I assume because most people think there would be some false advertising law they must be breaking.
It also wouldn’t surprise me if any of them had said something vaguely positive about one or more of the ingredients in the drug. There’s a lot you can do to manipulate the truth into what effectively becomes a lie.
The second half of that article makes a bunch of recommendations based (apparently on the firsthand experience of the author having ‘tested’ them) - do you trust that bit? I don’t know the site or the author, but in some ways the article reads as though it’s subjectively promoting some products, and that makes the first half look like competitor sniping more than objective analysis.
I’m not saying we should trust Geniux (my inclination is to distrust the entire category) - just not sure that article does any net good.
By this argument demonic posession is a real disease. People who genuinely have it respond very differently to being touched with a crucifix than do people without the condition. So it can even be used as a diagnostic tool: If a patient doesn’t respond to a crucifix, then it’s probably not actually demonic position.
That’s some of the most tortured logic I have ever seen. As you noted, different treatments have different effectiveness for different people. Doesn’t matter whether the treatment is a pharmaceutical, a placebo or voodoo ceremony: different treatments have different effectiveness for different people. So of course some people respond very differently to any treatment.
That isn’t evidence that the condition exists or that the treatment is effective. In fact different people with the same diagnosis responding differently is a good indication that the condition is *not *real.
Is anyone surprised by this? I saw one a few days ago that implied Meghan Kelley had interviewed Albert Einstein.
These ads are becoming the new Evony.
Looks adrafinil, unlike Geniux, at least has some reasonably understood biochemical backing.
Theanine is another interesting substance with that sort of backup info.
If this were in fact true, then it would in fact be very strong evidence for the reality of demonic possession. But it’s not, and so it isn’t.
Of course it’s true. Doing a simple search of Youtube will confirm that people with demonic possession respond in different ways.
I’m astonished that you could be ignorant of this.
Of course it’s true.
I’m astonished that you could be ignorant of this. Do you honestly think that someone diagnosed with demonic possession from an Animistic religion in China responds the same way to a Crucifix as someone from Catholic Spain or someone from pre-Christian Syria 3000 years ago? To even suggest that this could be true is monumentally ignorant and would in itself be incontrovertible evidence that demonic possession is real and Christianity is the one true religion…
Or perhaps you are claiming that nobody diagnosed with demonic possession has any reaction to a Crucifix? Is that it?
the latter position is easily refuted with a Youtube search. The former is simply ludicrous.
You really need to clarify what you mean here Chronis. Are you saying that nobody diagnosed with demonic possession has any reaction to a Crucifix, or are you saying that everybody with demonic possession responds exactly the same way to a crucifix? Because the only other alternative is that some people respond to to a crucifix, and some do not, which you have just told us is not true.
Please tell us what you mean. I await your answer with bated breath.
Why I wasn’t aware of the gluten sensitivity… Well, it’s because I never had any of the classic indigestion problems and it was about 70% of what I ate. It doesn’t always express as digestive problems although I did often notice feeling blood sugar drop after carb loaded meals, which is why I’d adapted to eating smaller meals cause I would always feel uncomfortable after.
Of that group, the healthline article is generalized and refers more to treatment with antibiotics, only recommended on acute infection. Quackwatch is always a bit humorous. I do like to read it sometimes. The NEJM is the most interesting of the group. Look, I’ve read so much on Chronic Lyme I truly had to step away due to the controversy back and forth. They are such a mysterious group of infections/co-infections, it will be some years before this settles out.
I know a family who have all had extensive Lyme testing. They are all positive for Lyme infections, however only one of them has significant symptoms. Very significantly affected. Through the Cowden protocols and other immune system protocols, she has improved significantly, but it took some time.
Let’s agree to just leave the Lyme topic to those with the energy and time to cast dispersion about. Chronic infections of all sorts can be a factor in wellness. Lyme co-infections just happen to be getting of attention and controversy.
One might suggest that someone who believes that Stephen Hawking both took and endorsed a “genius pill” is in obvious dire need of such a substance, but there may not be the underlying structure required to create an effect.
So, Blake, you’re telling me that if a person who claims to be possessed by a demon closes their eyes and is poked with the end of a crucifix, that they’ll react differently than if they close their eyes and are poked with the end of a non-crucifix stick with the same cross section? Despite having no way of distinguishing which is which using normal mortal senses?
About the same can be said for “functional medicine”.
Hoo boy.
It looks like Macfawlty while professing skepticism about the Geniux pill, would really like to hear good things about it, so it can be added to his current regimen of supplements and other useless pills.
Macfawlty protests “diseases created seemingly for the sole purpose of developing expensive pharmaceutical meds that are paid for by the healthcare system that results in escalating costs and premiums that many cannot afford”. But on the other hand he’s on board with pricey supplements sold to treat imaginary or ill-defined conditions that they have not been demonstrated to help.
It is all very strange. Or ironic.
I notice that, one, you exhibit the common sign of dismissing Quackwatch, which is fairly often seen in, well, quacks and those who follow quacks, and, two, that you haven’t actually refuted any of the cites I used. I agree that the NEJM cite is interesting, in that it explicitly says that Chronic Lyme disease is nonsense.
Again, two points: Doing a lot of research is no substitute for doing good research, and trying to keep a “controversy” going is a classic quack sign.
I googled ‘Cowden protocol’ (no quotes) and literally every site on the first page was so bad I’d be embarrassed to use any of them to support my arguments here. I found absolutely no evidence it’s anything but bullshit.
“Wellness”! I do believe that’s alt-med bullshit bingo!
You know, there’s lichen planus and similar autoimmune diseases. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that Lyme disease could act as a trigger for such horrible and long-lasting problems.