The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Lorddave on August 25, 2010, 01:35:05 PM
-
To keep the repository clear, I shall debate the topic here...
(original topic)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=41849.0
This book superbly and clearly summarizes many of the intrinsic characteristic truths of ancient and medieval wordlviews which occultism and atheism under the cover of modern science and artificial respectability has sought to annihilate from man's knowledge and understanding. Knowledge of the themes discussed in this book is a worthwhile asset to anyone interested in a traditional flat earth model of the cosmos.
The 4 humors of the human body. How is that an amazing truth of ancient and medieval world views with occultism and atheism has sought to destroy? Last time I checked, medical science has cured far more than "the science of the 4 humors" ever did.
Also, does that book tell of how the Roman Catholic Church absolved sins with money? Does it tell of how Witchcraft was responsible for the Black Death?
The people of the middle ages were ignorant and poor. The Thames was polluted with human waste. The city streets were covered in it as well. The nobility had perfume in their handkerchiefs to smell when the odor of the area became too unbearable. The peasants had little rights and even less education. If you wanted to learn to read and weren't rich, you'd have to join the Church. The Middle Ages (or Dark Ages) did more to oppress people and knowledge than any other time period in human history. It's specifically called the Dark Ages because society and science didn't advance.
Frankly, I can't imagine there would be any truth in that book except the truth that people believed what's written in it.
-
I guess that its just overly exaggerated nostalgic cry about old things. People forget old and useless things but some cling to them and are offended when others don't care anymore.
-
Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition
Explanation
An appeal to antiquity is the opposite of an appeal to novelty. Appeals to antiquity assume that older ideas are better, that the fact that an idea has been around for a while implies that it is true. This, of course, is not the case; old ideas can be bad ideas, and new ideas can be good ideas. We therefore can’t learn anything about the truth of an idea just by considering how old it is.
Example
(1) Religion dates back many thousands of years (whereas atheism is a relatively recent development).
Therefore:
(2) Some form of religion is true.
This argument is an appeal to antiquity because the only evidence that it offers in favour of religion is its age. There are many old ideas, of course, that are known to be false: e.g. that the Earth is flat, or that it is the still centre of the solar system. It therefore could be the case that the premise of this argument is true (that religion is older than atheism) but that its conclusion is nevertheless false (that no religion is true). We need a lot more evidence about religion (or any other theory) than how old it is before we can be justified in accepting it as true. Appeals to antiquity are therefore fallacious.
-
I believe that review of how we got here is always worthwhile. We just need to recognize our mistakes. Unlike FEers who hold onto such horrible sources as Rowbotham, we need to see the pattern in our errors and avoid them.
For example, Ichy recently made some obtuse comment that Google maps wasn't accurate. Rather than presenting his evidence, he resorted to taunts. When all was said and done, we found the Ichy had been wrong, again. We need to see the pattern: bad theories are merely speculation and hide in the shadows from the light of evidence. Anteater thinks that he can speculate about the location of Australia and not provide and evidence to support it. When faced with verifiable, objective evidence that he's wrong, he fallaciously attacks the source (in this case Google) instead of verifying the evidence for himself.
I wonder though if FEers are hoping to just confuse others with outdated, invalidated evidence. I remember reading about Rowbotham's inane claim about the distance HMS Challenger traveled around Antarctica. Tom Bishop even took up the same argument in these very forums. Of course, many people many times have pointed out the failure of the FEers here, yet they persist to present their invalidated arguments. I guess you play with a broken bat if that is all you have...
-
The 4 humors of the human body. How is that an amazing truth of ancient and medieval world views with occultism and atheism has sought to destroy? Last time I checked, medical science has cured far more than "the science of the 4 humors" ever did.
Under the cover of capitalist backed modern medicine, occultism and atheism have caused the widespread proliferation of terminal diseases and degenerative illnesses like cancer which were unknown whenever and wherever the four humors philosophy prevailed. Artificial food including chemical agriculture which includes mostly poisons is also part of the science of death which has replaced Hippocratic medicine and natural food.
Modern diagnosis such as cellular diagnosis of disease such as used in a pap smear is inferior to virtually any branch of tradtional four humors medicine. Modern medicine is simply garbage, and thus it goes under cover of mysterious and knowledgeable sounding names such as cytopathology (cellular diagnosis) which most people have to look up in order to know what it means, but complicated words, big buildings, and money do not heal people.
Correct diagnosis and good treatment of a medical condition are what heals people.
Anti-cancer chemical (chemo) therapy consists of inserting poisons into a patient's body in order that the cancer be killed before the body. The principle is the same as chemical agriculture which uses deadly poisons to fight bugs - a modern practice which previous generations found unnecessary. Antibiotics are also poison.
Murder by Injection: The Medical Conspiracy
By Eustace Mullins
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/murderinjection.pdf
This book is a critical history of the American Medical Association from the 1850's to the present and includes chapters on poisonous detriments to health since that time which the AMA has officially introduced to the public with false propaganda that such novelties as mass vaccinations or the insertion of rat poison into tooth paste and water supplies are allegedly healthy.
Louis Pasteur's germ theory is an example of modern medicine's misunderstanding of the body. Pasteur's rival Antoine Beauchamp who both more honest than Pateur and also used a traditional method of pathology (diagnosis) was infinitely Pasteur's superior, but Pasteur made friends with money and his fame spread in concert with the deterioration of medicine.
Pasteur's False Germ Theory
http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/terrain/lost_history_of_medicine.htm
The four humors are a method of pathology (diagnosis) which along with the Hippocratic oath are the central aspect of the greek medicine of Hippocrates. Hippocratic medicine is the basis of Greek, Roman, Arab and Islamic, and renaissance era medicine. It was used in western medicine until the nineteenth century.
The official British and american medical establishments were very corrupt and deadly in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries. Hippocratic greek medicine including humorism was officially eliminated as a practice of diagnosis by the British during the nineteenth century. The very famous herbalist Nicholas Culpeper is the best known doctor of Elizabethan England. He was persecuted as a leftist democrat like the Levelers, and he used Hippocratic medicine and four humors pathology. Culpeper is a landmark of the persistence of ancient medicine in England before its medicine became corrupt like its colonialist politics (which are related). Culpeper's Complete Herbal is probably the most famous herbal in the world.
The Complete Herbal
By Nicholas Culpeper
http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/66/113/frameset.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Culpeper
Neither Ayurvedic medicine nor traditional Chinese medicine have a theory of four humours, but they have good aspects such as the use of herbs. In my opinion, both of these systems do include occult and religious aspects combined with the treatment, especially in Ayurvedic medicine. Traditional Chinese medicine contains less of this except for its focus on "chi" (energy) which, in my opinion, could involve some characteristics inherited from Buddhism involving demons. Any possible negative effects of these two systems is negligible compared to the horrors of modern western medicine. And in any event, neither Ayurveda, TCM, nor modern western medicine involve the four humours.
Hippocratic medicine was preserved most intact by muslims. The Greek medicine of Hippocrates which constitutes the original basis of Islamic medicine. Hippocratic medicine survives most strongly in the branch of of islamic medicine from India known as Unani medicine (Greek medicine). The "medical" branch of British colonialism tried to annihilate this branch of medicine during the nineteenth century.
'Islam and Healing: Loss and Recovery of an Indo-Muslim Medical Tradition, 1600-1900'
By Seema Alevi
http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Healing-Indo-Muslim-Tradition-1600-1900/dp/0230554385/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282816585&sr=1-2
MODERN MEDICAL BOOKS WHICH UTILIZE DIAGNOSIS BY THE FOUR HUMOURS:
The Traditional Healer: A Comprehensive Guide to the Principles and Practice of Unani Herbal Medicine
By Halim Chishti
http://www.amazon.com/Traditional-Healer-Comprehensive-Principles-Practice/dp/0892812257/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282817881&sr=1-2
The Traditonal Healer's Handbook
By Hakim Chishti
http://www.amazon.com/Traditional-Healers-Handbook-Medicine-Avicenna/dp/0892814381/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282816574&sr=1-1
SOME WEBSITES OF GREEK MEDICINE WHICH UTILIZE THE FOUR HUMOURS:
http://www.greekmedicine.net/
http://www.unani.com/
http://www.traditionalmedicine.net.au/
http://www.unanidoctors.com/
Also, does that book tell of how the Roman Catholic Church absolved sins with money?
Does it tell of how Witchcraft was responsible for the Black Death?
I confess I find the setting of the book in seventeenth century england to be rather arbitrary. The various concepts summarized in the book such as the four humors are universal and antedate the simony developed by the frankish papacy.
Witchcraft is a part of the tradition of modern science.
The book does not discuss developments like simony and witchcraft which are opposed to genuine tradition and thus outside the scope of the book which focuses on illuminating truth rather than falsehood. That is aside from the fact that protestant Elizabethan England was very much opposed to the abuses of the papacy.
-
I should add that bleeding is not an aspect of Hippocratic medicine. The pagan physician Galen, who lived many centuries after Hippocrates, did accept the four humours, but he unfortunately introduced the practice of bleeding into Greek and Roman medicine - analogous to how the pagan astronomer Claudius Ptolemy promoted globularism during that same time. This somewhat corrupted medicine of Galen was adopted by the Franks and thus dominated the medieval west. Occultists of sixteenth and seventeenth century Britain also began to add poisons and metals such as mercury and arsenic to the dispensary of traditional herbal medicine. Poisonous metals were used until World War II. The introduction of poisonous metals during the British renaissance constituted the origin of the replacement of natural medicine by artificial chemical medicines which are conventional to the modern western medical establishment.
Thus over time, non-therapeutic and unnecessary elements were gradually added to Hippocratic medicine. These corrupt practices such as bleeding or ingestion mercury were eventually used as part of a pretext for the rejection of the Hippocratic system itself which occurred during the nineteenth century. The truth is that these non-therapeutic practices are essentially akin to modern western medicine as proven by medical history and experience.
-------------------------------------------------
I think this book also illustrates the tenuousness of the idea of rapture theory protestant fundamentalists who think of Elizabethan England as a part of their heritage. England has degenerated considerably since then in order to arrive at such fanatical ideologies as the rapture theory or Darwinism.
