From: marcia on

Jan Drew wrote:
> > Jan Drew wrote:
>
> SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT
>
> 183 A.D.2d 282; 590 N.Y.S.2d 747
>
> November 9, 1992, Decided

Didn't you post all of that yesterday?

I really don't understand why you think it's appropriate to publish
this information. It's completely irrelevent to any current topic.

My observation is that Mark has stopped attacking you. You, on the
other hand, appear to be stalking him. What happened to live & let live?

From: marcia on

Jan Drew wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <markprobert(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> > Once again, Jan, you provide the proof that you are stalking, harassing
> > and annoying me.
>
> If your past behavior annoys you...you have yourself to blame.
> >
> >>
> >> Sad he could not win a case in court... then was dishonest and disbarred.
> >
> > Once again, Jan, you provide the proof that you are stalking, harassing
> > and annoying me.
>
> If your past behavior annoys you...you have yourself to blame.
>
> Your present behavior shows you have not learned a thing.


Jan, this is really obnoxious behavior and doesn't reflect well on you.
For someone who purports to be a Christian, you seem to be having a
tough time with the basic tennets of the religion. Maybe you should
stop harrassing other people and reflect on your own shortcomings for a
change.

From: Jan Drew on

"marcia" <design1(a)insight.rr.com> wrote
>
> Jan Drew wrote:
>> "Mark Probert" <markprobert(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
>> > Once again, Jan, you provide the proof that you are stalking, harassing
>> > and annoying me.
>>
>> If your past behavior annoys you...you have yourself to blame.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Sad he could not win a case in court... then was dishonest and
>> >> disbarred.
>> >
>> > Once again, Jan, you provide the proof that you are stalking, harassing
>> > and annoying me.
>>
>> If your past behavior annoys you...you have yourself to blame.
>>
>> Your present behavior shows you have not learned a thing.
>
>
> Jan, this is really obnoxious behavior and doesn't reflect well on you.
> For someone who purports to be a Christian, you seem to be having a
> tough time with the basic tennets of the religion. Maybe you should
> stop harrassing other people and reflect on your own shortcomings for a
> change.

If you find posting the *truth* is obnoxious, you must have a problem.

Evidently, you prefer to overlook LIES. I don't. That is indeed...
Christian.

I have not harassed, I have posted the truth.



From: marcia on

Jan Drew wrote:
> "marcia" <design1(a)insight.rr.com> wrote
>
> If you find posting the *truth* is obnoxious, you must have a problem.
>
> Evidently, you prefer to overlook LIES. I don't. That is indeed...
> Christian.
>
> I have not harassed, I have posted the truth.


Oh, the bible teaches you to persecute people?

From: Rich on

"Max C." <maxc246(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147638272.875718.68650(a)u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Rich wrote:
>> For the most part, the "killed soil" theory is a marketing claim of the
>> supplement pushers. Soils that are deficient in plant nutrients produce
>> stunted plants with poor product yields, so farmers are careful to
>> correct
>> soil deficits.
>
> Feel free to attempt to back that up with some evidence. Good luck,
> though, because it's 100% wrong. Farmers can get very high crop yields
> using the standard NPK farming method. That doesn't mean that the
> crops contain the amount of nutrients they could in properly treated
> soil. It also doesn't mean those plants will have the trace minerals
> they should. Unlike farmers of yesteryear, today's farmers are content
> to grow the same crops on the same pieces of land year after year.
> Since certain crops need certain nutrients more than others, it's not
> hard to understand why those nutrients would be depleted from the soil
> if the crops weren't rotated. Additionally, the *ideal* rotation is to
> rotate crops with livestock... allowing the livestock to graze in a
> field one or two years, adding beneficial fecal matter back into the
> soil. The use of certain chemicals also kills off the bacteria living
> in the soil that aid in the soil's ability to provide nutrients to
> plants. This concept can be seen by anyone willing to test the theory
> as I have myself. Get 2 sets of plants. Water one set with tap water
> and the other set with filtered water... making sure the chlorine has
> been removed. Time after time you will see that the filtered water
> plants will grow much better.

No farmers water their fields with chlorinated water. You do not have to
graze animals on a field to return their organic matter to the soil. I've
spent many an hour on a tractor pulling a manure spreader. Also, when you
send a soil sample to a soil testing facility, you get much more than NPK
data; trace elements are analysed as well. Don't insult farmers by assuming
that they are ignorant of the plant nutrients in their soils . . . they know
a lot more about such things than you.



