This was sent to me by a cousin who also happens to be an orthopedic
surgeon.

It's worth a read.

Lew
-----------------------------------
Johns Hopkins Update -
This is an extremely good article. Everyone should read it.


AFTER YEARS OF TELLING PEOPLE CHEMOTHERAPY IS THE
ONLY WAY TO TRY ('TRY', BEING THE KEY WORD) TO
ELIMINATE CANCER, JOHNS HOPKINS IS FINALLY STARTING
TO TELL YOU THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY .

Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins:

1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer
cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have
multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients
that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after
treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the
cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable
size.

2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a
person's lifetime.

3. When the person's immune system is strong the cancer
cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and
forming tumors.

4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has
nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic,
but also to environmental, food and lifestyle factors.

5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing
diet to eat more adequately and healthy, 4-5 times/day
and by including supplements will strengthen the immune system.

6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing
cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells
in the bone marrow, gastrointestinal tract etc, and can
cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.

7.. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars
and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.

8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often
reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of
chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor
destruction.

9. When the body has too much toxic burden from
chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either
compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb
to various kinds of infections and complications.

10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to
mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy.
Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other
sites.

11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer
cells by not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply.

*CANCER CELLS FEED ON:

a. Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made
with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute
would be Manuka honey or molasses, but only in very small
amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in
color Better alternative is Bragg's aminos or sea salt.

b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the
gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting
off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk cancer
cells are being starved.

c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based
diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little other meat,
like chicken. Meat also contains livestock
antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all
harmful, especially to people with cancer.

d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole
grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into
an alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked
food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live
enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to
cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance
growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building
healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most
vegetables including be an sprouts) and eat some raw
vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at
temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C)..

e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high
caffeine Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer
fighting properties. Water-best to drink purified water, or
filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap
water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.

12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of
digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the
intestines becomes putrefied and leads to more toxic
buildup.

13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By
refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes
to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the
body's killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.

14. Some supplements build up the immune system
(IP6, Flor-ssence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals,
EFAs etc.) to enable the bodies own killer cells to destroy
cancer cells.. Other supplements like vitamin E are known
to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body's
normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or
unneeded cells.

15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit.
A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior
be a survivor. Anger, un-forgiveness and bitterness put
the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to
have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy
life.

16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated
environment. Exercising daily, and deep breathing help to
get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen
therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer
cells.

1. No plastic containers in micro.

2. No water bottles in freezer.

3. No plastic wrap in microwave..

Johns Hopkins has recently sent this out in its newsletters. This
information is being circulated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as
well. Dioxin
chemicals cause cancer, especially breast cancer. Dioxins are highly
poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don't freeze your plastic
bottles with
water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic. Recently, Dr
Edward
Fujimoto, Wellness Program Manager at Castle Hospital , was on a TV
program
to explain this health hazard. He talked about dioxins and how bad
they are
for us. He said that we should not be heating our food in the
microwave
using plastic containers. This especially applies to foods that
contain fat
He said that the combination of fat, high heat, and plastics releases
dioxin into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body.
Instead, he
recommends using glass, such as Corning Ware, Pyrex or ceramic
containers for
heating food You get the same results, only without the dioxin. So
such
things as TV dinners, instant ramen and soups, etc., should be
removed from the
container and heated in something else. Paper isn't bad but you don't
know
what is in the paper. It's just safer to use tempered glass, Corning
Ware,
etc. He reminded us that a while ago some of the fast food
restaurants
moved away from the foam containers to paper The dioxin problem is
one of the
reasons.
Please share this with your whole email list.........................
Also, he pointed out that plastic wrap, such as Saran, is just as
dangerous when placed over foods to be cooked in the microwave. As
the food is
nuked, the high heat causes poisonous toxins to actually melt out of
the
plastic wrap and drip into the food. Cover food with a paper towel
instead.

This is an article that should be sent to anyone important in your
life.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
b.com...
This was sent to me by a cousin who also happens to be an orthopedic
surgeon.

It's worth a read.

Yes. Thanks!

In article , lid says...
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
b.com...
This was sent to me by a cousin who also happens to be an orthopedic
surgeon.

It's worth a read.

Yes. Thanks!

It's a hoax. See Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cancerupdate.asp

No such article was ever published by Johns Hopkins, and most of the
content is standard alt-med deception and misinformation.

