluate these statements to confirm or disprove its validity. " The more object we are the more we are respected. If we speak from experience, no one can refute your experience. Fred Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2003 Report Share Posted August 11, 2003 Your response is nicely stated. It seems that objectivity is difficult to find these days. At one time I was caught in the subject stance. Fortunately I overcame it. There is so much peace in the objective outlook. Each and everyone of us is searching. Like Edison we'll find many ways of not doing something. Not everyone is helped by just one method. Wouldn't you agree? I agree. Fred Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.