In a message dated 8/5/07 4:58:13 AM, Henk writes:
I came across a remnant article you posted from the Daily mail. Whilst the article would be entertaining if it wasn't so tragic, could you please note that only one sided qualitative data was presented.
Diabetics in general suffer a lot of symptoms. Many of those described within that article. You don't have to be on human insulin to go hypo and keel over or have a psychiatric disturbance.
I know for a fact that the survival rates of the millions of diabetics world wide have been increased due to genetically engineered pharmaceuticals.
It doesn't take a very smart pen and paper to work that out.
Please inform that Jo-Ann Goodwin that she had her head in a bucket, on a beach in a different galaxy to we.
Tuesday, 7 August 2007 8:52 PM
It would seem from your note that you are convinced that pharmaceuticals, and GE ones at that, are the salvation for millions of diabetics.
However, let me point you in a different direction. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at a preview of a forthcoming movie that will be out next year about the raw food diet and diabetes. The movie is called Raw for 30 Days and it follows the experiences of 6 diabetics who went on a raw food diet for 30 days and the results of the experiment as far as their diabetes and other disease conditions were concerned. One of the people dropped out and did not continue the program, but the others achieved remarkable results, and freed themselves from shooting up insulin for the rest of their lives.
I believe these are personal choices. What one person may achieve with diet and lifestyle changes, another may choose to do with drugs. However, when you consider the quality of life, which path leads to a better quality of life?
With blessings and peace,
August 8, 2007
Dear Rhio… far from it
I am a scientist and review quantitative data. When I see qualitative assertions (and that is what the article was) I question the veracity of the site..
Havent you noticed people talk to god..Thats qualitative data.
When I note in my diary that god has left a message on my answering system… that's quantitative data
Following the lives of 6 diabetics isn't very quantitative
August 8, 2007
Yes, but how would you know that it was God leaving that message? (smile)
Following the lives of 6 diabetics, 5 of whom recovered is what I would call "evidence based studies".
Unfortunately, those who only give credence to so-called "scientific" data think as you do. I do not fault you with it. I believe it's just an indoctrination, a way of looking at things which doesn't allow you to see beyond the "scientific" box.
Now, let's say that those 5 recovered diabetics were multiplied by thousands who, following the same diet and lifestyle, had recovered, would that be quantitative enough for you? These recovered diabetics were checked by medical tests which showed quantitatively that they no longer suffered from insulin insufficiency.
I'm getting from your email that the term qualitative means subjective, rather than objective. Please explain your definition of quantitative?
And also explain what "quantitative" evidence would suffice to convince you, a scientist, that these 5 and thousands of others had recovered through changes in their diet and lifestyle?
Everyone that knows me, knows that when I have interesting conversations such as this one, they end up in my website's letters section. Just letting you know.