Has there been any "New Light" on the Blood Issue?

by Mastodon 168 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  rootcause

  hello jgnat,

  please read between the line . . .

  1) if they cannot measure the pH what's the use discussing it?

  2) they also said the cancer cell cannot live in an alkaline environment. . . but wait it also said including other cells in the body . . .ummmm? let's go back to Britannica and compare...

  You cannot change the acidity of any part of your body except your urine. Your bloodstream and organs control acidity in a very narrow range. Anything that changed acidity in your body would make you very sick and could even kill you. Promoters of these products claim that cancer cells cannot live in an alkaline environment and that is true, but neither can any of the other cells in your body.- (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/coral2.html)

  In health the blood is slightly alkaline, being kept at a pH of 7.35 to 7.45, a narrow range which must be maintained for the optimum operation of the many chemical reactions that go on constantly in the body. Alterations in the blood pH occur in many diseases, particularly of the lungs and kidneys, organs whose functions include regulation of the body pH.-Encyclopædia Britannica (cut and paste)

  3) they also said calcium leaves your bones. . .what is our current society diet? how much protein intake we are getting everyday?

  When you take in more protein than your body needs, your body cannot store it, so the excess amino acids are converted to organic acids that would acidify your blood. But your blood never becomes acidic because as soon as the proteins are converted to organic acids, calcium leaves your bones to neutralize the acid and prevent any change in pH. Because of this, many scientists think that taking in too much protein may weaken bones to cause osteoporosis.-(http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/coral2.html)

  4) what if saturation point were reached. . .or lets say the acid accumulation overtakes ellimination, what will happen?

  Therefore will their findings, "Taking calcium supplements or drinking alkaline water will not change the pH of your blood. If you hear someone say that your body is too acidic and you should use their product to make it more alkaline, you would be wise not to believe anything else the person tells you.",really supported according to the rule of empirical, testable,demonstrable protocol? If so, why they said excess protein intake would acidify your blood?

  By the way do you love God? (luke 10:25-28). . . .thanks,
• 

  rootcause

  hello TD,

  Did the bible said you can use blood for transfusion when it said pour it out?

  So do not pretend that the Bible explicitly condemns transfusion. It most certainly does not. The most you can do is argue that transfusion is equivalent in some way (e.g. Physically or morally) to eating blood. -TD

  (Deuteronomy 12:16) Only the blood YOU must not eat. On the earth you should pour it out as water.

  (Deuteronomy 15:23) Only its blood you must not eat. Upon the earth you should pour it out as water.

  Or should this can be compared with "Trinity?" in which were not also directly mentioned but being justified by many?

  Thanks,
• 

  jgnat

  Rootcause, I have already told you I am finished talking "science" to you. You asked me if I really love God. Yes. Now, can we cover some other questions I asked you?

  Do you believe that some commands are more important than others? And if so, how do you determine which are more important than others? There are some commands regarding the sacrifice of animals that we do not follow today. There were disputes in Jesus' day whether the Sabbath command should be broken when healing someone or rescuing an animal. What did Jesus answer?
• 

  rootcause

  hello jgnat,

  Before you told me I don't know anything about science. . . you also told me :

  We'll talk about your faith, but don't try and talk science with me. You don't know the first thing.-jgnat 04-Oct-05 03:20

  I won't answer to random "science" articles you have found, because you have accepted them on faith without considering other information.-jgnat 01-Oct-05 21:08

  Now you are asking we discussed the bible whereas from your post :

  The following is not a "factual" statement, because there is no empirical way to back it up:
  - Every event described in the bible happened as written.-jgnat, 26-Sep-05 11:06

  How can we discussed the Bible, if at 1st you keep on ignoring facts a ccording to the rules of empirical, testable,demonstrable protocol? or did you mean that you already accepted the pH relationship with cancer, is not a quack but the real thing?(need your answer here, yes or no)

  Thanks,
• 

  shotnbum

  Can you please explain where you are going with the questions about Blood PH. I am having a hard time following your logic. I truly want to know why you are asking these questions about the PH of blood. I see you referenced the color of blood in a previous post...which can be attributed to lack of O2 which then affects the PH of blood. So, my question is....what are you trying to say? I am most curious.
• 

  jgnat

  I repeat, rootcause, you don't know the first thing about "science". First of all anecdotal evidence is not proof. Testing the relative acidity of a cancer patient's blood does not prove anything. You still don't know if the acidity is a symptom or a cause. Thirdly, and this you apparently ignore, it is impossible to affect the acidity/alkalinity of the blood through diet. Which the articles I presented stated clearly. To do a true "scientific" test, you would need some test subjects, cancerous and healthy, and you would have to conduct a double-blind test. It would be cheaper to do this with lab mice who are genetically identical. I am pretty sure this has been tested and disproven. Like I said before,

  How do you know if blood acidity is a cause or a symptom? A ph tester can't determine that.

  Now, are you refusing to discuss bible doctrine with me because you distrust me? Then, I guess we have nothing left to talk about. I mistrust your "science" and you mistrust my "bible interpretation".
• 

  rootcause

  hello jgnat,

  If I don't knew about science, then what can you called those people who knew science but were igorant? and can't stand on their own findings according to the rules of empirical, testable,demonstrable protocol?

  There were no two humans having identical DNA. Can the response of mice the same for humans?

