Thats just a deputy. Theres no such thing as an "acidic state"
The human blood maintains a pH within 7.35 and 7.45. If you're out of that range...you're fukked.
Some of ya'll keep taking these claims and reading the fukking brochure without understanding what, or how this shyt is misleading.
Just cause it SOUNDS like science doesn't mean it IS science.
Bruh, thats just an evasive form of bullshyt. Show and prove. We all the the information. Do your part.
Thats nice. Whats that got to do with CURING a viral infection?
How do these herbs interact with the RNA protein synthesis of viral particles? 
I'm not supporting the claim of acidic state. I was answerin' the question.
If that's his reason for not doin' studies (I'm assumin'), then I won't knock it. Studies are expensive and he would never recoup that cost. Everyone has access to food, water & herbs.
My understandin' is that he did prove he cures diseases, just not to the FDA's standard.
I was just answerin' another question. His products are just combinations of herbs. But many drugs are only derivatives of herbs, containin' the same compounds. Bein' the professional, tell us why these compounds work as drugs but not the original herb.
Again, just answerin' a question regardin' Bromide Powder. It's made of of those 2 herbs, and those herbs provide a set of vitamins & minerals. I take those herbs, not to combat any disease, but for a source of iodine as I don't eat iodized salt. And I don't buy them from Dr. Sebi.
Why not? What about a cure for cancer that's so impervious to scientific proof? What does the FDA classify as proof that you or Sebi has a problem with? Which FDA criteria is such that it would inherently not allow Sebi's cure to prove it's effective? I'm genuinely curious here.
Why not? People invest in studies that they don't have exclusive rights to all the time. What about all the thousands of medicines that have been studied and developed? Did the creators have exclusive rights? Did they not have exclusive rights?
The FDA requires double blind tests with a controlled set of circumstances with the only difference between 2 groups bein' one takes a drug, the other doesn't. I'm assumin', but I don't believe anyone has a problem with it except that it's expensive. If you're not gonna make that money back through exclusive rights of your findings, you're simply doin' a very expensive public service.
You can't simply have a patient with a disease, give him herbs/drugs, and they end up cured. That doesn't serve as proof accordin' to the FDA.
What pharmaceutical company invested in studies with no financial interest? Please link us.
As far as I know, companies that do the R&D for a drug get a certain number of years of exclusive rights. There's financial incentive behind that R&D. I've not researched every drug so I hope you or someone can link us to some that that were researched by a company that didn't have exclusive rights. Not sayin' they don't exist, but I'd imagine it would have to be a charity of some sort. Pharmaceutical companies are in the business of makin' money off drugs. They're not investin' in these drugs for public good.