-
I should add that bleeding is not an aspect of Hippocratic medicine. The pagan physician Galen, who lived many centuries after Hippocrates, did accept the four humours, but he unfortunately introduced the practice of bleeding into Greek and Roman medicine - analogous to how the pagan astronomer Claudius Ptolemy promoted globularism during that same time.
Not to stray too far off topic, but I just wanted to let you guys know that there are some conditions where bleeding is a legitimate therapy in modern medicine. One of those conditions is called polycythemia. It's a condition where the body makes too many red blood cells. Left untreated, polycythemia can lead to some significant heath issues. However, the preferred treatment is periodic phlebotomy (therapeutic blood donation) when the hemocrit level reaches a certain point.
-
The 4 humors of the human body. How is that an amazing truth of ancient and medieval world views with occultism and atheism has sought to destroy? Last time I checked, medical science has cured far more than "the science of the 4 humors" ever did.
Under the cover of capitalist backed modern medicine, occultism and atheism have caused the widespread proliferation of terminal diseases and degenerative illnesses like cancer which were unknown whenever and wherever the four humors philosophy prevailed. Artificial food including chemical agriculture which includes mostly poisons is also part of the science of death which has replaced Hippocratic medicine and natural food.
Modern diagnosis such as cellular diagnosis of disease such as used in a pap smear is inferior to virtually any branch of tradtional four humors medicine. Modern medicine is simply garbage, and thus it goes under cover of mysterious and knowledgeable sounding names such as cytopathology (cellular diagnosis) which most people have to look up in order to know what it means, but complicated words, big buildings, and money do not heal people.
Correct diagnosis and good treatment of a medical condition are what heals people.
Anti-cancer chemical (chemo) therapy consists of inserting poisons into a patient's body in order that the cancer be killed before the body. The principle is the same as chemical agriculture which uses deadly poisons to fight bugs - a modern practice which previous generations found unnecessary. Antibiotics are also poison.
Murder by Injection: The Medical Conspiracy
By Eustace Mullins
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/murderinjection.pdf
This book is a critical history of the American Medical Association from the 1850's to the present and includes chapters on poisonous detriments to health since that time which the AMA has officially introduced to the public with false propaganda that such novelties as mass vaccinations or the insertion of rat poison into tooth paste and water supplies are allegedly healthy.
Louis Pasteur's germ theory is an example of modern medicine's misunderstanding of the body. Pasteur's rival Antoine Beauchamp who both more honest than Pateur and also used a traditional method of pathology (diagnosis) was infinitely Pasteur's superior, but Pasteur made friends with money and his fame spread in concert with the deterioration of medicine.
Pasteur's False Germ Theory
http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/terrain/lost_history_of_medicine.htm
The four humors are a method of pathology (diagnosis) which along with the Hippocratic oath are the central aspect of the greek medicine of Hippocrates. Hippocratic medicine is the basis of Greek, Roman, Arab and Islamic, and renaissance era medicine. It was used in western medicine until the nineteenth century.
The official British and american medical establishments were very corrupt and deadly in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries. Hippocratic greek medicine including humorism was officially eliminated as a practice of diagnosis by the British during the nineteenth century. The very famous herbalist Nicholas Culpeper is the best known doctor of Elizabethan England. He was persecuted as a leftist democrat like the Levelers, and he used Hippocratic medicine and four humors pathology. Culpeper is a landmark of the persistence of ancient medicine in England before its medicine became corrupt like its colonialist politics (which are related). Culpeper's Complete Herbal is probably the most famous herbal in the world.
The Complete Herbal
By Nicholas Culpeper
http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/66/113/frameset.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Culpeper
Neither Ayurvedic medicine nor traditional Chinese medicine have a theory of four humours, but they have good aspects such as the use of herbs. In my opinion, both of these systems do include occult and religious aspects combined with the treatment, especially in Ayurvedic medicine. Traditional Chinese medicine contains less of this except for its focus on "chi" (energy) which, in my opinion, could involve some characteristics inherited from Buddhism involving demons. Any possible negative effects of these two systems is negligible compared to the horrors of modern western medicine. And in any event, neither Ayurveda, TCM, nor modern western medicine involve the four humours.
Hippocratic medicine was preserved most intact by muslims. The Greek medicine of Hippocrates which constitutes the original basis of Islamic medicine. Hippocratic medicine survives most strongly in the branch of of islamic medicine from India known as Unani medicine (Greek medicine). The "medical" branch of British colonialism tried to annihilate this branch of medicine during the nineteenth century.
'Islam and Healing: Loss and Recovery of an Indo-Muslim Medical Tradition, 1600-1900'
By Seema Alevi
http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Healing-Indo-Muslim-Tradition-1600-1900/dp/0230554385/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282816585&sr=1-2
MODERN MEDICAL BOOKS WHICH UTILIZE DIAGNOSIS BY THE FOUR HUMOURS:
The Traditional Healer: A Comprehensive Guide to the Principles and Practice of Unani Herbal Medicine
By Halim Chishti
http://www.amazon.com/Traditional-Healer-Comprehensive-Principles-Practice/dp/0892812257/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282817881&sr=1-2
The Traditonal Healer's Handbook
By Hakim Chishti
http://www.amazon.com/Traditional-Healers-Handbook-Medicine-Avicenna/dp/0892814381/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282816574&sr=1-1
SOME WEBSITES OF GREEK MEDICINE WHICH UTILIZE THE FOUR HUMOURS:
http://www.greekmedicine.net/
http://www.unani.com/
http://www.traditionalmedicine.net.au/
http://www.unanidoctors.com/
Also, does that book tell of how the Roman Catholic Church absolved sins with money?
Does it tell of how Witchcraft was responsible for the Black Death?
I confess I find the setting of the book in seventeenth century england to be rather arbitrary. The various concepts summarized in the book such as the four humors are universal and antedate the simony developed by the frankish papacy.
Witchcraft is a part of the tradition of modern science.
The book does not discuss developments like simony and witchcraft which are opposed to genuine tradition and thus outside the scope of the book which focuses on illuminating truth rather than falsehood. That is aside from the fact that protestant Elizabethan England was very much opposed to the abuses of the papacy.
Yeah....
If modern medicine is evil, corrupt, and wrong, why is it that humans live longer using it?
I'm not sure if you're pretending to be like this or if you were raised in an ultra christian household where the Bible is Truth, Christ is the only God anyone should worship, and science is the arm of the Devil. In any case, I hope you never use any modern medicine.
-
We need more court cases against doctors so we can throw useless modern medicine away and start using alternative medicine. I just hope that USA is the first guinea pig in that area.
-
We need more court cases against doctors so we can throw useless modern medicine away and start using alternative medicine. I just hope that USA is the first guinea pig in that area.
I'm moving to Norway.
-
If modern medicine is evil, corrupt, and wrong, why is it that humans live longer using it?
They don't.
I hope you never use any modern medicine.
I refuse to limited by your narrow mindedness.
-
If modern medicine is evil, corrupt, and wrong, why is it that humans live longer using it?
They don't.
you should really take a trip to Europe and check out a graveyard.
I hope you never use any modern medicine.
I refuse to limited by your narrow mindedness.
So you're a hypocrit?
-
If modern medicine is evil, corrupt, and wrong, why is it that humans live longer using it?
They don't.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html#axzz0xodXyJb4
And that's just over the last 80 years.
-
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html#axzz0xodXyJb4
And that's just over the last 80 years.
Exactly. This chart is probably at least roughly accurate.
The end of the lethal practice of prescribing toxic metals like arsenic by the 1940's and the post-war revival of traditional medicine and return to herbs is reflected in the results on the chart. Herbalists and all kinds of practitioners of traditional medicine were persecuted prior to the post-world war ii fall of colonialism and the triumph of the environmentalist movement.
-
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html#axzz0xodXyJb4
And that's just over the last 80 years.
Exactly. This chart is probably at least roughly accurate.
The end of the lethal practice of prescribing toxic metals like arsenic by the 1940's and the post-war revival of traditional medicine and return to herbs is reflected in the results on the chart. Herbalists and all kinds of practitioners of traditional medicine were persecuted prior to the post-world war ii fall of colonialism and the triumph of the environmentalist movement.
No doubt you have evidence supporting your claims of effectiveness and frequency of use of these other methods. Of course, given your dismal track record of providing evidence, we don't expect anything from you that wild claims.
Is it no wonder that no one believes FEers?
-
HUMOURAL MEDICINE AND THE MULTIPLICATION OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES
"The classification of people into inherent constitutional types became of much greater importance than previously in the 19th. century and reached its height of sophistication towards the beginning of the 20th. century. These developments were primarily driven by the decline in the medical practice of the humoral model, and by scientific discovery of the macro- and micro-nutrient chemicals, which appeared to expand knowledge beyond the simple system of the temperaments, although this information did fit in remarkably well with the metabolic model represented by the functions of the humors. One of the major researchers in this area was Victor Rocine (1859 - 1943) who by 1908 had developed and implemented a inclusive genotype system of classification which contained twenty distinct inherent constitutional types that correlated perfectly with the classifications of the classical temperaments of Graeco-Arabic Medicine."
http://www.traditionalmedicine.net.au/chapter2.htm
-
Stupid humans, they always want to understand what makes something tick. And so they discovered bacteria, microbes and cures and antibiotics. It would have been far easier when they would just listen when someone waves hands above their heads and mumble some incomprehensible words and says afterward that you are cured. And when they still die afterward then it's their fault not healers.
-
HUMOURAL MEDICINE AND THE MULTIPLICATION OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES
"The classification of people into inherent constitutional types became of much greater importance than previously in the 19th. century and reached its height of sophistication towards the beginning of the 20th. century. These developments were primarily driven by the decline in the medical practice of the humoral model, and by scientific discovery of the macro- and micro-nutrient chemicals, which appeared to expand knowledge beyond the simple system of the temperaments, although this information did fit in remarkably well with the metabolic model represented by the functions of the humors. One of the major researchers in this area was Victor Rocine (1859 - 1943) who by 1908 had developed and implemented a inclusive genotype system of classification which contained twenty distinct inherent constitutional types that correlated perfectly with the classifications of the classical temperaments of Graeco-Arabic Medicine."
http://www.traditionalmedicine.net.au/chapter2.htm
The point of this is that it shows that humoural pathology is not opposed to medical discovery, but is rather enhanced because of it.
