Stop animal proteins and cancers

[Janic]

So for example, concrete case:
http://www.kousmine.com/lecancer.htm

"The measures I advocate usually do not start to work for about two months, and only develop their full effect after two years."

For us the effects from 2 months or less remain permanent "in our way"

"If the cancer diagnosed is surgical, and the patient's condition is good enough, it should be operated on and if necessary, irradiate it to obtain the time necessary for the correction of what it is agreed to call its ground. "

In natural medicine no question, it is an evil for an apparent "good".

"If the patient is in poor condition, it is preferable to prepare him for the operation for a few weeks or months by applying the measures described. It is then observed that the tumor stops growing, sometimes even decreases in size, l general condition improves and the outcome of the delayed operation or radiation therapy may be excellent. "

which shows the effectiveness of the vegetarian "diet".

2 °) FOOD TREATMENT OF EVOLVING GROWTH
*** Diet intensive detoxification over 3 weeks:
1 ° WEEK: Exclusive fruit diet.
Fresh fruit and freshly squeezed fruit juice, taken in several small meals throughout the day.
2 ° WEEK: Exclusive raw diet.
Three meals spread over the day, composed only of raw food: fresh fruit, fruit juice, dried fruit, oil seeds, ground and raw cereals, honey, pollen, raw egg yolk, raw milk, yogurts, raw vegetables and oils of first cold pressing. In the morning: BUDWIG cream, and 150 grams of fruit - Lunch: raw vegetables topped with virgin oil, a teaspoon of raw ground cereals, cottage cheese and egg yolk

- Okay so far except cottage cheese, milk, yogurt and egg yolk.
- Evening meal: Dried fruits, honey, pollen

3rd WEEK: Enlargement
Cooked cereals and cooked vegetables are added once a day.
The purpose of this diet is to rapidly modify the intestinal flora.
Follow a strict meat-free diet.
These three weeks are followed by a diet without strict meat for the next 2 to 3 months.

For us, meat being one of the main causes of cancer and its recurrences, we can only agree!
***

Daily rectal enemas.
The rectal enemas will be daily for 8 to 10 days, followed systematically by instillation of 60 cc of warm virgin sunflower oil. Then the enemas will be continued at the rate of 3 times a week, then 2 times a week, until stabilization.

Colon enemas can also be replaced by saline purges and will gain in efficiency and reduction of time with an adapted fast.

Intensification of vitamin therapy.
The increased need for various vitamins necessitates the use of injectable vitamins for daily injections.

There is no agreement either, in hygiene.

But, and this is where the difference is made, as a doctor she is under the obligation (moral, since a doctor is not under the physical obligation to obtain a result) to obtain a result expected by the patient, not necessarily inclined to change his lifestyle.
on the other hand, a naturopathic hygienist can afford to refuse an ordinary patient who does not adopt the proposed approach. However naturopaths generally intervene after the usual medical failures (therefore already very late) and may not want to assume the disadvantages of these previous therapies because if there is failure, it is they who are considered the culprits.
So its "treatment" with a few "details" is consistent with what we recommend including a strict vegetarianism for at least 3 months. Common sense should make you react! If this method proves effective over 3 months: why should it not be effective over a lifetime? Where would the contraindication and its potential harms be?
Geoffroy, founder of La Vie Claire, wrote in his literature and partly taking up Carton and others: "the patient's diet intended to restore his health should be that of the healthy so as not to fall ill »

[sen-no-sen]

For us the effects from 2 months or less remain permanent "in our way"

Hi Janic, what do you call permanent effects?
Effect of what?

[Obamot]

Here we go astray, because Janic:
- Did not read the link on orthomolecular medicine (which is excerpted below) or acted as if it did not count in his answer, which amounts to the same thing
- Confuses in particular the "vaccine cure"(which are not since they are vitamin and other supplements given by intravenous route under medical supervision and which have a certain directly therapeutic character, with recovery of the patients at the key), with preventive orthomolecular medicine, stricto sensus!
- Or else he opposes it, which amounts to the same thing!

And even if it were true, I don't see how, a doctor who would know what he is doing, should be depriving himself of a whole part of the therapeutic arsenal, knowing that he would be depriving himself of what would save his life of his patient. It does not make sense!