>
> But never mind my experiences... as they are only anecdotal. How about
> NASA's take on it?
>
> http://soil.gsfc.nasa.gov/fss/soilquar.htm
> "The second sign of physical deterioration in the conventionally
> cultivated soil is in the color of the soil. Darkness in color of a
> soil usually represents the presence of organic matter, which is good
> for the soil as it allows the soil to absorb water, improves soil
> structure, and adds more natural nutrients to the soil which allow for
> plant growth. In comparison to the composted and the forested soils,
> the conventionally cultivated soil is the lightest in color- a 10YR4/4,
> as determined by the Munsell Soil Color Book."

Farmers know all about organic matter. They wade through it every day. The
supplement pushers want to villianize farmers to promote the idea that foods
are no good anymore so you have to buy their scam products. In actual fact,
the modern farmer is not the bumpkin of TV fiction, but is an educated
businessman, scientist, and engineer rolled into one.




>
> I highly recommend the rest of that article.
>
>> The article quotes "a recent U.S. study," but does not provide a
>> referrence
>> or link. Without any way to validate the authority of this claimed study,
>> one must conclude the claims are bullshit.
>
> Well, it took me all of 2 minutes to find it. It's interesting to me
> that you'd rather spend 2 seconds to call it "bullshit" than 2 minutes
> to find something that could possibly have a profound impact on your
> life. It speaks volumes of your position and reason for being here.
>
>> Even if this were true, which I doubt, any needs for supplementation
>> would
>> be more than met by taking a cheap daily vitamin from the local drug
>> store
>> without consulting any altie quacks or buying expensive products from
>> scam
>> internet sources.
>
> I couldn't disagree with you more. Cheap multi vitamins are synthetic
> fractions of entire vitamin complexes. Many of them aren't even used
> properly by the body. Evidence of this is obvious by taking a
> synthetic B vitamin and watching your urine turn neon yellow. When I
> take Standard Process's B complex vitamin, I see no change in urine
> color.
>
> Add to that the fact that even *IF* the body can use a specific
> fractionated vitamin in the multi, it will be far less effective and
> beneficial to the body than a food-based supplement containing entire
> complexes. Take this study for example:

Once again, why take a "food based" supplement when you can get all the
nutrients you need directly from real food?


>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12008112&dopt=Abstract
>
> The final sentence of the abstract says this:
> "In well-nourished human volunteers, fruits and vegetables have been
> shown to decrease oxidative DNA damage in several studies, but data
> from short-term human intervention studies suggest that the protective
> agents are not vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, or flavonoids."
>
> Now how could that be? Aren't vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene and
> flavonoids beneficial? The answer is that, as in so many other
> studies, when you artificially separate out individual components from
> the complex in which they belong in order to study that component, you
> destroy the natural potency of the complex. Even if you were to
> recombine them, they would never be as potent as they were before
> separation. As Dr. Royal Lee was so fond of saying, you can give a
> chemist a watch. He can break it open, grind it in his mortar and
> analyze its individual compounds and tell you what ingredients were
> used to make that watch, but he will never be able to make it a
> functioning timepiece again. It has been broken.

So? The supplement industry is taking the watch apart, too. Eat your
vegetables.



>
> The same is true with functioning nutrients. This is especially true
> of enzymes. To my knowledge, humans have not been able to destroy an
> enzyme and then chemically rebuild it. Nor have we been able to
> reproduce the complex mechanisms built in to the nutrients of our food.
> We have successfully created synthetic fractions of many vitamins, but
> most of those fractions are limited to the antioxidant portion of said
> vitamin complex. As such, they are inferior to food-based vitamin
> supplements.

All the more reason to get your vitamins from foods.




