WAYNE YOUNG was thinking about ADD etc. and keyed into cyberspace:
WY> -=> Quoting Mark Probert to Wayne Young <=-
WY> WY> WY>Very valid points, Jane.
WY> WY> WY>"You are what you eat" applies to ADD too.
WY> 
WY> WY> MP> Never has, never will.
WY> 
WY> WY>Did you ever think about that before you spew it out?
WY> WY>If you ask me nicely, I'll tell you the facts, as up-to-date as
WY> WY>last week. But your pride will not allow that.
WY> 
WY> WY> MP> ===>The Voice of Reason<===
WY> 
WY> WY>Blindly opinionated hot air!
WY> MP> OK, post the facts. Any scientifically valid research published
WY> MP> in a  juried journal acceptable to the medical community will
WY> MP> do. I'll make it  easy:
WY> MP> Name of Journal:
WY> MP> Author(s):
WY> MP> Volume:
WY> MP> Page:
WY>That wouldn't do you any good, after all, you already saw
WY>"thousands" of them as you said; you wouldn't understand it.
WY>I'll do this much for you though, because I want your son to
WY>get better; I'll summaries it for you, for easy digest.
WY>But you have to do better than Alan, you have to read it coolly
WY>and think about it before you spew back saying it doesn't work,
WY>like Alan did on another post about virus, ok?
WY>DIET improves a medical/bodily condition by changing the body's
WY>chemistry to bring about a biochemical equilibrium.
WY>The basic life energy has 2 functional expressions which
WY>influence and control the physical matters. These 2 subenergies
WY>control among others the body functions and have to be kept in
WY>balance for optimal functioning of the biological systems. The
WY>endocrine glands whose hormones control every body function
WY>would then be in top condition. These 2 subenergies are called
WY>"yin and yan" in the Chinese medicine - the life energy "Chi".
WY>The Chinese try to manipulate them with the help of accupuncture,
WY>yoga, and with DIET. Modern science call yin yan as antropy and
WY>ectropy, electron and positron, or simply matter and antimatter.
WY>                             - E Frauendorfer, PhD, Calf., USA
Wayne, I have often stated that I prefer to read original studies. I 
have found that even those with the best of intentions often miss a 
point or two that may be applicable to the issue at hand,
Now, I would really like to read what you have so tantalizing 
summarized. How about it? Just a full library cite. I'll do the rest.
BTW, the positron is not the anti-matter equivalent of the electron. I 
double checked that with a friend who is project manager and physicist 
at Lawrence-Livermore National Laboratory, and another physicist I know 
at Brookhaven National Lab. Both are particle physicists.
Now, about the reference. 
	PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
I post my cites, when I refer to a book, magazine, etc. Can you be "on 
point" for once?
                ===>The Voice of Reason<===
                     mark.probert@juno.com
---
 * CMPQwk #1.4 * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
---------------