Or, again, we would enter into ideology, which would set arbitrary limits by inducing the nursing staff to "what he would have the right to do or not " on the basis of "good principles" (yes, but decreed by whom?). And in the name of what should we give up the chance to get by with orthomolecular medicine? In the name of which studies? (Clinics or not for that matter). By validating what scientific evidence? I point out in passing, that I do not defend conventional medicine in any way, but I do not spit on it when it can save someone. Because I point out in passing that it is proven that this is why Steve Jobs disappeared early, because against the advice of his doctors, he preferred to continue to follow a "strict vegetarian diet" to try to cure d 'a cancer with metastases, believing to be able to dispense with the conventional therapeutic arsenal to overcome the disease. Only when he gave up his diet: it was too late!

And cases like him, there are unfortunately many in these times of disproportionate belief in soft or alternative therapies (even if they demonstrate their effectiveness in the cases for which they are adapted, they show their limits in others, all as conventional medicine has its own ...)

Janic wrote:
while Kousmine is medicated by medical deformation.

pffff, orthomolecular medicine, it's really not that at all

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9dec ... %A9culaire
I could not say that not, but from memory (it's been 20/30 years), they were not natural products as the hygienism conceives and the names (I am not specialist) sounded well medoc side. I no longer have this book so I remain on the print, but if I find ....
Others also have a chemical / natural approach like Seignalet with his 3 ° medicine with excellent results, David-Servan Screiber was shared between natural medicine and chemo, this is the case for many doctors caught between their initial training and their complementary approach. They too are humans!

Stop these silliness you want, because you know a much too long end to discredit yourself so awkwardly.

Orthomolecular medicine aims to treat people with the optimal supply of substances naturally known to the body, as opposed to the use of molecules with therapeutic effects created by man.

In particular, she has always advocated the use of natural vitamin "C" rather than synthetic ... And all the rest that I do not feel the need to justify, since these are very clear and known data.

So please do not make a new "poem" on the above. Because having to justify ourselves doesn't always grow us.

[Janic]

sen no sen

Hi Janic, what do you call permanent effects? Effect of what?

This means that the results obtained over these 3 months by Kousmine by a particular "diet" (VG in this case) will continue to maintain them as long as they are followed. This can be verified in the event of a relapse after abandoning these techniques and will re-disappear with the same means. Same causes / same effects.

Obamot

Here we go astray, because Janic:
- Did not read the link on orthomolecular medicine (an extract of which is given below) or acted as if it did not count in his answer, which amounts to a little the same
- Confuses in particular the "vaccine cure" (which are not since they are vitamin supplements and others given by intravenous route under medical supervision and which have a certain directly therapeutic character, with recovery of the patients in the key), d 'with preventive orthomolecular medicine, stricto sensus!
- Or else he opposes it, which amounts to the same thing!

I'm not confusing from what I read on Wikipedia. I underline and I do not seek to justify myself in any way that at the time when I read his works certain therapies seemed to me to be medoc.
Now we would have to compare two identical cases with different approaches. With these supplements and diets or without supplements by venous route (without going through natural filters) and fasting for example.
But, if you remember perfectly what you read a few decades ago, so much the better for you, it is not my case especially when the speech is not of the order of what is being sought.

And even if it were true, I don't see how, a doctor who would know what he is doing, should be depriving himself of a whole part of the therapeutic arsenal, knowing that he would be depriving himself of what would save his life of his patient. It does not make sense!

This is what I said, a doctor can use everything that the therapeutic arsenal puts at his disposal, even if it causes pathologies or deaths. Despite the therapeutic arsenal, 30% of deaths are due to cancer, i.e. almost 150.000 deaths per year now.

By validating what scientific evidence? I note in passing, that I do not defend conventional medicine, but I do not spit on it when it can save someone.

I don't spit on either, but before I detonate a bomb, I try negotiation first or in other words before violent techniques (even supposed effective, but not without harm) I prefer more techniques gentle and non-aggressive which can avoid this last resort.
Kousmine says: ""If the patient is in poor condition, it is best to prepare him for the operation for a few weeks or months by applying the measures described. We then observe that the tumor stops growing, sometimes even shrinks in size, the general condition improves and the result of the delayed operation or radiation therapy may be excellent. "which also underlines Schreiber himself suffering from cancer. Only despite the open path, one has the impression that this is scary, that it is not possible because otherwise it would be known, etc ...