Stupid humans, they always want to understand what makes something tick. And so they discovered bacteria, microbes and cures and antibiotics. It would have been far easier when they would just listen when someone waves hands above their heads and mumble some incomprehensible words and says afterward that you are cured. And when they still die afterward then it's their fault not healers.
This attitude is a good example of the gross ignorance and failure to understand anything about humourism which aided its abandonment in the nineteenth century and thereby assisted the corresponding growth of degenerative diseases like cancer.
Appeals to antiquity are therefore fallacious.
They are a fallacy. The notion that humoural medicine is opposed to genuine progress is an appeal to antiquity because such a prejudice assumes that the four humours are false merely because they are ancient.
-
in the nineteenth century and thereby assisted the corresponding growth of degenerative diseases like cancer.
Appeals to antiquity are therefore fallacious.
They are a fallacy. The notion that humoural medicine is opposed to genuine progress is an appeal to antiquity because such a prejudice assumes that the four humours are false merely because they are ancient.
Since I don't see that anyone claimed the humoral medicine is opposed to genuine progress, I conclude that you're attacking a straw-man. Please try to debate the topics without resorting to fallacies.
-
I see now we have differing definitions of "modern medicine".
-
This attitude is a good example of the gross ignorance and failure to understand anything about humourism which aided its abandonment in the nineteenth century and thereby assisted the corresponding growth of degenerative diseases like cancer.
Do you have any evidence to support your conclusion or do you just wish to use the above 'ad tempum' fallacy?
-
Stupid humans, they always want to understand what makes something tick. And so they discovered bacteria, microbes and cures and antibiotics. It would have been far easier when they would just listen when someone waves hands above their heads and mumble some incomprehensible words and says afterward that you are cured. And when they still die afterward then it's their fault not healers.
This attitude is a good example of the gross ignorance and failure to understand anything about humourism which aided its abandonment in the nineteenth century and thereby assisted the corresponding growth of degenerative diseases like cancer.
This wasn't attitude, this was more like sarcasm. But I would say that your attitude is a good example of the gross ignorance and failure to understand anything about the modern medicine. Is it your failure to grasp or understand the current life that you are so stuck with stagnant views?
-
Let's go over the facts here, 17 November claims that people don't live longer with modern medicine. I provided one limited example which showed that statement to be false. Here are some more examples.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
These sources, unsurprisingly, show a drastic increase in life expectancy after around 1900, or the very beginnings of "modern medicine". From 1900 to around 1970, it continues to increase drastically, then begins a slow steady rate of increase to the present day. This conclusively shows that humans live longer with modern medicine.
-
I would have to agree that modern medicine prolongs lifespans.
IMO, the better question though, is: are people healthier than they used to be.
-
These sources, unsurprisingly, show a drastic increase in life expectancy after around 1900, or the very beginnings of "modern medicine". From 1900 to around 1970, it continues to increase drastically, then begins a slow steady rate of increase to the present day. This conclusively shows that humans live longer with modern medicine.
And don't forget the mortality rate, especially infant/child mortality rate which has decreased also.
I would have to agree that modern medicine prolongs lifespans.
IMO, the better question though, is: are people healthier than they used to be.
I guess the people who care about their health are. It's just that in these days is quite easy do get lazy, eat junk food and forget the physical exercises. And there goes the health.
-
Modern medicine has produced cures to a much wider variety of illnesses, along with much better preventative care. So yes, I would say, in general, people are healthier than they used to be.
-
Idk tbh. The rates of some diseases among the populations is somewhat alarming and slightly frightening. Especially since some are increasing so much.
-
Idk tbh. The rates of some diseases among the populations is somewhat alarming and slightly frightening. Especially since some are increasing so much.
I have to disagree. You can't get alarmed that, for example, autism rates are up. We changed the definition of autism to include more variations, so we shouldn't be concerned that the numbers went up. When people live longer, they have more time healthy, but still suffer at the end of life some ailment. Let's be glad that we're living long enough to have some of these disease rates.
-
Among which populations? All, or just those that don't possess what we would consider "modern medicine"? Some populations are still quite primitive and don't have the same capability to prevent or treat diseases as the 'first world' does.
-
Idk tbh. The rates of some diseases among the populations is somewhat alarming and slightly frightening. Especially since some are increasing so much.
In the Western world, cancer and heart problems are the major killers now.
In years past you'd have a lot more diseases up there, because things like penicillin never existed. Smoking, eating shit food, and just not exercising are all big contributors to heart disease and cancer.
Modern medicine can do amazing things. The average joe can make it look terrible by sitting around, eating McDonalds and smoking. But I'd still argue people are healthier now, as we can easily read the nutritional content of our food and make educated decisions about what we eat, and we have all sorts of vitamins available in single pills.
-
Cancer and other degenerate diseases weren't an issue at a time when people lived, on average, 35 years. Cancer mostly affects people over the age of 50. While you can get cancer at a younger age, it's less common. Not impossible, but unlikely. So the population was far more likely to die of other causes and other diseases than Cancer and even if they DID die of cancer, how would they know? It wasn't common practice to do an autopsy on someone after they die. In fact, the only way they knew (or thought they knew) that someone died was to do a Wake. The tradition of a wake prior to funerals was created to ensure that the person really was dead. They would lie them on a table in the middle of the home for 3 days. If they didn't wake up, they were declared dead and buried. Some of them woke up in their graves as indicated by scratch marks on the inside of the coffins during the body moving of the time. Yes, to save free up graveyard space they moved bodies out of individual graves and into mass graves.
I also took a look at the books you linked on Amazon. They're by the same author. I went to this person's website and right there on the front page is a disclaimer saying that the information on the site is for "educational purposes only" and that you should consult your physician. Sounds to me like she doesn't believe in it either. But I suspect you'll claim it's because of the evil science that would try to discredit and destroy her legally if she didn't protect herself yet I ask, why would she need protection if it worked?
Anyway, tribal medicine is not, by itself, incompatible with modern medicine. However, modern medicine is a refined form. Me and my friend were having this discussion last week.
In Ancient Egypt, it was a practice to apply honey to a wound. Modern medicine, however, doesn't apply honey but rather the chemical IN honey that helps. Modern medicine takes an herb and finds out what in that herb gives the effect and uses that in a pure form rather than a mix of other herbs that may not help at all.
Modern medicine also uses bacteria, germs, and viruses to help explain illnesses which makes a lot more sense. The 4 Humors don't exactly tell you how a family can get sick at roughly the same time during winter. After all, how do they transfer phlegm to one another to produce an imbalance in everyone?
-
But incidences among children has risen considerably since the earlier 1900s and even 1970s[1] That's not just overall numbers, but % of U.S. population. In this case, living longer doesn't matter.
[1] Cure search org, children's cancer research division
-
Before Clocktower posts, I just wanna say I'm not necessarily disagreeing with any poster in this thread. I just think there's many more factors to consider and answers aren't as straight foward as some would think.
-
But incidences among children has risen considerably since the earlier 1900s and even 1970s[1] That's not just overall numbers, but % of U.S. population. In this case, living longer doesn't matter.
[1] Cure search org, children's cancer research division
Are you making a conclusion? Remember correlation is not causation.
-
But incidences among children has risen considerably since the earlier 1900s and even 1970s[1] That's not just overall numbers, but % of U.S. population. In this case, living longer doesn't matter.
[1] Cure search org, children's cancer research division
Are you making a conclusion? Remember correlation is not causation.
I'm sorry for concluding that past ages/societies of men had lifespans that exceeded childhood.
-
But incidences among children has risen considerably since the earlier 1900s and even 1970s[1] That's not just overall numbers, but % of U.S. population. In this case, living longer doesn't matter.
[1] Cure search org, children's cancer research division
True. But the number of children dying from other things has decreased as well. So the more children living the more chance they'll get something else.
-
Clocktower I have split off a new thread
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=41988.0
Noticeably outside of the upper fora.
Consider this a warning. Continuing to post in threads intentionally looking to only create fights when there aren't any AND having no intention of adding to the discussion is against the rules. This is not the only thread you have done this in tonight.
-
But incidences among children has risen considerably since the earlier 1900s and even 1970s[1] That's not just overall numbers, but % of U.S. population. In this case, living longer doesn't matter.
[1] Cure search org, children's cancer research division
Incidences has risen considerably since 1900s? Compared to what? Most common cancer - leukemia, was discovered at the end of 19th century and I am not sure that there are any adequate statistics from the beginning of 20th century. There were quite many wars then and not good medical care and I don't think that anyone counted the child leukemia cases. Or any other cancer cases.
-
I certainly would like to know what the "four humors" explanation would be for the ruptured appendix I had last summer. Seeing as appendicitis is very common, they must have one. Also, please explain how I was able to recover even though all I got for two weeks were IV antibiotics and saline? No herbs or acupuncture then.
-
Since I don't see that anyone claimed the humoral medicine is opposed to genuine progress, I conclude that you're attacking a straw-man.
I did get that impression from the posts of Lord Dave.
If no one here is opposed to humoural medicine, then our disagreements are actually rather limited.
-
Let's go over the facts here, 17 November claims that people don't live longer with modern medicine. I provided one limited example which showed that statement to be false.
This is false. Clinging exclusively to your own prejudiced interpretation, you ignored the post-World War II resurgence of traditional medicine. The effect of this resurgence is striking in any country. China is a good example. The imposition of British medicine in China during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries caused a horrendous decline in Chinese health which was resuscitated in the twentieth century by Traditional Chinese Medicine courtesy of the Maoists.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
I do not believe these statistics. Even if an average lifespan of 38 years were true in 1850, then it is due to the medical establishment which had become very corrupt by the eighteenth century. Even in the early 1600's, the traditional herbalist William Culpeper was maligned by the medical establishment in England.