For a point-by-point debunking from Johns Hopkins, see:

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/kimme...events/feature
d/cancer_update_email_it_is_a_hoax.html


--
John

John Santos wrote:
In article , lid says...
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
b.com...
This was sent to me by a cousin who also happens to be an orthopedic
surgeon.

It's worth a read.

Yes. Thanks!

It's a hoax. See Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cancerupdate.asp

No such article was ever published by Johns Hopkins, and most of the
content is standard alt-med deception and misinformation.

For a point-by-point debunking from Johns Hopkins, see:

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/kimme...events/feature
d/cancer_update_email_it_is_a_hoax.html

Thanks for finding this.

"The Truth about the "Cancer Update" Email

It has become such a problem, that the National Cancer Institute, American
Cancer Society, and individual cancer centers like the Johns Hopkins Kimmel
Cancer Center have posted warnings on their Web sites. Emails offering easy
remedies for avoiding and curing cancer are the latest Web-influenced trend.
To gain credibility, the anonymous authors falsely attribute their work to
respected research institutions like Johns Hopkins. This is the case with
the so-called "Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins."

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/kimme...is_a_hoax.html

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:4eae3102$0$9792
:

This was sent to me by a cousin who also happens to be an orthopedic
surgeon.

It's worth a read.

Lew

You are contributing to lies. Stick to woodworking. This is not a joke.

There is indeed an immunological aspect to cancer, as well as an oxygen
aspect, and many bad substances can contribute to cancer. Once you have a
mutation leading to, say CML, a diet can't help you. Perhaps Steve Jobs is
an example. He delayed having surgery FAR, FAR too long in favor of
alternative crooked medicine, and he did eventually die, but could have
lived much longer had he had immediate surgery of his rather tame cancer.
Alternative medicine may help conventional medicine, but in the case of
cancer it can't substitute.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Your "conventional medicine" kills hundreds of people every day. There
is a reason so many alternative therapies exist.

The Johns Hopkins website rebuttal didn't address most of the
statements. Doctors do not like competition threatening their incomes.


------------------
"Han" wrote in message ...
You are contributing to lies. Stick to woodworking. This is not a
joke.

There is indeed an immunological aspect to cancer, as well as an oxygen
aspect, and many bad substances can contribute to cancer. Once you
have a
mutation leading to, say CML, a diet can't help you. Perhaps Steve
Jobs is
an example. He delayed having surgery FAR, FAR too long in favor of
alternative crooked medicine, and he did eventually die, but could have
lived much longer had he had immediate surgery of his rather tame
cancer.
Alternative medicine may help conventional medicine, but in the case of
cancer it can't substitute.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"m II" wrote in :

Your "conventional medicine" kills hundreds of people every day. There
is a reason so many alternative therapies exist.

That is a non-sequitur. And no references. Yes, **** happens. Yes, there
are unscrupulous as well as stupid doctors. But that doesn't mean
conventional medicine kills people, it means crooks are about.

The Johns Hopkins website rebuttal didn't address most of the
statements. Doctors do not like competition threatening their incomes.

I don't need Johns Hopkins rebuttals to /know/ that Lew distributed
nonsense. I just have appropriate knowledge. And, yes "miracles" happen.
People do get better from really bad diseases without a satisfactory
explanation. But 99% do not.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

The only "miracle" is that much of the public will still pay for the
floundering of the "conventional medicine" quacks pretending to "cure"
people.

Even your email address has become an invalid.


------------
"Han" wrote in message
...
That is a non-sequitur. And no references. Yes, **** happens. Yes,
there
are unscrupulous as well as stupid doctors. But that doesn't mean
conventional medicine kills people, it means crooks are about.

I don't need Johns Hopkins rebuttals to /know/ that Lew distributed
nonsense. I just have appropriate knowledge. And, yes "miracles"
happen.
People do get better from really bad diseases without a satisfactory
explanation. But 99% do not.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

ROFLMAO

---------
"Eric" wrote in message ...

Even your email address has become an invalid.


------------
"Han" wrote in message
...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Oct 31, 1:48*pm, "Eric" wrote:
The only "miracle" is that much of the public will still pay for the
floundering of the "conventional medicine" quacks pretending to "cure"
people.