Scientific evidence ... this comes after the fact. They confirm or invalidate the experience. Kousmine's approach is essentially based on 19th century hygienism at a time when scientific evidence was reduced to its "simplest expression" and therefore only confirmed an already existing reality.

Because I point out in passing that it is proven that this is why Steve Jobs disappeared early, because against the advice of his doctors, he preferred to continue to follow a "strict vegetarian diet" to try to cure d 'a cancer with metastases, believing to be able to dispense with the conventional therapeutic arsenal to overcome the disease. Only when he gave up his diet: it was too late!

This is the classic! We take a case and we generalize it. He dies more people who have undergone the therapeutic arsenal than people who get out. “Healings” are estimated to be 5 years and do not include posterior relapses. It's still 145.762 chess out of 319.380 cases recorded in 2005 (147.500 out of 365.500 in 2011) and not because of any VG and who could have certified that with these treatments he would have got away?

And cases like him, there are unfortunately many in these times of disproportionate belief in soft or alternative therapies (even if they demonstrate their effectiveness in the cases for which they are adapted, they show their limits in others, all as conventional medicine has its own ...)

To say a lot, you have to calculate otherwise it is completely subjective and you will probably have difficulty finding them. (But I'm interested)

Stop these silliness you want, because you know a much too long end to discredit yourself so awkwardly.

Clearly you would know better than me what I think ?!

In particular, she has always advocated the use of natural vitamin "C" rather than synthetic ... And all the rest that I do not feel the need to justify, since these are very clear and known data.

except that in hygienism, injections are not considered natural.
Does this mean that it has no effect? No ! Only that any cause also has effects other than those sought as for transfusions.

So please do not make a new "poem" on the above. Because having to justify ourselves doesn't always grow us.

Expressing a point of view (this is not a dogma) absolutely does not require justification, it will be shared or not and that's it. After everyone to deepen or stop there; to each his path
You know that my answers are not only for your attention, but as a notice for the use of other interested potential readers so that they can get a personal idea by comparison.
Finally you would be nice to stay within the framework of the exchange of idea and not to give yourself up to assessments on the individual. (Even if it itches you and even if I am not susceptible!) If the point of view don't suit you, just counter argument on the subject.

[Obamot]

By validating what scientific evidence? I note in passing, that I do not defend conventional medicine, but I do not spit on it when it can save someone.

I don't spit on either, but before I detonate a bomb, I try negotiation first or in other words before violent techniques (even supposed effective, but not without harm) I prefer more techniques gentle and non-aggressive which can avoid this last resort.
Kousmine says: ""If the patient is in poor condition, it is best to prepare him for the operation for a few weeks or months by applying the measures described. We then observe that the tumor stops growing, sometimes even shrinks in size, the general condition improves and the result of the delayed operation or radiation therapy may be excellent. "which also underlines Schreiber, himself suffering from cancer. Only despite the open path, one has the impression that this is scary, that it is not possible because otherwise it would be known, etc.

We can not say it better

Scientific evidence ... this comes after the fact. They confirm or invalidate the experience. Kousmine's approach is essentially based on 19th century hygienism at a time when scientific evidence was reduced to its "simplest expression" and therefore only confirmed an already existing reality.

If Janic means by this that the Kousmine method should be discarded because it worked in the 19th century, before it was even developed ... then there it is very badly crossed! This is totally false, but possibly not on the question of the “terrain”. But that does not change other method => draw !!!

Indeed, the human organism was not very different in the XIXth century than today ... So firstly, it changes absolutely nothing - neither does it validate its speech, nor invalidate it - So zero everywhere, the ball in the center ...
The only difference is that what we know scientifically since Kousmine, even if we knew it empirically before, we didn't have proof! And that changes everything, because we have a solid base of work ...! Because indeed, she discovered it in her laboratory: I leave it to Janic to guess how ... It would be a lot of fun for me to tell us since he claims to have read it ...

