Posted by bleauberry on January 11, 2014, at 8:20:24
In reply to Re: minocycline » bleauberry, posted by SLS on January 10, 2014, at 23:31:50
Scott if we can have an adult conversation with respect, cool.
You admitted aggressiveness and antagonism.
I am sorry but I do not purposely subject myself to the torture of being attacked by someone else because they think different than me and they think they are the only ones correct and I'm not and they are the only ones that can help people I can't and anything I say is going to hurt people but everything you say is going to help people.I don't need that.
Keep in mind, I could do that with you and never would.
Respect, sir, goes a long way.
I can have really deep heavy duty debates with people in my own life on whatever...politics, meds, economics, news, whatever....and come out of with smiles and respect for each other.
I don't see that sort of partner in this discussion, I don't like pain.
So I would suggest one of two things:
1. Have a polite respectful discussion of differences, or
2. Ignore my posts. They might not be helpful to you, but based on the babblemails I get over the years, others have found my writings life changing and very helpful.If I could just save one person, help one person, I would feel so satisfied with my time here. Just one. I gotta tell ya. The feedback I have gotten over the years. It has been a whole lot more than one, and I like that. Suffering was ended. Unfortunately, it was not science that worked. It was simple pure human intuition guided by experience. Which does not jive well with scientific oriented thinking.
But none of that is an excuse for disrespect, antagonism, or belittling someone else's ideas via abrasive interrogation.
Ok, thought I was done, glanced at your questions, and figured what the heck, go ahead and answer them. The fool that I am. Fall in the trap set for me. Here goes.
> You do indeed detect some agitation on my part.
There is no place for that here Scott. I hope you can shake it. Lots of people have wildly differing views and approaches.>
> > You are a science guy. I am a realville guy.
>
> What does that mean?
It means if you have a question on something, the first place you turn for an answer is a scientific journal. The first place I turn to is google. I want that same science. But that's only a piece of it. I want to know what everyone at the forum who actually has experience in the topic, how did it work for them, what were their outcomes and comments? And the other forum. And the other one. And that doctor's blog. And that other doctor's blog. And that article from the local news. And the NP, the MD, everyone in my own circles, what do they know on the topic, I want to know the pro side but I also want to know the con side. I am not much interested in what happened in the lab, I am very interested in what happened with actual people in real life outside of the lab setting. That's where the rubber hits the road. That's the place I call Real-Ville.
I slam science a lot because in my observations they have drifted from what real science is. Science is facts. Anything less is not science. Call it research, hypothesis, whatever, but it is not science until it is fact, proven beyond .0000001 percent accuracy, repeatable every time. What we see today are more along the lines of science editorials based on incomplete, unremarkable, or contradictory data, which is usually cherry picked by either side to make their case. I've done that a lot just for fund and it's a good brain excercise. It is not hard to dispute or discredit a great many science studies when looking at the fine details of that study. Some people trust establishment, whatever they say, whatever they conclude, no suspicion of the data or mechanism or anything, no questions asked. I am not one of those. Realville is....what really happens on the street versus the lab. Today's science, sorry to say, is not real.Repeat, to answer your question, today's science IS NOT REAL.
Disclaimer....my opinion only. But, gotta admit, they deserve huge applause for effort. It's just too complicated, I think human ego gets in the way sometimes. Nothing new. And don't misunderstand a blanket statement like that....there are always good ones doing the right thing....my opinions are of established science in general, does not include all scientists or all studies. Some of them truly are unbiased, well constructed, and interpreted in accurate ways, or preferably so dang accurate that it turns out to be fact rather than interpretation.
>
> Is science not real? Your realville guessing is better than science experiments?
I don't think either is better. I think what is better is to combine both of them into a hybrid. It's all so complicated, we need all the tools and options we can get.
>
> I am confronting your words aggressively. I don't feel that they reflect "realville" at all, and you have not provided people with anything but a leap of faith that what you say is the truth.I never accept what someone else says as truth without first verifying it myself. It would be very easy for anyone to type in a google search box to look deeper into whatever I said. And if they did that, confirmation and verification is there. If I question what someone says, I don't go attack them. Instead, I go to look for the answer myself to see if what they said had merit or not. Maybe my mistake is I assume everybody operates their own lives with that same sense of curiosity, but maybe not?
So for anyone out there reading this, do not accept what SLS has to say at face value. Do not accept what I say at face value. It is not hard to take a look yourself and decide for yourself what is best for you.
>You do a good job of representing your guesses and personal theories as fact. No good. Let's see some evidence for the things you so confidently declare.
NO. Just ignore the whole thing if it bothers you that much. Or go find the answers yourself. You can find them in the exact same places I did. Why do I have to do it for YOU? Who are you? I am not a salesman and I am not on defense. I offer ideas, someone else can look into it and make their own decisions as to whether I am a cook or pretty smart. Their decision. I've been both.
>
> I am uncomfortable with your statements going unchallenged. I haven't yet figured out how to challenge your words without challenging you.
I am not comfortable with yours. But who am I to judge you? Not my place.
Why can you not research my words yourself? Isn't that the point? That we all gather as much wisdom as we can? You want someone else to do it for you? That's fine. Just won't be me, that's all. Nothing I talk about is hard to research. Besides, anybody....anybody...taking advice from SLS or Blue or XYZ without any looking into themselves, well, that just is not smart in my book.>
> Would it be accurate to say that you attribute some mental illnesses to the activity of microbes? If so, which ones? Which illnesses are not due to microbes?
Absolutely! Wow. Bartonella, in my experience, causes more profound psychiatric symptoms than do borellia or babesia. Mycoplasma devastating. Parasites of various kinds. When their poop, pee, excretions, defensive enzymes, and such, hit the neurotransmitter receptors, or join with a serotonin molecule to corrupt it, psychiatric symptoms of all kinds happen.Tons of peer reviewed stuff on this topic if you haven't seen it already.
>
> I hope you use the resources of the WWW to demonstrate the veracity of your contentions.
I don't even know what veracity means. I use www a ton, Library of Sciences a ton. I hope you use the resources of clinical settings, forums, and blogs to demonstrate the veracity (whatever that is) of your contentions. You don't just rely on white coats and your own medical team, do you?>
> Let's go one step at a time.
>
> Please identify the toxins that you say are responsible for mood illness (MDD; BD)?
Shoemaker. Harrowitz. Burrascano. Study them. After you have done that, I guarantee you, you being the science guy not me, YOU will be able to describe this stuff better than me! And you will have a decent list of the actual chemical names of the toxins. The one I am aware of that I use cholestryramine for is quinolic acid. But there are so many and science is lagging because we don't even have any economical way to test for these things in a clinical setting, only in a lab setting. The research is there for anyone interested. You seem interested.>
>
> - Scott
poster:bleauberry
thread:1058144
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20140104/msgs/1058268.html