-
Ah, so when the facts prove you wrong, claim a conspiracy.
-
Ah, so when the facts prove you wrong, claim a conspiracy.
Conspiracy is aside from the point.
The point is the validity of those alleged facts. I have read a lot of history - primary sources like Roman history and others. It is my hobby. Whenever I come across references to peoples' lifespans in those histories it almost always blatantly contradicts what some people today claim about allegedly very short lives back then. Anybody can go fabricate anything they want, and I think that is exactly what has happened with your sources. What is their source, for example, that the average age of a man in the time of Caesar Augustus was only 28 years? And why was Alexander the Great's life span of only 33 years referred to in all the ancient sources as tragically short?
The reason is very simple - your sources are false because they have no correspondence with evidence, especially in ancient times. The dictum of 70 to 80 years in the Book of Psalms is corroborated by contemporary non-biblical sources.
-
I certainly would like to know what the "four humors" explanation would be for the ruptured appendix I had last summer. Seeing as appendicitis is very common, they must have one. Also, please explain how I was able to recover even though all I got for two weeks were IV antibiotics and saline? No herbs or acupuncture then.
I confess that I have just become interested in humoural medicine largely as a response to "LordDave's" thread. Therefore, since I am obviously not an expert myself, I will quote something by a published humoural medic which does apply to your question in a general way.
On page 29 of the 'Traditional Healer' by Hakim Chishti, we read:
"The invention of the microscope has taken us away from the source and origin of the problems associated with disease. For example, most physicians would attribute an infection to one or more bacteria and will produce actual living specimens of those bacteria which they say caused such and such an infection. From the Unani Tibb point of view, the deviation from the normal state of the humour provided a suitable environment for the bacteria to grow to larger than normal populations. While admitting the existence of the bacteria, the Tibb scientist must look deeper to the cause of the imbalance in the humour and its characteristic temperaments. Thus, the mode of current medical practice that "attacks" the red- and white-cell-forming organs does not take into account the fact that blood itself is living and not simply a conglomerate of chemical components."
"Thus in Tibb, the dictum "Health is a harmony of the humours" is the only valid point of view if one desires to cure the cause of the disease. Chemical destruction of the abnormal growth of microscopic life may result in a temporary decline or total eradication of the population of microorganisms, but if the imbalance of the humour is not corrected, the disease will recur or arise in another place in the body. More important, the dramatic effects of the chemical drugs themselves on the humours result in new imbalances, as evidenced by the many so-called side-effects of drugs..."
http://www.amazon.com/Traditional-Comprehensive-Principles-Practice-Medicine/dp/B000M51WZ0/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283542505&sr=1-3
EDIT:
I want to add that emergency medicine is one of the most legitimate and impressive achievements of modern western medicine.
And appendicitis is a form of medical emergency.
-
I should add that bleeding is not an aspect of Hippocratic medicine. The pagan physician Galen, who lived many centuries after Hippocrates, did accept the four humours, but he unfortunately introduced the practice of bleeding into Greek and Roman medicine - analogous to how the pagan astronomer Claudius Ptolemy promoted globularism during that same time.
Not to stray too far off topic, but I just wanted to let you guys know that there are some conditions where bleeding is a legitimate therapy in modern medicine. One of those conditions is called polycythemia. It's a condition where the body makes too many red blood cells. Left untreated, polycythemia can lead to some significant heath issues. However, the preferred treatment is periodic phlebotomy (therapeutic blood donation) when the hemocrit level reaches a certain point.
This is a reasonable point. By giving heed to Will Allen (who is a farmer rather than a physician)
instead of experienced humoural physicians, I was perhaps a bit harsh on Galen.
I should remember that "In the multitude of counsel, there is safety."
-
Right, let's get this straight. A lot of modern medicine is a more refined form of traditional herbal remedies. Now, a lot of these herbal remedies didn't work and were dropped as we grew more knowledgeable. What did work, however, became modern medicine. I really don't see what the problem is.
Also, my school has strong links with Weleda, a homeopathic/herbal medicine company. I have used some, and for the most part it doesn't work, so I don't know where 17 November is getting his ideas from.
-
Ah, so when the facts prove you wrong, claim a conspiracy.
Conspiracy is aside from the point.
The point is the validity of those alleged facts. I have read a lot of history - primary sources like Roman history and others. It is my hobby. Whenever I come across references to peoples' lifespans in those histories it almost always blatantly contradicts what some people today claim about allegedly very short lives back then. Anybody can go fabricate anything they want, and I think that is exactly what has happened with your sources. What is their source, for example, that the average age of a man in the time of Caesar Augustus was only 28 years? And why was Alexander the Great's life span of only 33 years referred to in all the ancient sources as tragically short?
The reason is very simple - your sources are false because they have no correspondence with evidence, especially in ancient times. The dictum of 70 to 80 years in the Book of Psalms is corroborated by contemporary non-biblical sources.
Why wouldn't it be tragically short? He was "The Great" and you don't want great men to die. Anything would be tragically short for him, especially if he didn't finish his life's work.
-
Not from homeopathy which has often justly been criticized for prescribing medicines without active ingredients. Homeopathy is a modern alternative school of thought that emerged from western civilization due to corruption of official medicine. Homeopathy's strength is its criticisms of the modern medical establishment, but its own medicines are often weak, and its philosophy is shallow compared to tried and true systems like Unani, TCM, and Ayurveda.
Thank you 17 for showing us just how biased you are. You'd promote any system which criticizes modern medicine even if it's weak and shallow. Sounds like you've had bad experiences with modern medicine and have decided that it's evil.
-
Also, my school has strong links with Weleda, a homeopathic/herbal medicine company. I have used some, and for the most part it doesn't work, so I don't know where 17 November is getting his ideas from.
Not from homeopathy which has often justly been criticized for prescribing medicines without active ingredients. Homeopathy is a modern alternative school of thought that emerged from western civilization due to corruption of official medicine. Homeopathy's strength is its criticisms of the modern medical establishment, but its own medicines are often weak, and its philosophy is shallow compared to tried and true systems like Unani, TCM, and Ayurveda.
A lot of modern medicine is a more refined form of traditional herbal remedies.
This is wrong. Chemicals like penicillin are artificial and very different from herbal medicine.
a lot of these herbal remedies didn't work and were dropped as we grew more knowledgeable.
This is completely false. Herbal remedies were abandoned due to ignorance. Many forms of charlatanism like the snake oil salesmen did exist in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Much of this was fortunately abandoned, but you equate this with herbal medicine, and you equate artificial chemicals with herbs. Your sweeping and very erroneous generalizations should be ignored because you are obviously very ignorant of medicine. Next time think or research at least a little before you make an assertion.
If you are going to attack what I say, then please at least read it. For example, you seem to have completely bypassed this post when you asserted that modern medicine is essentially an advanced form of traditional herbal medicine:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=41927.msg1047580#msg1047580
If you don't mind my asking, are you muslim by any chance? In the event that your are, then you are attacking your own tradition of medicine.
-
Why wouldn't it be tragically short? He was "The Great" and you don't want great men to die. Anything would be tragically short for him, especially if he didn't finish his life's work.
Thank you for starting this thread. Even if we disagree, I appreciate your comments. This particular one I am going to ignore because it is grasping after straws. All the evidence I have ever read is consistent across the field of history - and not limited to one or two men.
-
Thank you 17 for showing us just how biased you are. You'd promote any system which criticizes modern medicine even if it's weak and shallow. Sounds like you've had bad experiences with modern medicine and have decided that it's evil.
I do not promote homeopathy or any system which is weak and shallow. I try to retain the good elements from all systems including homeopathy and modern medicine.
Here I give credit to the modern use of chemicals where it is effective:
Chemical destruction of the abnormal growth of microscopic life may result in a temporary decline or total eradication of the population of microorganisms ...
And here I criticize an alternative form of medicine which many have found wanting:
Not from homeopathy which has often justly been criticized for prescribing medicines without active ingredients...but its own medicines are often weak, and its philosophy is shallow compared to tried and true systems like Unani, TCM, and Ayurveda.
It just so happens that Hippocratic medicine has never been surpassed by any other system. As far as I can tell, short of miraculous healing from God, the best any new medical system can hope to achieve is to imitate Hippocrates, and that is exactly what Avicenna and the muslims achieved.
-
Thank you 17 for showing us just how biased you are. You'd promote any system which criticizes modern medicine even if it's weak and shallow. Sounds like you've had bad experiences with modern medicine and have decided that it's evil.
I do not promote homeopathy or any system which is weak and shallow. I try to retain the good elements from all systems including modern medicine.
Here I give credit to the modern use of chemicals where it is effective:
Chemical destruction of the abnormal growth of microscopic life may result in a temporary decline or total eradication of the population of microorganisms ...
And here I criticize an alternative form of medicine which many have found wanting:
Not from homeopathy which has often justly been criticized for prescribing medicines without active ingredients...but its own medicines are often weak, and its philosophy is shallow compared to tried and true systems like Unani, TCM, and Ayurveda.
It just so happens that Hippocratic medicine has never been surpassed by any other system. As far as I can tell, short of miraculous healing from God, the best any new medical system can hope to achieve is to imitate Hippocrates, and that is exactly what Avicenna and the muslims achieved.
I'm still curious on the "appendicitis" with regards to the Elizabethan world view. Is that an imbalance that's solved by cutting out an organ? How does your medicine deal with that?
As for Hippocratese, yes he was a great healer for his time, no question there. However, to put him on such a high pedestal and say that he was able to heal better than modern medicine is preposterous.