Because I point out in passing that it is proven that this is why Steve Jobs disappeared early, because against the advice of his doctors, he preferred to continue to follow a "strict vegetarian diet" to try to cure d 'a cancer with metastases, believing to be able to dispense with the conventional therapeutic arsenal to overcome the disease. Only when he gave up his diet: it was too late!

This is the classic! We take a case and we generalize it. More people who have undergone the therapeutic arsenal die than people who survive.

wow, clap, clap, clap ... don't go to the doctor anymore because it's very dangerous then? !!! And Steve Jobs didn't know what they were doing ...? Couldn't afford the best specialists ... etc? No, Janic dreams!
No, no and no, the death statistics show that people die prematurely at 80% due to their poor lifestyle and inadequate food bowl ... Point barre.
Then we can always interpret this statistic in its own way to make it say what we want to hear, but it's still theater ...

Who could have certified that with these treatments he would have got away?

It would be necessary to know the anamnesis to answer thoroughly, I am not satisfied with the stats in the individual cases (since each case has its particularities). But in his case, we can only note the death and analyze the causes!
As in so many other cases of people working in the tertiary sector (therefore at first glance not in contact with carcinogenic substances as is more easily the case in the secondary sector), what do we see? Liver cancer and pancreas: so he lacked a protective diet for the liver, precisely where Kousmine works wonders! But I'm not going to go into detail ... Janic has the easy trigger these days ...

So yes, with the usual reservations, we can say that with adequate care and if indeed he would have followed the advice of his doctors and that he would have changed diet for another that suits him better and not deficient, yes, Steve Jobs (like any other case of the same type) could very probably have survived it ... in principle, and if of course the causes of death were not of multifactorial origin of another order than purely of food imbalance, lifestyle, choice of lifestyle or something, as by way of example: questions of a "psy" order.

And cases like him, there are unfortunately many in these times of disproportionate belief in soft or alternative therapies (even if they demonstrate their effectiveness in the cases for which they are adapted, they show their limits in others, all as conventional medicine has its own ...)

To say a lot, you have to calculate otherwise it is completely subjective and you will probably have difficulty finding them (but I am interested).

See above, I give a percentage ... And sorry, but I do not sausage statistics, in favor or against anyone ...

Stop these silliness you want, because you know a much too long end to discredit yourself so awkwardly.

Clearly you would know better than me what I think ?!

No need to know what Janic thinks to know that he oscillates between speech and syllogism (and I say that because I'm very nice ...)

In particular, she has always advocated the use of natural vitamin "C" rather than synthetic ... And all the rest that I do not feel the need to justify, since these are very clear and known data.

except that in hygienism, injections are not considered natural.

Pfff, Janic pushes the cap a bit far ... It's the therapeutic effect that counts. The rest ... It's prevention, so it depends on "personal will", what is individual ...

Does this mean that it has no effect? No ! Only that any cause also has effects other than those sought as for transfusions.

Certainly, but as usual, Janic sausages everything and forgets to see the overall plan, which means that for this case, he puts his finger in the eye a little, since he described the diagram very much higher of the biological response which I noted was similar to the stress response ... One more contradiction, sorry.

So please do not make a new "poem" on the above. Because having to justify ourselves doesn't always grow us.

Expressing a point of view (this is not a dogma) absolutely does not require justification, it will be shared or not and that's it. After everyone to deepen or stop there; to each his path

I don't really feel like sharing, but yes, somewhere dogma is not far when we talk to some ardent defenders of vegetarianism

Well, at the end Janic complains of personal attacks. I don't see which ones, on the other hand I notice that almost systematically, he doesn't see the appearance of a post that proves him wrong. But invariably sausage to tackle points of detail, ignoring the overall logic (since obviously it proves it wrong) that yes it is humiliating and contemptuous! And it doesn't make much sense to do that, It proves that we don't have a solid argument.

[Obamot]

As an example, Janic dissects the Kousmine method in an unfair way:

So for example, concrete case:
http://www.kousmine.com/lecancer.htm

"The measures I advocate usually do not start to work for about two months, and only develop their full effect after two years."

For us the effects from 2 months or less remain permanent "in our way"

"If the cancer diagnosed is surgical, and the patient's condition is good enough, it should be operated on and if necessary, irradiate it to obtain the time necessary for the correction of what it is agreed to call its ground. "

In natural medicine no question, it is an evil for an apparent "good".