Taking one extreme view or the other helps no-one. You've got to think
critically. This link may be useful to you:

http://www.badscience.net/

Writing off 'conventional medicine' due to opinion is silly, equally
as silly as accepting 'alternative medicine' as viable due to someone
else's opinion.

For what it's worth, I tend to think of medicine as falling into two
categories too, but my categories a

1. Evidence-based medicine, and
2. Wishfull-thinking based bull****.

There is also a US based site:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/

a group of people including doctors, who pull-apart quackery.

But please don't think that the OPs forwarded letter is of any value
when it contains such glaring errors as

"Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the
gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting
off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk cancer
cells are being starved."

Where-else other than the gastro-intestinal tract would mucus be
produced?
DOES cancer really "feed on mucus"?

And the even more-established-to-be-bull****:

"Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of
digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the
intestines becomes putrefied and leads to more toxic
buildup."

Meat IS NOT difficult to digest. It may take longer, but this is a
GOOD THING as it mean you don't feel hungry so often.
How does undigested meat stay in the intestines? Why wouldn't
peristaltic action shift it all along the gut?

I am not trying to attack you personally, just combat bull****.

On Oct 31, 9:50*am, "m II" wrote:
ROFLMAO

---------

"Eric" *wrote in ...

Even your email address has become an invalid.



Laughing at your own failed attempt at humour, you dumb ****?

Many sheeple still fall for the big money promoted products and techniques.

There are others that can actually learn by the SoHK (School of Hard Knocks)
by actual experience instead of listening to "conventional" doctors preach
about things they have absolutely no schooled training in... like Nutrition
or preventative health.

This is not to say that the whole text is not BS to some degree. As the
"conventional medicine" quacks do, they have stretched some of the findings.

BTW: Some of your statements below actually contradict themselves in the
same paragraph. Your "evidence based medicine" should include al the failed
trials that have been discarded. Doctors should reveal their sources. It
wasn't taught them in medical school..

Here is another quack based website www.quackwatch.com where MDs express
radical comments, based on hearsay, about subject matter they have no
training in, for money and.or publicity.

Where there is a buck to be made there is a liar.

-----------
"David Paste" wrote in message
...

On Oct 31, 1:48 pm, "Eric" wrote:
The only "miracle" is that much of the public will still pay for the
floundering of the "conventional medicine" quacks pretending to "cure"
people.

Taking one extreme view or the other helps no-one. You've got to think
critically. This link may be useful to you:

http://www.badscience.net/

Writing off 'conventional medicine' due to opinion is silly, equally
as silly as accepting 'alternative medicine' as viable due to someone
else's opinion.

For what it's worth, I tend to think of medicine as falling into two
categories too, but my categories a

1. Evidence-based medicine, and
2. Wishfull-thinking based bull****.

There is also a US based site:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/

a group of people including doctors, who pull-apart quackery.

But please don't think that the OPs forwarded letter is of any value
when it contains such glaring errors as

"Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the
gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting
off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk cancer
cells are being starved."

Where-else other than the gastro-intestinal tract would mucus be
produced?
DOES cancer really "feed on mucus"?

And the even more-established-to-be-bull****:

"Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of
digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the
intestines becomes putrefied and leads to more toxic
buildup."

Meat IS NOT difficult to digest. It may take longer, but this is a
GOOD THING as it mean you don't feel hungry so often.
How does undigested meat stay in the intestines? Why wouldn't
peristaltic action shift it all along the gut?

I am not trying to attack you personally, just combat bull****.

Perfect!

The Dutch sock puppet posts to support himself again.


-----------
"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
Laughing at your own failed attempt at humour, you dumb ****?

On Oct 31, 10:14*am, David Paste wrote:
On Oct 31, 1:48*pm, "Eric" wrote:

The only "miracle" is that much of the public will still pay for the
floundering of the "conventional medicine" quacks pretending to "cure"
people.

Taking one extreme view or the other helps no-one. You've got to think
critically. This link may be useful to you:

http://www.badscience.net/

Writing off 'conventional medicine' due to opinion is silly, equally
as silly as accepting 'alternative medicine' as viable due to someone
else's opinion.

For what it's worth, I tend to think of medicine as falling into two
categories too, but my categories a

1. Evidence-based medicine, and
2. Wishfull-thinking based bull****.

There is also a US based site:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/

a group of people including doctors, who pull-apart quackery.

