From: Peter Bowditch on
awthrawthr(a)gmail.com wrote:

>On Sep 27, 11:57�pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
>> "Carole" <hub...(a)iimetro.com.au> wrote:
>> >One can only speculate why the germ theory of disease took off like it did.
>>
>> No speculation necessary.
>>
>> When you have two competing theories and one is supported by evidence
>> and the other is not, then the one with the evidence wins. In this
>> case there wasn't any real competition between theories, because one
>> was never going to become more than a hypothesis.
>>
>> One can only speculate why the heliocentric theory of planetary motion
>> took off like it did.
>>
>> --

>Bechamp is validated by the Grayfield Optical Ergonom 500 microscope,
>which shows living viruses in action. Scroll down to see the two
>videos on "Humoral pathology" and "Symbiosis or Parasitism":
>
>http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/online_videos.html

Bechamp cannot be validated by any virus. Remember, it's all in the
soil, not the germs.

BTW, I loved the Photoshopped slide comparison photographs. It takes
some real skill with the fingers to look at a slide in two different
microscopes and get the same field of view to within half a wavelength
of light in all directions.

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
From: Carole on

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:mau0e4hnqeh9e5gbff2f2ps1132gk6i9g0(a)4ax.com...
> awthrawthr(a)gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Sep 27, 11:57 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
>>> "Carole" <hub...(a)iimetro.com.au> wrote:
>>> >One can only speculate why the germ theory of disease took off like it
>>> >did.
>>>
>>> No speculation necessary.
>>>
>>> When you have two competing theories and one is supported by evidence
>>> and the other is not, then the one with the evidence wins. In this
>>> case there wasn't any real competition between theories, because one
>>> was never going to become more than a hypothesis.
>>>
>>> One can only speculate why the heliocentric theory of planetary motion
>>> took off like it did.
>>>
>>> --
>
>>Bechamp is validated by the Grayfield Optical Ergonom 500 microscope,
>>which shows living viruses in action. Scroll down to see the two
>>videos on "Humoral pathology" and "Symbiosis or Parasitism":
>>
>>http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/online_videos.html
>
> Bechamp cannot be validated by any virus. Remember, it's all in the
> soil, not the germs.

The germs / microbes/ viruses /bacteria mutate into deadlier forms a toxic
environment.

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

carole
www.cellsalts.net


>
> BTW, I loved the Photoshopped slide comparison photographs. It takes
> some real skill with the fingers to look at a slide in two different
> microscopes and get the same field of view to within half a wavelength
> of light in all directions.
>
> --
> Peter Bowditch aa #2243
> The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
> Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
> Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
> To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com


From: Peter Bowditch on
awthrawthr(a)gmail.com wrote:

>On Sep 29, 1:48�am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
>> awthraw...(a)gmail.com wrote:
>> >On Sep 27, 11:57�pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
>> >> "Carole" <hub...(a)iimetro.com.au> wrote:
>> >> >One can only speculate why the germ theory of disease took off like it did.
>>
>> >> No speculation necessary.
>>
>> >> When you have two competing theories and one is supported by evidence
>> >> and the other is not, then the one with the evidence wins. In this
>> >> case there wasn't any real competition between theories, because one
>> >> was never going to become more than a hypothesis.
>>
>> >> One can only speculate why the heliocentric theory of planetary motion
>> >> took off like it did.
>>
>> >> --
>> >Bechamp is validated by the Grayfield Optical Ergonom 500 microscope,
>> >which shows living viruses in action. Scroll down to see the two
>> >videos on "Humoral pathology" and "Symbiosis or Parasitism":
>>
>> >http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/online_videos.html
>>
>> Bechamp cannot be validated by any virus. Remember, it's all in the
>> soil, not the germs.
>
>The Ergonom 500 microscope can see living viruses which gives it an
>advantage when looking at bacteria because there are a series of steps
>where the virus transforms into a bacteria WHICH CAN BE SEEN ON
>THROUGH THE MICROSCOPE.

I repeat - according to Bechamp's fanboys, viruses and bacteria mean
nothing, because "the soil is everything". If someone is seeing a
virus transmuting into a completely different form of life, a
bacterium, then that person is either mistaken or delusional.