"If the patient is in poor condition, it is preferable to prepare him for the operation for a few weeks or months by applying the measures described. It is then observed that the tumor stops growing, sometimes even decreases in size, l general condition improves and the outcome of the delayed operation or radiation therapy may be excellent. "

which shows the effectiveness of the vegetarian "diet".

2 °) FOOD TREATMENT OF EVOLVING GROWTH
*** Diet intensive detoxification over 3 weeks:
1 ° WEEK: Exclusive fruit diet.
Fresh fruit and freshly squeezed fruit juice, taken in several small meals throughout the day.
2 ° WEEK: Exclusive raw diet.
Three meals spread over the day, composed only of raw food: fresh fruit, fruit juice, dried fruit, oil seeds, ground and raw cereals, honey, pollen, raw egg yolk, raw milk, yogurts, raw vegetables and oils of first cold pressing. In the morning: BUDWIG cream, and 150 grams of fruit - Lunch: raw vegetables topped with virgin oil, a teaspoon of raw ground cereals, cottage cheese and egg yolk

- Okay so far except cottage cheese, milk, yogurt and egg yolk.
- Evening meal: Dried fruits, honey, pollen

3rd WEEK: Enlargement
Cooked cereals and cooked vegetables are added once a day.
The purpose of this diet is to rapidly modify the intestinal flora.
Follow a strict meat-free diet.
These three weeks are followed by a diet without strict meat for the next 2 to 3 months.

For us, meat being one of the main causes of cancer and its recurrences, we can only agree!
***

Daily rectal enemas.
The rectal enemas will be daily for 8 to 10 days, followed systematically by instillation of 60 cc of warm virgin sunflower oil. Then the enemas will be continued at the rate of 3 times a week, then 2 times a week, until stabilization.

Colon enemas can also be replaced by saline purges and will gain in efficiency and reduction of time with an adapted fast.

Intensification of vitamin therapy.
The increased need for various vitamins necessitates the use of injectable vitamins for daily injections.

There is no agreement either, in hygiene.

But, and this is where the difference is made, as a doctor she is under the obligation (moral, since a doctor is not under the physical obligation to obtain a result) to obtain a result expected by the patient, not necessarily inclined to change his lifestyle.
on the other hand, a naturopathic hygienist can afford to refuse an ordinary patient who does not adopt the proposed approach. However naturopaths generally intervene after the usual medical failures (therefore already very late) and may not want to assume the disadvantages of these previous therapies because if there is failure, it is they who are considered the culprits.
So its "treatment" with a few "details" is consistent with what we recommend including a strict vegetarianism for at least 3 months. Common sense should make you react! If this method proves effective over 3 months: why should it not be effective over a lifetime? Where would the contraindication and its potential harms be?
Geoffroy, founder of La Vie Claire, wrote in his literature and partly taking up Carton and others: "the patient's diet intended to restore his health should be that of the healthy so as not to fall ill »

Because to be taken globally, after individual examination, of course!

It's sausage without tail or head, without taking into account the whole!

What Janic does and how he does it: no sense!

His central reasoning confines him to paralogism!

Pity !

[Janic]

obamot hello

Because to be taken globally, after individual examination, of course!

It's sausage without tail or head, without taking into account the whole!

What Janic does and how he does it: makes no sense!

His central reasoning confines him to paralogism!

Pity !

please (but you may not like it) stop lashing out at the individual. I express ideas, points of view, I attack no one, neither you, nor Kousmine, try to do the same.

Because to be taken globally, after individual examination, of course!

an individual examination will not tell the future, at most the validity of what just happened!

Then Janic (who is only a copy of a set) is based on practice not on theory! The only way to VERIFY it is to extend beyond three months, it is simple common sense level CM1. If it is only a paralogism, it will collapse all by itself, otherwise it will confirm the merits of what is advanced.
However, for the moment, you (Kousmine) seem to consider that a period of 3 months is sufficient for a whole life ... as a diet then? VG hygienism (not janic) supports the opposite, through experience and experience! (Therefore no cancer at all throughout life)
Finally, it is to consider, a priori, that all cases that do not go through Kousmine are nonsense even when in the eyes of school medicine it is the views of the latter that are paralogisms. Question of perspective!
So: either its method is verified in the real world and basta for these pseudo paralogisms or else it takes its bladders for lanterns and VG hygienism too!
However, I suppose that it is based on a significant number of cases ... and VG hygienism the same! White cap, white cap!