But please don't think that the OPs forwarded letter is of any value
when it contains such glaring errors as

"Milk causes the *body to produce mucus, especially in the
gastro-intestinal tract. *Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting
off milk and *substituting with unsweetened soy milk cancer
cells are being *starved."

Where-else other than the gastro-intestinal tract would mucus be
produced?
DOES cancer really "feed on mucus"?

And the even more-established-to-be-bull****:

"Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot *of
digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in *the
intestines becomes putrefied and leads to more *toxic
buildup."

Meat IS NOT difficult to digest. It may take longer, but this is a
GOOD THING as it mean you don't feel hungry so often.
How does undigested meat stay in the intestines? Why wouldn't
peristaltic action shift it all along the gut?

I am not trying to attack you personally, just combat bull****.

If anything, we don't eat enough meat, but eat waaaaay too much
processed **** they call 'meat'.
Rarely (if ever) does a natural product 'improve' when industrial
corporations screw with it.
Same goes for processed dairy, grain and sugar/salt laden anything!
Take a look at a 1000 year curve of modern diseases and overlay that
on a curve when we started screwing with food. It will amaze you.
Fruits, veggies, meats, unaltered from its natural form (processing,
pesticides etc., etc.) is what will keep us healthy.
A ground-up pig's cock/ears/lips/arse (AKA as a hotdog), with a list
of 40 deadly ingredients added is NOT the way to stay healthy. The
salt alone will hurt you... and now they're all on about 'Sea Salt'?
WTF? Does salt really give a **** where it comes from?

Hey, but find a way, that the nerve that runs from the eyeball to the
brain, can be modified, plumped up, sugared, salted, coloured, and
then sold as a treat to the kids, and the MBA running that outfit will
get another bonus. Of course the packaging will announce in bold
letters: All natural! Sea Salt! Sugar product from natural corn! No
animals were used in the testing of this product..... hey, but testing
on our kids is okay, no?

The absolute garbage they sell in ordinary supermarkets these days
makes me cringe. But wait! There's more! Now they are genetically
modifying that garbage to boot!

How about Occupying Monsanto?

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 22:24:16 -0700, Lew Hodgett wrote:

This was sent to me by a cousin who also happens to be an orthopedic
surgeon.

BS! You've been scammed Lew - and you fell for it. Or else your
computer has been hijacked. I always suspect a hijack when I see
"MISMATCH" in a posting path.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Oct 31, 3:49*pm, "Josepi" wrote:

BTW: Some of your statements below actually contradict themselves in the
same paragraph.

Where?

Where there is a buck to be made there is a liar.

This.

On Oct 31, 4:02*pm, Robatoy wrote:

How about Occupying Monsanto?

I'm torn between this idea. GM foods can be good, but when the
commercial pressure is applied, it's invariably ****e.

People need to be educated on the matter of diet, but the sad fact is,
people just don't give a ****. I consider myself lucky that the vast
majority of processed foods taste hideous to me, and also I live in a
place where it is seen as socially positive to grow your own food,
etc. I know most places, whilst not having a negative attitude to
this, it just doesn't register at all.

(Of course, this is just my opinion...)

"Eric" wrote in news:j8m8v5$r0h$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

The only "miracle" is that much of the public will still pay for the
floundering of the "conventional medicine" quacks pretending to "cure"
people.

There are still diseases for which there are no really good treatments.
And sometimes the symptoms of a simple problem are very confusing,
especially in the setting of multiple problems. A gallstone or inflamed
appendix are "conventional" problems that can be difficult to pinpoint.
That doesn't mean the patient is orrational or the doctor is a quack. It
does mean there is a rather easy cure (most of the time), once properly
diagnosed.

I have heard that veterinarians can treat their patients easier than human
doctors, because the patient can't talk like a human.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:02:20 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Oct 31, 10:14*am, David Paste wrote:

Meat IS NOT difficult to digest. It may take longer, but this is a
GOOD THING as it mean you don't feel hungry so often.
How does undigested meat stay in the intestines? Why wouldn't
peristaltic action shift it all along the gut?

I am not trying to attack you personally, just combat bull****.

If anything, we don't eat enough meat, but eat waaaaay too much
processed **** they call 'meat'.

What about "processed cheese food"? They can't even label it as
"cheese" any more because it contains so little.


Rarely (if ever) does a natural product 'improve' when industrial
corporations screw with it.