As for Penicillin being an artificial drug, you really should read up more on it.
from the wiki page:
However, several others reported the bacteriostatic effects of Penicillium earlier than Fleming. The use of bread with a blue mould (presumably penicillium) as a means of treating suppurating wounds was a staple of folk medicine in Europe since the Middle Ages. The first published reference appears in the publication of the Royal Society in 1875, by John Tyndall.[13] Ernest Duchesne documented it in an 1897 paper, which was not accepted by the Institut Pasteur because of his youth. In March 2000, doctors at the San Juan de Dios Hospital in San Jos?, Costa Rica published the manuscripts of the Costa Rican scientist and medical doctor Clodomiro (Clorito) Picado Twight (1887?1944). They reported Picado's observations on the inhibitory actions of fungi of the genus Penicillium between 1915 and 1927. Picado reported his discovery to the Paris Academy of Sciences, yet did not patent it, even though his investigations started years before Fleming's. Joseph Lister was experimenting with penicillum in 1871 for his Aseptic surgery. He found that it weakened the microbes but then he dismissed the fungi.
Penicillin is from a naturally occurring fungus. Modern medicine is about taking out the fungus and keeping only what works: The drug.
A good analogy would be the history of aspirin.
-
For the record, if someone has a heart attack, for example, and a practitioner of conventional medicine who only knows of anti-biotics, etc. is the only help available, then by all means avail his help. I am not quite as ridiculous as some of you try to make it appear.
I'm still curious on the "appendicitis" with regards to the Elizabethan world view. Is that an imbalance that's solved by cutting out an organ? How does your medicine deal with that?
May suggest that the crudeness of the idea of organ removal might be an indication of bias.
Answer: First, please read what I earlier quoted by Chishti in answer to your question.
Second, no. Organ removal would not be the way.
Third, since I am not an expert as I earlier said, I defer to David Osborn's website for further information.
Check out his sections on 'Basic Principles' and 'Physiology' for example:
http://www.greekmedicine.net/b_p/basic_principles_of_greek_medicine.html
http://www.greekmedicine.net/physiology/Physiology.html
While I doubt you'll bother, here are several of the extant works of Hippocrates:
http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/browse-Hippocrates.html
If you want to find specifically detailed information on appendicitis, then the traditional name for it is apparently "cholera morbus" according to this glossary of Graeco-Arabic medicine:
http://www.traditionalmedicine.net.au/glossary.htm
If you seriously wanted more detail on this specific question, then I suggest you might e-mail the following:
http://www.traditionalmedicine.net.au/graecarb.htm#info
http://www.unani.com/
-
As for Hippocratese, ... to put him on such a high pedestal and say that he was able to heal better than modern medicine is preposterous.
You repeat your fallacy of judging a matter by its antiquity.
As for Penicillin being an artificial drug, you really should read up more on it.
Penicillin is from a naturally occurring fungus. Modern medicine is about taking out the fungus and keeping only what works: The drug.
A good analogy would be the history of aspirin.
All this is accurate. The point I was making about penicillin is that Penicillin is a chemical and a the widespread use of Penicillin in the late 1940's was paralleled by the abandonment of herbs.
-
I do not promote homeopathy or any system which is weak and shallow. I try to retain the good elements from all systems including homeopathy and modern medicine.
You know, you get good results sometimes with placebo also. But it doesn't mean that it is the placebo medicine itself that actually cures people. These alternative medicines just don't get the consistent results with the same illness and with different people. Modern medicine doesn't get it also in some cases but it's still more effective and more consistent than alternative medicines. Say what you want but modern medicine cures people in more cases than alternative medicine.
-
As good as this thread has been, 'The Elizabethan World View' covers a lot more than just medicine.
Agriculture is a comparable ancient and honorable vocation which the toxicity of the modern world has runied.
Will Allen has written perhaps the best history and denunciation of chemical agriculture over the past one hundred fifty years.
'The War on Bugs'
By Will Allen
http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/the_war_on_bugs:paperback
Similarly Mark Schapiro has written an expose of the toxicity of most modern everyday goods which most of the world has realized are hazardous due to the chemicals within.
http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/exposed:hardcover
-
I don't even try to deny that there are problems with current world but wanting to go back and start using old ways doesn't make world better place(I even doubt that it was very good in these old times) . You should invest more in discovering the new and harmless ways to do things instead of burrowing itself in the old books and talking how good the old ways are and how bad the current ones are.
-
You should invest more in discovering the new and harmless ways to do things instead of burrowing itself in the old books and talking how good the old ways are and how bad the current ones are.
Spoken like a true homeopath. Homeopathy is harmless, but it is also not very effective. That is the best that your recommendation could hope to achieve. You are worse than homeopaths because you ignorantly condemn the good. At least homeopaths are too cautious to do something that stupid.
-
You should invest more in discovering the new and harmless ways to do things instead of burrowing itself in the old books and talking how good the old ways are and how bad the current ones are.
Spoken like a true homeopath. Homeopathy is harmless, but it is also not very effective. That is the best that your recommendation could hope to achieve. You are worse than homeopaths because you ignorantly condemn the good. At least homeopaths are too cautious to do something that stupid.
Spoken like a quack! Any treatment that gives false hope, like homeopathy, harms.
-
Spoken like a quack! Any treatment that gives false hope, like homeopathy, harms.
Spoken like one wise in his own conceit whom no amount of truth or evidence will ever convince.
-
Spoken like a quack! Any treatment that gives false hope, like homeopathy, harms.
Spoken like one wise in his own conceit whom no amount of truth or evidence will ever convince.
I bleed from the sharpness of tongue. Perhaps you've confused me with a FEer. I accept evidence, probably vetted, do you?
-
...modern medicine cures people in more cases than alternative medicine.
Say what you want...
This is false.
These alternative medicines just don't get the consistent results with the same illness and with different people. Modern medicine doesn't get it also in some cases but it's still more effective and more consistent than alternative medicines.
You recklessly lump all alternative medicines together, but you have alighted upon a truth. Reguardless of what form of medicine one uses, we do not get the same results from all people for the same exact medicine. As a matter of fact, not all people get sick from the same conditions. This is an example of the depth of greek medicine and the shallowness of modern medicine. Humoural medicine acknowledges all the problems that modern medicine does, but looks past the problems to the cause of the problems. This is where the temperamants come to play. The temperaments are used in diagnosis in order that the ensuing treatment annihilate the cause of the problem in order that it does not recur or resurface in another form. Modern medicine neglects to do this.
Dystempers
http://www.greekmedicine.net/pathology/Dystempers.html
The 11th century 'Canon of Medicine' by the Persian physician Avicenna who did use humoural medicine was translated into English with a commentary by the British medical doctor O. Cameron Gruner whose "compares traditional medicines with modern medicine and its lack of philosophy."
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Medicine-Avicenna/product-reviews/1871031672/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt_sr_5?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addFiveStar
-
The temperaments are used in diagnosis in order that the ensuing treatment annihilate the cause of the problem in order that it does not recur or resurface in another form. Modern medicine neglects to do this.
Please cite a double-blind study that supports your outlandish claim that using temperaments is beneficial.
Then show that modern medicine neglects to do this.
In general, please stop making unsupported claims.
-
I repeat what I said about you before:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=41927.msg1047732#msg1047732
Since he evidently reads what I post in spite of his disagreement, LordDave is at least a bit conversible, but I am not wasting my time on you. Talking to you is like having a conversation with a brick wall.
-
I repeat what I said about you before:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=41927.msg1047732#msg1047732
Since he evidently reads what I post in spite of his disagreement, LordDave is at least a bit conversible, but I am not wasting my time on you. Talking to you is like having a conversation with a brick wall.
Alright! I'm honored that you realize that no amount of falsehood will convert me to your cause. 17 won't dispute the point: Homeopathy harms. Perhaps if you could just come up with a preponderance of peer-reviewed research to support your cause, you might just convert a single rational person. Then again I doubt that there is even more than a few shakey articles that support your cause. I'd say your cause is doomed to the rubbish bin of falsehoods and fringe sciences. Say "hello" to Albert Abrams for me.
-
As for Hippocratese, ... to put him on such a high pedestal and say that he was able to heal better than modern medicine is preposterous.
You repeat your fallacy of judging a matter by its antiquity.
Incorrect. Hippocratese was very skilled and his methodology was not wrong nor dissimilar to modern medicine. What makes him weaker is his lack of knowledge, which is in no part to his own fallacy but the simple fact that he lived in the past. He would be far more skilled at healing than I, but would not be able to heal as many ailments as a modern doctor.
As for Penicillin being an artificial drug, you really should read up more on it.
Penicillin is from a naturally occurring fungus. Modern medicine is about taking out the fungus and keeping only what works: The drug.
A good analogy would be the history of aspirin.
All this is accurate. The point I was making about penicillin is that Penicillin is a chemical and a the widespread use of Penicillin in the late 1940's was paralleled by the abandonment of herbs.
Yes it is, a chemical that comes from a naturally growing fungus. My point is that modern medicine is about using only the part of an herb that works rather than the whole herb. Yes, it does create drugs, but if you recall, one of the many arguments used against clearing the Rainforest is that we'd be killing many plants that may have medicinal value.
I'd read all those links but it is a lot to read and would take me longer than I would like to spend on the issue though I may flip to it from time to time.
Now, the use of drugs is only part of modern medicine. Things such as MRIs, X-Ray machines, and systematic diagnosis are also part of it. We also know far more about our bodies and how they work. We developed vaccines simply by understanding the body and how it works.
And the reason why these philosophies such as the 4 humors exist is to explain things that couldn't be seen. The microscope hadn't been invented so the idea of cell wasn't around at that point. Once we could see living cells, our understanding of what causes issues in humans increased. We can cultivate bacteria, watch them eat, watch them divide, and watch them die. We know that diseases can be passed via the blood or liquids. We also know that if someone in a house has a cold, the others in the house will likely get it too. This is observable every day. The idea that colds occur when it's cold out is more accurately attributed to people being inside enclosed homes with little ventilation during the cold months. Airborn diseases pass more easily and with people going outside less, the chance of infection becomes extremely high.
Now, I know it's probably said that an imbalance of one person can cause another to have an imbalance by simply being close. However, illnesses such as chicken pox aren't repeatable. How does the body have an imbalance only once and then never have that same imbalance again?
-
You should invest more in discovering the new and harmless ways to do things instead of burrowing itself in the old books and talking how good the old ways are and how bad the current ones are.