Janic wrote:
Scientific evidence ... this comes after the fact. They confirm or invalidate the experience. Kousmine's approach is essentially based on 19th century hygienism at a time when scientific evidence was reduced to its "simplest expression" and therefore only confirmed an already existing reality.

If Janic means by that that the Kousmine method should be shelved because it worked in the 19th century, even before it was developed ... then he is very badly off! This is totally false, but possibly not on the question of the “terrain”. But that does not change other method => draw !!!

I seem to speak in Javanese! Not only is the Kousmine method not to be scrapped, but it confirms this "instinctive" hygiene. So don't make me say what I didn't say, quite the contrary. For the field, she uses Claude Bernard's formula " the germ is nothing the field is everything "In opposition to Pasteur and his discourse on microbes and therefore this formula is taken up by the whole of hygienism whose Kousmin.

Indeed, the human organism was not very different in the XIXth century than today ... So firstly, it changes absolutely nothing - neither does it validate its speech, nor invalidate it - So zero everywhere, the ball in the center ...

Totally agree ! we can even say that the human organism has been the same since the beginning of time and has not changed a bit: frugivorous / granivorous and not omnipresent.

The only difference is that what we know scientifically since Kousmine, even if we knew it empirically before, we didn't have proof! And that changes everything, because we have a solid base of work ...!

Always agree, with the nuance that the interpretation evidence is also subjective, if only by the selection made of it.
Example vaccinations or AIDS / hiv! There is evidence presented by the pros, there is other evidence presented by the cons: what is the good evidence? Ditto for any subject with its eternal: " it has not been proven scientifically than… As if saying scientifically, it was the messiah!

Because indeed, she discovered it in her laboratory: I leave it to Janic to guess how ... It would be a lot of fun for me to tell us since he claims to have read it ...

My name is Kim Peek, capable of remembering 12.000 works, I am just me and I do not remember EVERYTHING I read 20/30 years ago! But since you're a fan of Kousmine, I'm listening. (On the other hand I read Seignalet and his 3rd medicine more recently, if there are differences? And he is medoc, medoc! Normal it is a medicThis reminds me of a documentary on ancestral methods of care in orient with acupuncture, herbal treatment and bone repairers. A young woman (among others) recognized that western medicine obtained faster results, but that it did not hold in time. Westerners always in a hurry putting the cart before the horse! !!

[Obamot]

Janic diced in twenty paralogisms

Because to be taken globally, after individual examination, of course!

It's sausage without tail or head, without taking into account the whole!

What Janic does and how he does it: makes no sense!

His central reasoning confines him to paralogism!

Pity !

please (but you may not like it) stop lashing out at the individual.

It is however not complicated, if one denounces the propensity of Janic to do in the fallacy, one is accused "lash out at the individual» that's it for the first paralogism...

Janic (who is only a copy of a set) is based on practice not on theory!

Of course, because Janic proceeds like this, he cannot be wrong (or is certainly right, etc ...)!
(2nd paralogism)

The only way to VERIFY it is to extend beyond three months, it is simple common sense level CM1.

Another implication (3rd paralogism, because no no and no there are many other data to this equation, unless we stop in CM1 )

If it’s just a paralogism, it will fall apart,

Yes "if" ... (4th paralogism, because in the case of Steve Jobs, and many others, it was death)

otherwise it will confirm the merits of what is advanced.

(5nd paralogism, well no: and it's so Manichean ... pfff)

However, for the moment, you (Kousmine) seem to consider that a period of 3 months is sufficient for a whole life ... as a diet then?

(6nd paralogism, well no, it depends on what should apply ... pfff)

VG hygienism (not janic) supports the opposite, through experience and experience! (therefore no cancer at all throughout life)

(7nd paralogism, ottoman, ottoman, ottoman ... and Janic would still like to "partition" ... pfff)

Finally, it is to consider, a priori, that all cases that do not go through Kousmine are nonsense even when in the eyes of school medicine it is the views of the latter that are paralogisms. Question of perspective!