  1) First of all anecdotal evidence is not proof -jgnat

  Did you not read again, I got good end results. . .?is it anecdotal if you have proven it?

  I too then, never believed them but I am running out of time the mass may soon become active its worth a try as we already tried the standard and lost a life. . .So with their initial infos I surf the net for unturned stones. . . . . . in the end, my wife were eventually cured and then we became a JW. As another bonus my heart palpitation was also cured. As we found also from the bible, we were never designed to eat artficial food nor inorganic origins. We were not also designed to elliminate on sitting position but on squating position. We humans can't make our own vitamin C we need to get them from outside source, Genesis 1:29.-rootcause 08-Oct-05 10:12

  2) Testing the relative acidity of a cancer patient's blood does not prove anything -jgnat

  Are you sure? or is it anecdotal?

  3) You still don't know if the acidity is a symptom or a cause-jgnat

  Is it I who don't knew it or you?

  4) Thirdly, and this you apparently ignore, it is impossible to affect the acidity/alkalinity of the blood through diet; Which the articles I presented stated clearly.-jgnat

  Look around . . . .our society . . .are you blind ? have you seen Baywatch? are all people like them, having great body? why do we have over size dress being sold and marketed?

  I will give you a simple affordable test. . .in which you can do :

  get an artificial sweetener and put it directly on ants path. . . .the more (equal, inocal)aspartame you put on different ants path the more data you can get the better. . Please don't let it get wet just let the ants do it's thing . . .

  Now apply the rules of empirical, testable,demonstrable protocol - if you want repeatability, you may want to test it on other house as far as possible from your block.

  What do you found? Anyone who read this post may opt to try it, to validate jgnat findings

  Please, kindly elaborate : Every event describe in the Bible happened as written - is not a factual statement as there is no empirical way to back it up. . .

  Thanks,
• 

  rootcause

  hello shotnburn,

  Acid-base equilibrium

  The acidity of the body fluids is maintained within narrow limits. This acidity is expressed in terms of the pH of a solution, values exceeding 7 representing alkalinity and less than 7 acidity. The pH of a solution is an expression of the amount of hydrogen ion present. Increases in hydrogen ion concentration cause a lowering of the pH, and, conversely, decreases in the hydrogen ion concentration raise the pH. Any abnormal process raising the hydrogen ion concentration in the body fluids produces a state of disease referred to as acidosis; one that causes the concentration to be lowered results in alkalosis.

  In health the blood is slightly alkaline, being kept at a pH of 7.35 to 7.45, a narrow range which must be maintained for the optimum operation of the many chemical reactions that go on constantly in the body. Alterations in the blood pH occur in many diseases, particularly of the lungs and kidneys, organs whose functions include regulation of the body pH.- Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

  thanks,
• 

  TD

  Rootcause,
  

  You've taken statements made in a very specific and limited context and attempted to apply them in an open context. The Deuteronic instruction regarding the butchering of wild animals for food was not a general discussion about blood.

  This can easily be seen just by asking yourself the simple question, --What was the blood poured out from?

  Deuteronomy 12:15,16:

  "Only whenever your soul craves it you may slaughter, and you must eat meat according to the blessing of Jehovah your God that he has given you, inside all your gates. The unclean one and the clean one may eat it, like the gazelle and like the stag. 16 Only the blood YOU must not eat. On the earth you should pour it out as water.

  Deuteronomy 15:22,23:

  "Inside your gates you should eat it, the unclean one and the clean one together, like the gazelle and like the stag. 23 Only its blood you must not eat. Upon the earth you should pour it out as water.

  Wild animals like the gazelle and the stag do not let you get very close to them. You certainly can't walk up to them and slit their throats in the kosher manner. Consequently, bleeding the carcass was a separate and distinct step from killing the animal because methods for putting an animal to death from a distance (e.g. An arrow or spear) do not sufficiently bleed the carcass.

  The blood was poured out of the animal carcass itself. The specific nature of this requirement is makes it inapplicable outside of the context of butchering an animal for food. It has nothing to do with medicine.
• 

  jgnat

  Rootcause, your single example is the very definition of anecdotal. A single person's testimony is not proof, either in the courts, in the bible, or in science.

  Here is my complete statement regarding whether the bible is "factual" First I provide a definition, then I provide examples. All I have to do to prove that the bible is not "factual" is to provide a single story in the bible that cannot be confirmed today through independent observation. Just because the bible is not "factual" does not mean that we can't reference it as a moral work. There's no shame in admitting you follow the bible by faith. Just don't confuse it with something that it is not.

  FACTUAL: When philosophers speak eg of a factual proposition or claim, they usually mean that it is true or false, especially that it is an EMPIRICAL or at least non-ANALYTIC truth or falsehood. Hence ‘Glasgow is the capital of Scotland’ is factual. (Apologies to my Scottish friends, this is a direct quote, as written. Of course Glasgow is not the capital of Scotland) http://www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml Based on this definition, what is "factual" about the bible? These are all factual statements: There is a bible.

• The bible is a compilation of many written works, composed over thousands of years.
• There are various translations of the bible available.
• There are also disputes as to which works should be included in the bible, and which excluded, though there are a core set of works that all have in common.

The following is not a "factual" statement, because there is no empirical way to back it up:

• Every event described in the bible happened as written.