@sneak you're a smart guy but you'll need to provide a link to better info than that if you want to argue the validity of natural vs synthetic.
How about the fact that pure, high quality frankincense oil has the ability to pass the blood brain barrier. This has cured cases of brain cancer that were otherwise inoperable. Not to mention the fact that this same oil doesn't damage perfectly good healthy cells like chemo and radiation does.
I'm curious what your thoughts on that are.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The other way around. I don't have to provide a link to better info - but you do have to substantiate your claim that things are bad if they are unpronounceable. I encourage you to try, but don't spend too much time on it, because you'll fail to prove a relationship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
e.g.: There are many survivors of disease out there who would take the argument that many "unnatural", unpronounceable things are extremely beneficial (and indeed lifesaving) for some people.
Well call me crazy then, because I believe that there's a reason for the rise in number of cancer patients... and I think there are many contributing factors, and they aren't derived from nature.
Why are you so against the notion that things exist in nature that are just as effective for some things as their synthetic counterparts?
It's a shame you can't put a patent on a naturally occurring substance, otherwise I'm sure we'd be programmed to believe that natural is better ;)
I'm using my own personal experiences with essential oils and showing how they've proven hugely beneficial to me. Not trying to start a war...