The "improvement" is in their pocketbooks.


Same goes for processed dairy, grain and sugar/salt laden anything!
Take a look at a 1000 year curve of modern diseases and overlay that
on a curve when we started screwing with food. It will amaze you.
Fruits, veggies, meats, unaltered from its natural form (processing,
pesticides etc., etc.) is what will keep us healthy.
A ground-up pig's cock/ears/lips/arse (AKA as a hotdog), with a list

I eat Foster Farms Turkey Dogs. (Now with turkey-beak protein!)


of 40 deadly ingredients added is NOT the way to stay healthy. The
salt alone will hurt you... and now they're all on about 'Sea Salt'?
WTF? Does salt really give a **** where it comes from?

Sea salt has lots of other trace minerals in it. It is more healthy
for you...in moderation.


Hey, but find a way, that the nerve that runs from the eyeball to the
brain, can be modified, plumped up, sugared, salted, coloured, and
then sold as a treat to the kids, and the MBA running that outfit will
get another bonus. Of course the packaging will announce in bold
letters: All natural! Sea Salt! Sugar product from natural corn! No
animals were used in the testing of this product..... hey, but testing
on our kids is okay, no?

Bbbut, "It's for the chil^H^H^H^Hdollar!"


The absolute garbage they sell in ordinary supermarkets these days
makes me cringe. But wait! There's more! Now they are genetically
modifying that garbage to boot!

Tomorrow, look at the sale ads. Note the number of processed foods v.
the natural foods. The ratio is usually around 100:1.


How about Occupying Monsanto?

A Most Excellent idear, sir.

--
Inside every older person is a younger person wondering WTF happened.

On 10/31/2011 6:22 AM, Han wrote:
"Lew wrote in news:4eae3102$0$9792
:

This was sent to me by a cousin who also happens to be an orthopedic
surgeon.

It's worth a read.

Lew

You are contributing to lies. Stick to woodworking. This is not a joke.

There is indeed an immunological aspect to cancer, as well as an oxygen
aspect, and many bad substances can contribute to cancer. Once you have a
mutation leading to, say CML, a diet can't help you. Perhaps Steve Jobs is
an example. He delayed having surgery FAR, FAR too long in favor of
alternative crooked medicine, and he did eventually die, but could have
lived much longer had he had immediate surgery of his rather tame cancer.
Alternative medicine may help conventional medicine, but in the case of
cancer it can't substitute.


You took the words right out of my mouth about Steve Jobs.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"Lobby Dosser" writes:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
eb.com...
This was sent to me by a cousin who also happens to be an orthopedic
surgeon.

It's worth a read.

Yes. Thanks!


Talk to your doctor first, before you follow the quack advice from
some internet posting. Just ask Steve Jobs.

scott

(Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:qSCrq.24765$G84.5523
@news.usenetserver.com:

"Lobby Dosser" writes:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
web.com...
This was sent to me by a cousin who also happens to be an orthopedic
surgeon.

It's worth a read.

Yes. Thanks!


Talk to your doctor first, before you follow the quack advice from
some internet posting. Just ask Steve Jobs.

scott

+10

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"John Santos" wrote in message
.. .
In article , lid says...
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
b.com...
This was sent to me by a cousin who also happens to be an orthopedic
surgeon.

It's worth a read.

Yes. Thanks!

It's a hoax. See Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cancerupdate.asp

No such article was ever published by Johns Hopkins, and most of the
content is standard alt-med deception and misinformation.

For a point-by-point debunking from Johns Hopkins, see:

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/kimme...events/feature
d/cancer_update_email_it_is_a_hoax.html


--
John


Damn!

--
" Well you can't trust a special like the old time coppers
When you can't find your way 'ome"

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

This was sent to me by a cousin who also happens to be an
orthopedic
surgeon.

It's worth a read.
---------------------------------
"Han" wrote:
You are contributing to lies. Stick to woodworking. This is not a
joke.
--------------------------------------
The operative phrase is "It's worth a read".

Personally, about all I found useful was to use glass containers in a
microwave.

Lew

I just glanced at the original post. One thing that caught my eye was that
chocolate was bad.. That is al I needed to know. If a program bans
chocolate, I am not going to do it. There is lots of studies that say
chocolate is good for you. The fat and sugar may be bad, but the chocolate
it self is very good for you.

