and every effect its cause. To know the exact cause and the exact effect we must vary the causes experimentally one after the other.' This is the method of science.

3. If your practitioner treats your symptom, he or she has a philosophy that goes against the afore-mentioned scientific law and therefore the practise will be doomed to failure.

So the writer in afore-mentioned extract is both right and wrong.

He is correct in his damnation of 'quack remedies.'

However, he is

My teacher and mentor, Mr. Jaffrey, used to subscribe to a scientific journal from which he would draw topics for many of our educational discussions.

For the past while I have been receiving email articles from different scientific sources in order to:

1. check out new ideas - especially those that pertain to health and happiness.

2. reaffirm my position in regards to the philosophy of health that I espouse.

3. sharpen my powers of deduction.

I received a letter to-day bemoaning the lack of scientific study surrounding many of the 'alternative' health ideas that are being promoted.

I won't go into many details regarding the content of the information, nor the author's name or company - they aren't important.

What is important is the philosophical base from which these statements are made.

Please read the following extracts and then note my comments.

"There has always been a chasm between the stuff written by medical correspondents and "health writers" .... The former are specialist science writers whose beat includes the latest goings on in medical research." "Just as health writers will cover any old tosh that deals with the human body, be it quack remedies or copper bracelets that cure snoring, while medical writers want some science behind their articles." "It is depressing that a newspaper as solid as The Independent carries this sort of tosh. Perhaps the one saving grace is that they file it under "Lifestyle"."

Comments:

1. Science is based on specific laws - more specifically, science is based on our understanding of the workings of the universe - nature really doesn't have laws - we make them in order to render our observations and actions as efficient as possible. Once a law has been defined and ratified we can get on with the use of it and even progress to newer extrapolations and understandings.

2. One of the first laws of science is the law of 'Cause and Effect.' 'Every cause has its effect and every effect its cause. To know the exact cause and the exact effect we must vary the causes experimentally one after the other.' This is the method of science.

3. If your practitioner treats your symptom, he or she has a philosophy that goes against the afore-mentioned scientific law and therefore the practise will be doomed to failure.

So the writer in afore-mentioned extract is both right and wrong.

He is correct in his damnation of 'quack remedies.'

However, he is w

ay bemoaning the lack of scientific study surrounding many of the 'alternative' health ideas that are being promoted.

I won't go into many details regarding the content of the information, nor the author's name or company - they aren't important.

What is important is the philosophical base from which these statements are made.

Please read the following extracts and then note my comments.

"There has always been a chasm between the stuff written by medical correspondents and "health writers" .... The former are specialist science writers whose beat includes the latest goings on in medical research." "Just as health writers will cover any old tosh that deals with the human body, be it quack remedies or copper bracelets that cure snoring, while medical writers want some science behind their articles." "It is depressing that a newspaper as solid as The Independent carries this sort of tosh. Perhaps the one saving grace is that they file it under "Lifestyle"."

Comments:

1. Science is based on specific laws - more specifically, science is based on our understanding of the workings of the universe - nature really doesn't have laws - we make them in order to render our observations and actions as efficient as possible. Once a law has been defined and ratified we can get on with the use of it and even progress to newer extrapolations and understandings.

2. One of the first laws of science is the law of 'Cause and Effect.' 'Every cause has its effect and every effect its cause. To know the exact cause and the exact effect we must vary the causes experimentally one after the other.' This is the method of science.

3. If your practitioner treats your symptom, he or she has a philosophy that goes against the afore-mentioned scientific law and therefore the practise will be doomed to failure.

So the writer in afore-mentioned extract is both right and wrong.

He is correct in his damnation of 'quack remedies.'

However, he is

health writers" .... The former are specialist science writers whose beat includes the latest goings on in medical research." "Just as health writers will cover any old tosh that deals with the human body, be it quack remedies or copper bracelets that cure snoring, while medical writers want some science behind their articles." "It is depressing that a newspaper as solid as The Independent carries this sort of tosh. Perhaps the one saving grace is that they file it under "Lifestyle"."

Comments:

1. Science is based on specific laws - more specifically, science is based on our understanding of the workings of the universe - nature really doesn't have laws - we make them in order to render our observations and actions as efficient as possible. Once a law has been defined and ratified we can get on with the use of it and even progress to newer extrapolations and understandings.

2. One of the first laws of science is the law of 'Cause and Effect.' 'Every cause has its effect and every effect its cause. To know the exact cause and the exact effect we must vary the causes experimentally one after the other.' This is the method of science.

3. If your practitioner treats your symptom, he or she has a philosophy that goes against the afore-mentioned scientific law and therefore the practise will be doomed to failure.

So the writer in afore-mentioned extract is both right and wrong.

He is correct in his damnation of 'quack remedies.'

However, he is

ents:

1. Science is based on specific laws - more specifically, science is based on our understanding of the workings of the universe - nature really doesn't have laws - we make them in order to render our observations and actions as efficient as possible. Once a law has been defined and ratified we can get on with the use of it and even progress to newer extrapolations and understandings.

2. One of the first laws of science is the law of 'Cause and Effect.' 'Every cause has its effect and every effect its cause. To know the exact cause and the exact effect we must vary the causes experimentally one after the other.' This is the method of science.

3. If your practitioner treats your symptom, he or she has a philosophy that goes against the afore-mentioned scientific law and therefore the practise will be doomed to failure.

So the writer in afore-mentioned extract is both right and wrong.

He is correct in his damnation of 'quack remedies.'

However, he is

and every effect its cause. To know the exact cause and the exact effect we must vary the causes experimentally one after the other.' This is the method of science.

3. If your practitioner treats your symptom, he or she has a philosophy that goes against the afore-mentioned scientific law and therefore the practise will be doomed to failure.

So the writer in afore-mentioned extract is both right and wrong.

He is correct in his damnation of 'quack remedies.'

However, he is wrong in thinking that the medical fraternity is any different in either its philosophy or its practise.

And I conclude by submitting that 'lifestyle' is paramount in all matters of health and disease.

- Remove any and all causes of faulty lifestyle.

- Provide the correct biological requirements as they pertain to human life.

- Conserve energy and allow the body to act in accordance with its prime directive - to maintain itself in pristine health.

Kevin