(8nd paralogism, well no, it has nothing to do with a question of "needs", and that's the same for everyone)

So: either its method is verified in the real world and basta for these pseudo paralogisms or else it takes its bladders for lanterns and VG hygienism too!

(9nd paralogism, it's either one ... or the other ... and blah-blah-blah)

However, I suppose that it is based on a significant number of cases ... and VG hygienism the same! White cap, white cap!

(10nd paralogism, if VG hygienism does this then ... etc no no and no)

Scientific evidence ... this comes after the fact. They confirm or invalidate the experience. Kousmine's approach is essentially based on 19th century hygienism at a time when scientific evidence was reduced to its "simplest expression" and so have only confirmed an already existing reality.

(11nd paralogism, if ... then: Janic still doesn't prove anything!)

I seem to speak in Javanese!

Stop there then

Not only is the Kousmine method not to be scrapped, but it confirms this "instinctive" hygiene.

(if ... so that would validate the rest: 12th paralogism)

So, don't make me say what I didn't say, on the contrary.

Double paralogism, because besides you are master of making others say what they did not want to say ...

For the field, she uses Claude Bernard's formula " the germ is nothing the field is everything "In opposition to Pasteur and his discourse on microbes and therefore this formula is taken up by the whole of hygienism whose Kousmin.

(False: 15th paralogism)

Indeed, the human organism was not very different in the XIXth century than today ... So firstly, it changes absolutely nothing - neither does it validate its speech, nor invalidate it - So zero everywhere, the ball in the center ...

Totally agree ! we can even say that the human organism has been the same since the beginning of time and has not changed a bit: frugivorous / granivorous and not omnipresent.

(Double paralogism: as soon as man eats meat - and he eats it - he is de facto omni ... and the rest is only a hypothesis, because great apes eat insects ...)

The only difference is that what we know scientifically since Kousmine, even if we knew it empirically before, we didn't have proof! And that changes everything, because we have a solid base of work ...!

Always agree, with the nuance that the interpretation evidence is also subjective, if only by the selection made of it.

(18nd paralogism: we take this to demonstrate this ... it continues ... pfff: no, it changes everything, because we know "just a little better" where we are going, period)

Example vaccinations or AIDS / hiv! There is evidence presented by the pros, there is other evidence presented by the cons: what is the good evidence?

wow, well bein ... where are yours?

Ditto for any subject with its eternal: " it has not been proven scientifically than… As if saying scientifically, it was the messiah!

Perhaps possibly proven on specific points, as for the whole, it is another pair of handles! On the other hand, the scientific approach greatly avoids entering paralogism ...

Because indeed, she discovered it in her laboratory: I leave it to Janic to guess how ... It would be a lot of fun for me to tell us since he claims to have read it ...

My name is Kim Peek, capable of remembering 12.000 works, I am just me and I do not remember EVERYTHING I read 20/30 years ago! But since you're a fan of Kousmine, I'm listening.

The proof that you practice the syllogism, since you have clear opinions on a subject that you do not know! (Or in any case very badly)

(On the other hand I read Seignalet and his 3rd medicine more recently, if there are differences? And he is medoc, medoc!

Mwouais, however he is very VG him, right?
For the conclusion you give, you often confuse the preventive vs therapeutic approach (therefore 19th paralogism)!

Normal it's a doctor

(so 20th paralogism) and paf, this is a BIG fat!

Here it reminds me of a documentary on the ancestral methods of care in the Orient with acupuncture, care by plants and bonesetters. One young woman (among others) recognized that Western medicine had faster results, but that it didn't last. Westerners always in a hurry putting the cart before the horse!

It is not false.

[Janic]

we can toy like that for a long time and find paralogisms or supposed such in all speeches. So I stop there, the reader to form his own idea.

[Obamot]

There i agree

It is from / the argumentum ad hominem / (precisely what you practiced from the beginning if you read again, in this kind of game not very user-friendly not to take into account the general direction of the posts, by wanting to delete as well their overall logic)

It shows you how patient we were