Spoken like a true homeopath. Homeopathy is harmless, but it is also not very effective. That is the best that your recommendation could hope to achieve. You are worse than homeopaths because you ignorantly condemn the good. At least homeopaths are too cautious to do something that stupid.
It was just advice because you complain too much about dangers of the modern medicine. If you are so troubled by it then you better think something which doesn't cause so much problems and is less harmful. Instead of complaining which doesn't achieve anything. You seem just so stagnant with your complaining.
...modern medicine cures people in more cases than alternative medicine.
This is false.
This is true. I rarely hear about people cured by alternative medicine but cured by modern medicine... quite a lot.
Humoural medicine acknowledges all the problems that modern medicine does, but looks past the problems to the cause of the problems.
Humoural medicine lacks the knowledge to look past the problems. They just look at some external symptoms and try to guess what is wrong. You just dwell too much in the history and glorify things from the past too much.
-
I would like to understand what makes four humor method better than the current medicine. So I do some speculations. In case of illnesses we must at first ascertain what illness we have. I don't see here the benefits from four humor because current medicine performs quite well and even better having more resources and medical apparatuses. If we go to illnesses which are more hard to detect then the four humors just lack information. How do you even make sure how balanced your four humors is? You can have some hidden sickness about what you don't know anything but some tests performed by modern medicine can reveal it but in case of four humors... they just say that you are perfectly well which really isn't the case. So, nothing really gets better if we use four humors for diagnosing illnesses and I really don't see the benefits here.
But what about curing illnesses? With simple cold and other illnesses four humors doesn't perform better than modern medicine. In cases of cancer the four humors is powerless. And what about rabies, tetanus, smallpox and other difficult illnesses. How can person get his/her four humors in balance again in these cases? It's not possible with the herbs. So again, no benefits from four humors, or in any other alternative medicine. I really don't see any good reason why we must trust and use more alternative medicine. I acknowledge that there are uses for alternative medicine but it isn't able to replace the current medicine and perform in same levels and get the same results.
-
I repeat what I said about you before:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=41927.msg1047732#msg1047732
Since he evidently reads what I post in spite of his disagreement, LordDave is at least a bit conversible, but I am not wasting my time on you. Talking to you is like having a conversation with a brick wall.
Yeah, it's best to just ignore ClockTower, he's just a troll.
-
I repeat what I said about you before:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=41927.msg1047732#msg1047732
Since he evidently reads what I post in spite of his disagreement, LordDave is at least a bit conversible, but I am not wasting my time on you. Talking to you is like having a conversation with a brick wall.
Yeah, it's best to just ignore ClockTower, he's just a troll.
Evidence?
-
I repeat what I said about you before:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=41927.msg1047732#msg1047732
Since he evidently reads what I post in spite of his disagreement, LordDave is at least a bit conversible, but I am not wasting my time on you. Talking to you is like having a conversation with a brick wall.
Yeah, it's best to just ignore ClockTower, he's just a troll.
Evidence?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=23258;sa=showPosts
-
I would like to understand what makes four humor method better than the current medicine. So I do some speculations. In case of illnesses we must at first ascertain what illness we have. I don't see here the benefits from four humor because current medicine performs quite well and even better having more resources and medical apparatuses. If we go to illnesses which are more hard to detect then the four humors just lack information. How do you even make sure how balanced your four humors is? You can have some hidden sickness about what you don't know anything but some tests performed by modern medicine can reveal it but in case of four humors... they just say that you are perfectly well which really isn't the case. So, nothing really gets better if we use four humors for diagnosing illnesses and I really don't see the benefits here.
But what about curing illnesses? With simple cold and other illnesses four humors doesn't perform better than modern medicine. In cases of cancer the four humors is powerless. And what about rabies, tetanus, smallpox and other difficult illnesses. How can person get his/her four humors in balance again in these cases? It's not possible with the herbs. So again, no benefits from four humors, or in any other alternative medicine. I really don't see any good reason why we must trust and use more alternative medicine. I acknowledge that there are uses for alternative medicine but it isn't able to replace the current medicine and perform in same levels and get the same results.
I sincerely apologize for any previous words which were perhaps a bit rough.
Anyways, without any malicious intent, I have to say that you very obviously do not know or understand anything about humoural medicine or you would not have said any of these things. It's not even like we're talking about a flat earth minority viewpoint here - whole schools of professionals practice this kind of medicine for a living. You can believe whatever you like, and if I were to "insist" against people like yourself or LordDave, then I would feel like I was forcing you into something, and I won't do that.
I will repost David Osborn's website which is so informative and so well organized. I might add that I do not believe in astrology, and therefore that part of his website is the one aspect which I do not accept. Otherwise, David Osborn's website (and Hakim Chishti's two books on amazon) is very well laid out.
http://www.greekmedicine.net/
I should add that I came across this website within a day or two after I made the post about the Elizabethan book and perhaps a day before LordDave initiated this thread. I only discovered Hakim Chishti through Osborn's greekmedicine.net website. And I have only ordered and received the first of Chishti's books during the course of this thread. Although, I honestly was unfamiliar with greek medicine before six weeks ago, one reason that I have taken to this school of medicine like a duck to water is that I have a long standing interest in this subject and have previously looked into both Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese Medicine to some extent. I was unaware of the Unani / Greek school of medicine among the muslims of the Middle East and India. An initial investigation into this Hippocratic medicine clearly revealed that it lacks the mixing with religious beliefs which occurs perhaps a little bit with TCM and especially with Ayurveda. That was decisive. Although I am not too knowledgeable of Ayurveda, I am aware that it does have concepts like the chakras which correspond to concepts in Hippocratic medicine.
-
THE LEGACY OF MODERN WESTERN MEDICINE
After the franks usurped the papacy in A.D. 999, western europe became much more thoroughly separated from the tradition, knowledge and light of Eastern Christian Rome than it had been before. Ignorance multiplied, and the spiritual and scientific traditions of the west were changed into a hideous civilization. Thus, humoural medicine was viciously attacked during the early renaissance and late medieval west which resulted in horrors like the Black Death which annihilated over half the population of western europe.
The Islamic countries of this time, on the other hand, were practicing the Hippocratic humoural medicine which they had received from Avicenna, and they got through the Black Death of the mid-1300's rather unscathed compared to what western europe went through.
History repeats itself. Shortly after many doctors followed Rudolf Virchow in the years after 1858 and began to ignore humoural medicine, the west was again inundated with an influenza pandemic in 1918.
-
THE LEGACY OF MODERN WESTERN MEDICINE
After the franks usurped the papacy in A.D. 999, western europe became much more thoroughly separated from the tradition, knowledge and light of Eastern Christian Rome than it had been before. Ignorance multiplied, and the spiritual and scientific traditions of the west were changed into a hideous civilization. Thus, humoural medicine was viciously attacked during the early renaissance and late medieval west which resulted in horrors like the Black Death which annihilated over half the population of western europe.
The Islamic countries of this time, on the other hand, were practicing the Hippocratic humoural medicine which they had received from Avicenna, and they got through the Black Death of the mid-1300's rather unscathed compared to what western europe went through.
History repeats itself. Shortly after many doctors followed Rudolf Virchow in the years after 1858 and began to ignore humoural medicine, the west was again inundated with an influenza pandemic in 1918.
While I can't say much about the rest but two things.
1. The Black Death was carried by rats. Fleas jumped from the rats to the humans and spread the disease. (How is the Black Death an Imbalance anyway?) The middle east has a culture that's far cleaner than Europe was. As such, rats weren't as common nor were fleas.
2. Influenza pendemics happen and 60 years is too significant a time period to say that there is a connection between doctors ignoring humoural medicine and an influenza pandemic. I bet there were plenty of pandemics in the times of humoural medicines. Probably a lot of deaths too.
-
For the purpose of communicating understanding of the essence of this conversation, I would say that the post I made in reply to zork is more significant than the most recent one.
-
I guess you didn't understood what I really wanted to know. How they work and what they are are quite irrelevant. I wanted to know how we can use them and how are they better than current medicine. You may be fascinated by many things but that doesn't mean that they are very useful. To me it seems that you itself really don't know how to put these things to practice and are just charmed by them for some reasons.
-
Anyways, without any malicious intent, I have to say that you very obviously do not know or understand anything about humoural medicine or you would not have said any of these things. It's not even like we're talking about a flat earth minority viewpoint here - whole schools of professionals practice this kind of medicine for a living. You can believe whatever you like, and if I were to "insist" against people like yourself or LordDave, then I would feel like I was forcing you into something, and I won't do that.
I will repost David Osborn's website which is so informative and so well organized. I might add that I do not believe in astrology, and therefore that part of his website is the one aspect which I do not accept. Otherwise, David Osborn's website (and Hakim Chishti's two books on amazon) is very well laid out.
http://www.greekmedicine.net/
I should add that I came across this website within a day or two after I made the post about the Elizabethan book and perhaps a day before LordDave initiated this thread. I only discovered Hakim Chishti through Osborn's greekmedicine.net website. And I have only ordered and received the first of Chishti's books during the course of this thread. Although, I honestly was unfamiliar with greek medicine before six weeks ago, one reason that I have taken to this school of medicine like a duck to water is that I have a long standing interest in this subject and have previously looked into both Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese Medicine to some extent. I was unaware of the Unani / Greek school of medicine among the muslims of the Middle East and India. An initial investigation into this Hippocratic medicine clearly revealed that it lacks the mixing with religious beliefs which occurs perhaps a little bit with TCM and especially with Ayurveda. That was decisive. Although I am not too knowledgeable of Ayurveda, I am aware that it does have concepts like the chakras which correspond to concepts in Hippocratic medicine.
This is the kind of misconception that pervades the minds of the terminally uninformed.
Of course, people needed any kind of medicine in those days, and some treatments of that time are better than nothing. Some were re-taken by "occidental medicine", some might have been lost in the ages. But in simple terms, the great accomplishments of our medicine, those that made the life expectancy of our people change from about 35 years in classic Greek times and the dark ages to about 70 years in our times are not even as sophisticated as antibiotics and MRI's. It was basic hygiene and good food, combined with the knowledge of bacteria and the ways to control bacteria with hygiene.