>>
>> BTW, I loved the Photoshopped slide comparison photographs. It takes
>> some real skill with the fingers to look at a slide in two different
>> microscopes and get the same field of view to within half a wavelength
>> of light in all directions.
>
>The Grayfield Optical company sells their high priced microscopes to
>companies who have found their devices to be useful and effective.
>They provide a competitive advantage to those who buy them.

My local crack dealer sells his highly priced product to people who
have found the product to be useful and effective.

Did you know that there was an application for the iPhone called "I am
rich" which did nothing except display the words "I am rich" on the
screen? It cost $1000.

>
>Of course to cross-eyed bastards the things are a hoax.

The thing is a hoax to anyone with a smattering of scientific
education.

All of which has nothing to do with "Proof that bechamp's soil theory
is correct - out with the germ theory".

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
From: Peter Bowditch on
awthrawthr(a)gmail.com wrote:

>On Sep 29, 3:29�pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
>> awthraw...(a)gmail.com wrote:
>> >On Sep 29, 1:48�am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
>> >> awthraw...(a)gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >On Sep 27, 11:57�pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "Carole" <hub...(a)iimetro.com.au> wrote:
>> >> >> >One can only speculate why the germ theory of disease took off like it did.
>>
>> >> >> No speculation necessary.
>>
>> >> >> When you have two competing theories and one is supported by evidence
>> >> >> and the other is not, then the one with the evidence wins. In this
>> >> >> case there wasn't any real competition between theories, because one
>> >> >> was never going to become more than a hypothesis.
>>
>> >> >> One can only speculate why the heliocentric theory of planetary motion
>> >> >> took off like it did.
>>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >Bechamp is validated by the Grayfield Optical Ergonom 500 microscope,
>> >> >which shows living viruses in action. Scroll down to see the two
>> >> >videos on "Humoral pathology" and "Symbiosis or Parasitism":
>>
>> >> >http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/online_videos.html
>>
>> >> Bechamp cannot be validated by any virus. Remember, it's all in the
>> >> soil, not the germs.
>>
>> >The Ergonom 500 microscope can see living viruses which gives it an
>> >advantage when looking at bacteria because there are a series of steps
>> >where the virus transforms into a bacteria WHICH CAN BE SEEN ON
>> >THROUGH THE MICROSCOPE.
>>
>> I repeat - according to Bechamp's fanboys, viruses and bacteria mean
>> nothing, because "the soil is everything". If someone is seeing a
>> virus transmuting into a completely different form of life, a
>> bacterium, then that person is either mistaken or delusional.
>
>As one can easily see confirmed on the Ergonom 500 microscope video on
>Humoral pathology, the terrain is what determines the activity of the
>microbes.

Like I said - anyone seeing viruses transmuting to bacteria is either
mistaken or delusional. Add lying to those possibilities.

>
>> >> BTW, I loved the Photoshopped slide comparison photographs. It takes
>> >> some real skill with the fingers to look at a slide in two different
>> >> microscopes and get the same field of view to within half a wavelength
>> >> of light in all directions.
>>
>> >The Grayfield Optical company sells their high priced microscopes to
>> >companies who have found their devices to be useful and effective.
>> >They provide a competitive advantage to those who buy them.
>>
>> My local crack dealer sells his highly priced product to people who
>> have found the product to be useful and effective.
>>
>> Did you know that there was an application for the iPhone called "I am
>> rich" which did nothing except display the words "I am rich" on the
>> screen? It cost $1000.
>
>That's nice [end sarcasm]....comparing a scientific microscope, that
>is used in industry, to crack dealing and vanity fads. That makes a
>lot of sense [more sarcasm.] By the way, do you know the name of your
>local crack dealer...it appears you do.

He used to sell microscopes that defy the laws of physics, but he
decided to get a more reputable job.

>
>> >Of course to cross-eyed bastards the things are a hoax.
>>
>> The thing is a hoax to anyone with a smattering of scientific
>> education.
>
>Afraid you're wrong there, because the microscope is selling...selling
>to those with PhD's in research. In other words, your claim is
>baseless.

Like I said, people paid good money for the "I am rich" iPhone app.
Like Joseph Bessimer said: "There's a sucker born every minute".