>
>> >> > Are you saying the chiropractors are scam
>> >> > artists?
>> >>
>> >> The premises that spinal misalignment is the cause of disease and that
>> >> "adjustments" are necessary to health, or that a chiropractor is an
>> >> alternative choice for a family physician are false and dangerous.
>> >
>> > I agree with the second, but not the first. The use of chiropractics
>> > in the treatment of neurodegenerative disease is not well understood,
>> > so there's no way your first statement could be documented to be
>> > absolute. Take this link, for example:
>> >
>> > http://nccam.nih.gov/training/centers/descriptions.htm#chiropractic
>> > "The long-range goal of this Developmental Center for Research on CAM
>> > is to improve understanding of the clinical role and mechanisms of
>> > action of chiropractic spinal manipulation. Three preclinical projects
>> > will explore the mechanisms underlying chiropractic manipulation,
>> > studying its biological effects on nerve regulation, biomechanics and
>> > joints, as well as its effects on behavior. A fourth project will
>> > explore variables that predict clinical effectiveness of spinal
>> > manipulation in patients with lower back pain. Investigators will use
>> > pilot data obtained with the support of this three-year award to submit
>> > competitive grant applications to the National Institutes of Health,
>> > and will provide research training experiences for future CAM
>> > investigators. The Center will build on the progress made at the
>> > NCCAM-supported Consortial Center for Chiropractic Research at Palmer
>> > Center for Chiropractic Research."
>> >
>> > That page was last modified yesterday, so I doubt the data from said
>> > study is available. It's evidence that spinal misalignment could
>> > possibly be the cause of some diseases. I suppose we'll just have to
>> > wait and see.
>>
>> I have a paraplegic friend who wins wheelchair marathons. Try to tell him
>> he's not healthy because his spine is out of alignment.
>
> Hmmm... I believe if I were Mark Probert, right about here I'd have to
> start screaming "Strawman." I never said you can't be healthy without
> a chiropractor. That would be absurd, as chiropractic is a relatively
> new idea to the human race. It's right above, but let me say it again
> : "It's evidence that spinal misalignment could possibly be the cause
> of some diseases." Since I don't know your "friend" I can't possibly
> comment on his scenario, nor would I want to, since I have no way of
> knowing he exists. Funny how you pro-med guys are constantly resorting
> to anecdotal evidence to try to prove a point, but then scream bloody
> murder if an "altie" tries to do so.

I'm not making scientific medical claims and then supporting them with
anecdote. Anecdote is useful for illustration; it's just not good scientific
evidence, and testimonials are not good reasons to buy products or services.
Alties' anecdotes are nearly always for the purpose of selling something.




>
>> > Fair enough, but I question the methods often required to show proof.
>> > Just because a given treatment does not have an associated double
>> > blinded, placebo controlled study to validate it does not mean it's
>> > invalid. In fact, a double blinded, placebo controlled study can often
>> > be misleading, since every single human study on the planet is
>> > multifaceted by the very nature of studying humans. We're not rats
>> > isolated in a cage, and it's very difficult, if not impossible to make
>> > 100% sure all variables are accounted for in ANY long-term study.
>>
>> Science is not perfect, and of course there is a vast unknown. But
>> science
>> has proven to be the most effective and efficient way of knowing. Any
>> "knowledge" you internalize without the benefit of science is suspect,
>> and
>> you should be ready to discard it the instant scientific evidence becomes
>> available. By the way, "double blinded placebo controlled" studies are
>> not
>> the only methods of modern science. In fact that modality is generally
>> only
>> used to test the effectiveness of medications. There is a lot more to
>> science than that.
>
> Well, I think we can rest assured that we agree 100% on that last
> paragraph.
>
> My problem with science these days is the way it's used to twist the
> truth. I'll give you a perfect example. You may or may not be
> familiar with this page:
>
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/ak.html
>
> I'll be the first to admit that Applied Kinesiology is one step shy of
> voodoo. Science may NEVER be able to explain some of the things AKers
> have been able to accomplish. I have dozens of personal experiences
> that boggle the mind. However, while Stephen Barrett appears to use
> scientific means to discredit the entire idea of AK, he lacks the
> scientific principles to accept a challenge to his position. True
> science can't explain how AK works, but it can certainly be used to
> VERIFY it works, and such has already been done. Dozens, if not
> hundreds of studies have been performed in an attempt to not only prove
> AK works, but to understand HOW it works. Anyone interested in
> researching it for themselves can start here:
>
> http://icak.com/college/research/icak_compendium_030406.shtml
>
> The International College of Applied Kinesiology has written Barrett in
> a good faith effort to debate him on the claims on his site. To my
> understanding, Barrett has never replied, much less had the courage to
> publicly debate the issue. That's not science. That's junk science.
> At times I feel there's more junk science going around today than real
> science. After all, someone has to PAY for science.
>
> Max.
>