After millenia of knowledge about humours, after centuries of knowledge about acupuncture, the real change in public health came when sewers avoided infection with feces, washing hands with soap controlled infections through the soiling of food with bacteria from infected materials. And all of this came through the simplest of diagnostic methods: the microscope.
No humoural, ayurvedic, acupunctural, or chackral medicine has ever changed the life expectancy of our people in such a dramatic way. And if we had known about simple hygiene during the middle ages, Black Death, Cholera and a lot of the big killers of the age would have been just minor epidemics.
So please tell us all (those who cannot care to read whole books knowing they are of little use, for example) which of those alternative medicine methods has shown to increase life expectancy in at least a year, or a day, or any measurable amount.
-
I must say I am highly sympathetic to 17 November in the context of this argument - I myself am something of a humourist.
I am very sceptical of the notion that people in the ancient world lived shorter lives than those in modernity. What do the proponents of this modern longevity theory make of Noah, who reportedly lived for some nine centuries in spite of his reckless, hedonistic lifestyle?
-
I must say I am highly sympathetic to 17 November in the context of this argument - I myself am something of a humourist.
I am very sceptical of the notion that people in the ancient world lived shorter lives than those in modernity. What do the proponents of this modern longevity theory make of Noah, who reportedly lived for some nine centuries in spite of his reckless, hedonistic lifestyle?
It's in the "Bones" ;) And Noah is nonsense.
-
I must say I am highly sympathetic to 17 November in the context of this argument - I myself am something of a humourist.
I am very sceptical of the notion that people in the ancient world lived shorter lives than those in modernity. What do the proponents of this modern longevity theory make of Noah, who reportedly lived for some nine centuries in spite of his reckless, hedonistic lifestyle?
I'm quite certain that modern medicine has learned all that can be from the stories of Noah and Santa Claus, the immortal. James, when will you learn the difference between religiion and fact?
-
Am I particularly notorious for conflating religion with fact?
In any case, I am not deferring to any high-minded metaphysical or theological subject matter here. To clarify, I am referring to the historical personage of Noah, not to Noah in the context of religious doctrine.
-
Am I particularly notorious for conflating religion with fact?
In any case, I am not deferring to any high-minded metaphysical or theological subject matter here. To clarify, I am referring to the historical personage of Noah, not to Noah in the context of religious doctrine.
And how do you expect to show that he really lived nine our centuries(900 years, each 365 days), not some nine ancient centuries which were maybe 5 years each? If you read old stories or epics like "Daredevils of Sassoun", Gilgamesh, Beowulf, about Merlin, aobut Russian heroes like Ilya Muromets, Dobrynya Nikitich, Alyosha Popovich etc then they all live who knows how long, some do magic, some are giants who take out trees with its roots and are/do much more. I guess its only shows that you can't take at face value all things that are in ancient texts.
-
Am I particularly notorious for conflating religion with fact?
In any case, I am not deferring to any high-minded metaphysical or theological subject matter here. To clarify, I am referring to the historical personage of Noah, not to Noah in the context of religious doctrine.
Since you refer to Noah as a historical personage, you should be able to provide historical references, right? Then again you regularly fail to provide evidence to support your claims. 900 years of documentation, please.
-
I myself am something of a humourist.
Well, that explains a lot.
-
My primary source for Noah's life is actually the Epic of Gilgamesh; given the biases of the Christian Bible I am very wary of biblical evidence. The Gilgamesh, however, insinuates that Noah was immortal - an easy mistake to make for commentators on the life of a 900 year old man - but I hold this to be empirically false based on the fact that he is not known to be alive today.
-
My primary source for Noah's life is actually the Epic of Gilgamesh; given the biases of the Christian Bible I am very wary of biblical evidence. The Gilgamesh, however, insinuates that Noah was immortal - an easy mistake to make for commentators on the life of a 900 year old man - but I hold this to be empirically false based on the fact that he is not known to be alive today.
So... 1) Your source doesn't confirm your thesis that Noah lived 900 years. 2) Your source attributes long life to a single, now forever lost, plant. 3) Your source is a myth.
Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
-
My primary source for Noah's life is actually the Epic of Gilgamesh; given the biases of the Christian Bible I am very wary of biblical evidence. The Gilgamesh, however, insinuates that Noah was immortal - an easy mistake to make for commentators on the life of a 900 year old man - but I hold this to be empirically false based on the fact that he is not known to be alive today.
LOL
Talk about trying to cover up the fact that Christianity is actually a plagiarism of other religions. At best this is a poor attempt by Christians to claim all religions are that of Christianity lol. And you clearly show your degree of delusion here.
-
I am very sceptical of the notion that people in the ancient world lived shorter lives than those in modernity. What do the proponents of this modern longevity theory make of Noah, who reportedly lived for some nine centuries in spite of his reckless, hedonistic lifestyle?
There are so many things that are plainly wrong in this short paragraph.
- After all those times that someone doubted the atheist credentials of the FE'rs and we were all assured that FE'rs are really atheists (and no FE'r said anything about being theist), now you are talking about Noah?
- And then, we are not talking about Noah, but Gilgamesh, as if they were the same person. And there is no explanation whatsoever as to why the two myths (of Noah and of Gilgamesh) are clearly different in key aspects.
- Also, the whole idea of longevity of a whole species is referred to the longevity of either Noah or Gilgamesh, and at least Gilgamesh is mentioned as an immortal being.
- And further, the discussion is moved to the times where no historians existed, not to mention statistics experts. And meanwhile, the recent history, including the last two centuries, when careful statistical information was compiled, is ignored.
- Also, the numeric information on the Bible is considered metaphorical, not numerically exact, by even the most traditional priests. Only a few fanatics consider the Bible as literally exact.
- The same conditions that reduced longevity in past centuries are occurring even now in Africa and other places
Nobody wants to know what you believe. There is evidence to the contrary.
-
After all those times that someone doubted the atheist credentials of the FE'rs and we were all assured that FE'rs are really atheists (and no FE'r said anything about being theist), now you are talking about Noah?
I've never denied my theism, though mine is the minority position.
And then, we are not talking about Noah, but Gilgamesh, as if they were the same person. And there is no explanation whatsoever as to why the two myths (of Noah and of Gilgamesh) are clearly different in key aspects.
Noah and Gilgamesh are not the same person, but Noah and Utnapishtim are clearly the same personage (even if it your belief that these two individuals are only part of a shared mythos by semitic peoples).
-
My primary source for Noah's life is actually the Epic of Gilgamesh; given the biases of the Christian Bible I am very wary of biblical evidence. The Gilgamesh, however, insinuates that Noah was immortal - an easy mistake to make for commentators on the life of a 900 year old man - but I hold this to be empirically false based on the fact that he is not known to be alive today.
So... 1) Your source doesn't confirm your thesis that Noah lived 900 years. 2) Your source attributes long life to a single, now forever lost, plant. 3) Your source is a myth.
My source corroborates the thesis (not my thesis; I couched the proposition with the qualifier "reportedly") that Noah lived for a long time.
The Gilgamesh does not postulate that Noah attained immortality using the magic plant. It seems you are poorly read, or forgetful.
What is your evidence that Gilgamesh is not a historical document? As far as Noah's biographical details go, it can be cross-referenced against the Epic of Atrahasis, which reports similar events.
LOL
Talk about trying to cover up the fact that Christianity is actually a plagiarism of other religions. At best this is a poor attempt by Christians to claim all religions are that of Christianity lol. And you clearly show your degree of delusion here.
I specifically said that I was sceptical of Biblical evidence because of the Bible's theological biases - it was for this precise reason that I cited Gilgamesh as a more reliable document. You do not appear to have been reading the thread very carefully! The post you quoted is not "an attempt by Christians" to do anything, since there is only one of me, and I am not a Christian.
I am very sceptical of the notion that people in the ancient world lived shorter lives than those in modernity. What do the proponents of this modern longevity theory make of Noah, who reportedly lived for some nine centuries in spite of his reckless, hedonistic lifestyle?
There are so many things that are plainly wrong in this short paragraph.
- After all those times that someone doubted the atheist credentials of the FE'rs and we were all assured that FE'rs are really atheists (and no FE'r said anything about being theist), now you are talking about Noah?
Is there some great atheist ordinance which proclaims "if you are an atheist, you shall not talk about Noah"? I am an atheist, and I am talking about Noah.
- And then, we are not talking about Noah, but Gilgamesh, as if they were the same person. And there is no explanation whatsoever as to why the two myths (of Noah and of Gilgamesh) are clearly different in key aspects.
We are not talking about Gilgamesh, catch up. We are talking about Ut'Naishtim (Noah) as he is described in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Have you actually read the Epic of Gilgamesh? You haven't, have you?
- Also, the whole idea of longevity of a whole species is referred to the longevity of either Noah or Gilgamesh, and at least Gilgamesh is mentioned as an immortal being.
Again, we are talking about Noah, not Gilgamesh.
- And further, the discussion is moved to the times where no historians existed, not to mention statistics experts. And meanwhile, the recent history, including the last two centuries, when careful statistical information was compiled, is ignored.
Historians manifestly existed, otherwise the authorship of historical texts such as the Epic of Gilgamesh is inexplicable.
- Also, the numeric information on the Bible is considered metaphorical, not numerically exact, by even the most traditional priests. Only a few fanatics consider the Bible as literally exact.
That's good, because I am not, nor have I been, citing the Bible as my primary source of evidence.
- The same conditions that reduced longevity in past centuries are occurring even now in Africa and other places
Major factors which seem to be reducing longevity in Africa which I can think of are widespread civil war, famine and the spread of AIDS. The ancient Babylonians did not face these phenomena in any great or sustained amount that I know of.
Nobody wants to know what you believe. There is evidence to the contrary.
Nobody is forcing you to read my proclamations!
-
My source corroborates the thesis (not my thesis; I couched the proposition with the qualifier "reportedly") that Noah lived for a long time.
The Gilgamesh does not postulate that Noah attained immortality using the magic plant. It seems you are poorly read, or forgetful.