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
From: Peter Bowditch on
awthrawthr(a)gmail.com wrote:

>On Sep 29, 9:22�pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
>> awthraw...(a)gmail.com wrote:
>> >On Sep 29, 3:29�pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
>> >> awthraw...(a)gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >On Sep 29, 1:48�am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
>> >> >> awthraw...(a)gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >On Sep 27, 11:57�pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Carole" <hub...(a)iimetro.com.au> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >One can only speculate why the germ theory of disease took off like it did.
>>
>> >> >> >> No speculation necessary.
>>
>> >> >> >> When you have two competing theories and one is supported by evidence
>> >> >> >> and the other is not, then the one with the evidence wins. In this
>> >> >> >> case there wasn't any real competition between theories, because one
>> >> >> >> was never going to become more than a hypothesis.
>>
>> >> >> >> One can only speculate why the heliocentric theory of planetary motion
>> >> >> >> took off like it did.
>>
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >Bechamp is validated by the Grayfield Optical Ergonom 500 microscope,
>> >> >> >which shows living viruses in action. Scroll down to see the two
>> >> >> >videos on "Humoral pathology" and "Symbiosis or Parasitism":
>>
>> >> >> >http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/online_videos.html
>>
>> >> >> Bechamp cannot be validated by any virus. Remember, it's all in the
>> >> >> soil, not the germs.
>>
>> >> >The Ergonom 500 microscope can see living viruses which gives it an
>> >> >advantage when looking at bacteria because there are a series of steps
>> >> >where the virus transforms into a bacteria WHICH CAN BE SEEN ON
>> >> >THROUGH THE MICROSCOPE.
>>
>> >> I repeat - according to Bechamp's fanboys, viruses and bacteria mean
>> >> nothing, because "the soil is everything". If someone is seeing a
>> >> virus transmuting into a completely different form of life, a
>> >> bacterium, then that person is either mistaken or delusional.
>>
>> >As one can easily see confirmed on the Ergonom 500 microscope video on
>> >Humoral pathology, the terrain is what determines the activity of the
>> >microbes.
>>
>>Like I said - anyone seeing viruses transmuting to bacteria is either
>>mistaken or delusional. Add lying to those possibilities.
>
>Repeating your ignorance doesn't transmute it into wisdom.

Yet you continue to do it. Why?

>
>> >> >> BTW, I loved the Photoshopped slide comparison photographs. It takes
>> >> >> some real skill with the fingers to look at a slide in two different
>> >> >> microscopes and get the same field of view to within half a wavelength
>> >> >> of light in all directions.
>>
>> >> >The Grayfield Optical company sells their high priced microscopes to
>> >> >companies who have found their devices to be useful and effective.
>> >> >They provide a competitive advantage to those who buy them.
>>
>> >> My local crack dealer sells his highly priced product to people who
>> >> have found the product to be useful and effective.
>>
>> >> Did you know that there was an application for the iPhone called "I am
>> >> rich" which did nothing except display the words "I am rich" on the
>> >> screen? It cost $1000.
>>
>> >That's nice [end sarcasm]....comparing a scientific microscope, that
>> >is used in industry, to crack dealing and vanity fads. That makes a
>> >lot of sense [more sarcasm.] By the way, do you know the name of your
>> >local crack dealer...it appears you do.
>>
>>He used to sell microscopes that defy the laws of physics, but he
>>decided to get a more reputable job.
>
>Gosh, you're really adding a lot to this conversation.

You asked, I answered. Apparently someone offered him a job selling
cancer cures discovered by someone called Revici (I think), but again
he wanted a job which didn't make his mother feel too ashamed.

>
>> >> >Of course to cross-eyed bastards the things are a hoax.
>>
>> >> The thing is a hoax to anyone with a smattering of scientific
>> >> education.
>>
>> >Afraid you're wrong there, because the microscope is selling...selling
>> >to those with PhD's in research. In other words, your claim is
>> >baseless.
>>
>>Like I said, people paid good money for the "I am rich" iPhone app.
>>Like Joseph Bessimer said: "There's a sucker born every minute".
>
>Like I said, repeating your ignorance doesn't transform it into
>wisdom.
>Large institutions would not be purchasing the microscopes if they did
>not perform as advertised. They would have been sued for fraud long
>ago.

Why would the deceived purchasers be sued for fraud? The fraud is
being committed by the vendors, not the buyers.

>
>But their microscopes do perform as advertised. Sure that sucks for
>you. But it's good for society.

So when can I expect my local cytology pathology lab to get one? The
man who trains the staff to use microscopes is hanging out for one
which breaks the laws of physics.

And again I must express my delight at the Photoshop work that
produced those comparison slide images. I believe the word is
chutzpah.


--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com