What is your evidence that Gilgamesh is not a historical document? As far as Noah's biographical details go, it can be cross-referenced against the Epic of Atrahasis, which reports similar events.
As long as you do maintain that Noah lived longer based better health care such as that of the Elizabethan era, then you post is off topic, and so ignored.
-
I'm not sure I understand.
We are discussing humourous medicine in general, and I am claiming that it was Noah's exploitation of medical humourism (since he would not have had access to other forms) which kept him alive for so long. It is very relevant!
-
I'm not sure I understand.
We are discussing humourous medicine in general, and I am claiming that it was Noah's exploitation of medical humourism (since he would not have had access to other forms) which kept him alive for so long. It is very relevant!
Please support your claim that he had access to such medicine, and nothing more--with evidence, not stories. Your speculations are irrelevant.
-
Humour me.
-
Humour me.
No. As I suspected, you continue to make outlandish claims. For shame.
-
If Noah lived that long, his body would have deteriorated far beyond usefulness.
I'm sorry but medicine doesn't slow down the aging process. And unless he found a way to constantly rejuvenate his cells, he would have had problems moving by the age of 150.
-
Im still waiting for the humeral explanation for the ruptured appendix I had, but no answers have been forthcoming lol
-
If Noah lived that long, his body would have deteriorated far beyond usefulness.
I'm sorry but medicine doesn't slow down the aging process. And unless he found a way to constantly rejuvenate his cells, he would have had problems moving by the age of 150.
Not necessarily. Some bible scholars contend that the reason for the extreme longevity of people early in the bible is because God made Adam and Eve genetically perfect (this also explains the lack of a sibling marriage taboo) and the general lack of diseases at the time. After many generations (probably sometime after the time of Noah), mutations started to be introduced into gene pool and diseases began to become more common, thereby reducing life spans.
-
I'm not sure I understand.
We are discussing humourous medicine in general, and I am claiming that it was Noah's exploitation of medical humourism (since he would not have had access to other forms) which kept him alive for so long. It is very relevant!
So, you are not Christian or Jewish and still you believe the myth of Noah is true. I must admit I am surprised. I thought the only reason on Earth that someone ever had to believe in Noah's myth was to uphold the literal truth of the Bible.
We are still waiting for any reason at all to believe Noah's or Ut'Naishtim's myth is true in any sense at all. And which of the two very different stories is right? They cannot be both right. Noah supposedly survived an Universal Flood, which included all landmasses on Earth. Ut'Naishtim's flood was a river flood. Noah shipped a couple of each of more than 16000 species, (called kinds in the Bible) while Ut'Naishtim embarked his own livestock, nothing more. Noah was one of only eight survivors of the human race, no mention about the almost total destruction of mankind is to be found the Epic of Gilgamesh. No mention of the age of Noah is given in the Bible (the famous 900 years are a calculation made by religious fanatics) but Ut'Naishtim was granted immortality.
So, which of the stories is right? Which "Noah" are you talking about? Are you saying that Ut'Naishtim's immortality is an indication of the longevity of most people some 4000 years ago?
But most importantly, what is your argument about humoural "medicine" and the mean longevity of humans some 4000 years ago?
Or are you just trolling?
and... PS. Why do you consider that a story in which people and snakes are granted immortality is historically correct?
-
What is your evidence that Gilgamesh is not a historical document?
What kind of demonstration could possibly be offered? What form would that sort of evidence even take?
-
DIET
The metabolism of food has three aspects: digestion, assimilation, and residue.
1) DIGESTION - Food and drink enter through the mouth. Digestion is fragmentation or breakdown of food as small as possible. This is accomplished by heat, the vital power of the body. The body cooks food beginning with mastication and saliva in the mouth and is continued in the stomach and the small intestine. The number of different kinds of enzymes that accomplish this breakdown of food by heating is well beyond the knowledge of modern medicine which only has knowledge of a handful of them. The body is much more complicated than the cosmos.
2) ASSIMILATION - This digestive process leads to the liver. The liver is a factory that sends these foods to become the different parts of the body. The best parts become blood. The four humours are manufactured in the liver. As an essential organ, the liver equals the heart. Without a liver, no one can survive even for a short time.
3) RESIDUE - The unuseable parts are dispensed to the large intestine.
---------------------------------------------------
THE TEMPERAMENTS OF FOOD
The two most essential temperaments are heat and cold. All foods, drinks, and herbs can be classified as either hot or cold.
HOT FOODS SPEED OR INCREASE BODILY METABOLISM.
COLD FOODS SLOW BODILY METABOLISM.
Furthermore, each food can be classed according to one of four degrees of intensity of either hot or cold. A food or drink of the first degree temperament is one that is mild and is mostly reacted upon by the body instead of influencing the body. Water is an example of a first degree cold drink. Fourth degree foods, herbs, or drinks are the poisons. Fourth degree hot foods speed up metabolism faster than the rates which can accomodate life. Fourth degree cold foods slow or stop bodily metabolism to a rate too slow to sustain life. In a proper diet, hot and cold foods balance each other. This concept even applies to the fourth degrees as this is how one can logically discern an antidote to a poison. Unfortunately, most nutrition systems are classified according to nutrients rather than the way the foods assist the body. If we select foods according to their degree of heat or coldness (whether they speed or slow metabolism), then our diet can assist the metabolism of the body. One should eat to live rather than live to eat.
HEATING FOODS
Meat and Fish: lamb, liver, chicken, eggs, goat (male), fish (general).
Dairy Products: sheep's milk, cream cheese, cream, clarified butter (ghee).
Vegetables and Beans: beet, radish, onion, mustard greens, red lentils, white lentils, kidney beans, leek, eggplant, chick peas, red pepper, green pepper, carrot seed, squash.
Fruits: peach, plum, orange, lime, mulberries, red raisins, green raisins, olive, ripe grapes, pumpkin, all dried fruits.
Seeds and Nuts: sesame, almond, pistachio, apricot kernels, walnut, pine nuts.
Grains: thingrain rice, basmati rice.
Oils: sesame oil, corn oil, castor oil, mustard oil Be ~ gts black tea, coffee.
Herbs: cinnamon, cardamom, cloves, fenugreek, ginger, celery seed, anise seed, rue, saffron~ garam masala (blend), curry powder (blend).
Other: honey, rock candy, all sweet things, salt, all modern medicine.
COOLING FOODS
Meat: rabbit, goat (female), beef.
Dairy Products: cow's milk, mother's milk, goat's milk, butter, buttermilk, dried cheeses, margarine.
Vegetables and Beans: lettuce, celery, sprouts (general), zucchini, spinach, cabbage, okra, cauliflower, broccoli, white potato, sweet potato, carrot, cucumber, soybeans, tomato, turnip, peas, beans (general).
Fruits: melons (general), pear, coconut, fig, banana, pomegranate.
Seeds and Nuts: none.
Grains: brown rice, thick grain rice.
Oils: sunflower oil, coconut oil.
Beverages: green teas.
Herbs: coriander (dry), dill, henna.
Other: refined sugar, vinegar, bitter things, sour things.
When food is not eaten according to this natural metabolic principle, the foods are not digested properly which leads to accumulation of superfluous substances which will eventually reach a limit called the healing crisis. The healing crisis involves fever which is a heat that cooks down the excess matter in order to eliminate it from the body. This is exclusively accomplished in five ways different ways which include mucus, vomiting, and diarrhea (which is a rapid evacuation from the body of toxic substances). Unfortunately, western medicine attempts to control diarrhea, stop vomiting, and stem nausea with drugs. Thus, western medicine attempts to hault the very processes the body uses to eliminate toxic substances and turns these substances and chemical drugs inward to the body creating unnecessary complications.
The basic diet of the majority of americans (milk, beef, potatoes, salads, white sugars, cheese, butter...) is virtually all cold foods. Excess cold foods leads to imbalance of the phlegm humour which produces diseases common to americans such as arthritis, headaches, constipation. When this trend reaches an advanced stage (an excess of the black bile humour) diseases such as cancer and emphysema develop.
-
Im still waiting for the humeral explanation for the ruptured appendix I had, but no answers have been forthcoming
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=41927.msg1047580#msg1047580
Having read more of Chishti's book, I added the following comment to the link above of which the idea is explained on pages 31 and 32 of 'The Traditional Healer's Handbook' which illustrates the objective and balanced nature of the book (quite fitting in a book that emphasizes balance):
"Emergency medicine is one of the most legitimate and impressive achievements of modern western medicine.
Appendicitis is a form of medical emergency."
-
And how is each food categorized?
Why is beef a cooling food and not a heating food?
-
Im still waiting for the humeral explanation for the ruptured appendix I had, but no answers have been forthcoming
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=41927.msg1047580#msg1047580
You must have so many serious side effects from your appendectomy, EireEngineer. I can only assume your now non-existent appendix is about to rupture again, and you have infections all over your body. I guess people all over the world are now seeing the terrible effects of that barbaric surgery and getting so many infections that very soon now it will be all over the news.
Oh, wait, my brother had an appendectomy almost 30 years ago, so he must be almost dead by now. Let me go and check and I will keep you posted.
-
Actually, I never had to have the surgery. It ruptured so bad that it completely necrotized and dissolved. I did have to have a couple of drains put in (more painful than having surgery) and pretty massive doses of anti-biotics. Other than that, I just had to sit there until things calmed down.
-
Actually, I never had to have the surgery. It ruptured so bad that it completely necrotized and dissolved. I did have to have a couple of drains put in (more painful than having surgery) and pretty massive doses of anti-biotics. Other than that, I just had to sit there until things calmed down.
You must be pretty happy your doctors did not waste time with humorous medicine and started antibiotic treatment immediately (and real cleaning with lots of water, not cleaning of the soul). There is very good evidence that the bacteria from the ruptured appendix usually cause peritonitis, which has no cure at all in humorous medicine. And advanced peritonitis is usually lethal.
What these "FE'rs" do not like to talk about is that old pre-scientific knowledge had a very tenuous understanding of the causes and effects (in this case, of diseases) and therefore could not make the link between bacteria and appendicitis. Without an established cause, there could be only an anecdotal relationship between the disease and the treatment.