Beside, how are you going to live with women without chocolate?

On 10/31/2011 6:05 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

This was sent to me by a cousin who also happens to be an
orthopedic
surgeon.

It's worth a read.
---------------------------------
"Han" wrote:
You are contributing to lies. Stick to woodworking. This is not a
joke.
--------------------------------------
The operative phrase is "It's worth a read".

The point was, it's *not* worth reading.

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:02:20 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Oct 31, 10:14 am, David wrote:

Meat IS NOT difficult to digest. It may take longer, but this is a
GOOD THING as it mean you don't feel hungry so often.
How does undigested meat stay in the intestines? Why wouldn't
peristaltic action shift it all along the gut?

I am not trying to attack you personally, just combat bull****.

If anything, we don't eat enough meat, but eat waaaaay too much
processed **** they call 'meat'.

What about "processed cheese food"? They can't even label it as
"cheese" any more because it contains so little.


Rarely (if ever) does a natural product 'improve' when industrial
corporations screw with it.

The "improvement" is in their pocketbooks.


Same goes for processed dairy, grain and sugar/salt laden anything!
Take a look at a 1000 year curve of modern diseases and overlay that
on a curve when we started screwing with food. It will amaze you.
Fruits, veggies, meats, unaltered from its natural form (processing,
pesticides etc., etc.) is what will keep us healthy.
A ground-up pig's cock/ears/lips/arse (AKA as a hotdog), with a list

I eat Foster Farms Turkey Dogs. (Now with turkey-beak protein!)


of 40 deadly ingredients added is NOT the way to stay healthy. The
salt alone will hurt you... and now they're all on about 'Sea Salt'?
WTF? Does salt really give a **** where it comes from?

Sea salt has lots of other trace minerals in it. It is more healthy
for you...in moderation.

Think about it. All commercial salt is/was sea salt. It may be from
a sea that dried up millions of years ago. It is mined and the
impurities removed. If you want the impurities, get some road salt.

--
Gerald Ross

Afraid of heights? Not me, I'm afraid
of widths! --Steven Wright

Doug Miller wrote in news:j8n7ir$k3v$1
@dont-email.me:

On 10/31/2011 6:05 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

This was sent to me by a cousin who also happens to be an
orthopedic
surgeon.

It's worth a read.
---------------------------------
"Han" wrote:
You are contributing to lies. Stick to woodworking. This is not a
joke.
--------------------------------------
The operative phrase is "It's worth a read".

The point was, it's *not* worth reading.

Sorry, Lew, I have toagree with Doug ...
Thanks Doug!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Lee Michaels" leemichaels*nadaspam* at comcast dot net wrote in
eb.com:


I just glanced at the original post. One thing that caught my eye was
that chocolate was bad.. That is al I needed to know. If a program
bans chocolate, I am not going to do it. There is lots of studies
that say chocolate is good for you. The fat and sugar may be bad, but
the chocolate it self is very good for you.

Beside, how are you going to live with women without chocolate?

I agree, Lee, althoughit trivializes the nonsense spouted.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:03:29 -0400, Gerald Ross
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:02:20 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

of 40 deadly ingredients added is NOT the way to stay healthy. The
salt alone will hurt you... and now they're all on about 'Sea Salt'?
WTF? Does salt really give a **** where it comes from?

Sea salt has lots of other trace minerals in it. It is more healthy
for you...in moderation.

Think about it. All commercial salt is/was sea salt. It may be from
a sea that dried up millions of years ago. It is mined and the
impurities removed. If you want the impurities, get some road salt.

Not _quite_ the same, but thanks for playing.

--
Inside every older person is a younger person wondering WTF happened.

Gerald Ross wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:02:20 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Oct 31, 10:14 am, David wrote:

Meat IS NOT difficult to digest. It may take longer, but this is a
GOOD THING as it mean you don't feel hungry so often.
How does undigested meat stay in the intestines? Why wouldn't
peristaltic action shift it all along the gut?

I am not trying to attack you personally, just combat bull****.

If anything, we don't eat enough meat, but eat waaaaay too much
processed **** they call 'meat'.

What about "processed cheese food"? They can't even label it as
"cheese" any more because it contains so little.


Rarely (if ever) does a natural product 'improve' when industrial
corporations screw with it.

The "improvement" is in their pocketbooks.


Same goes for processed dairy, grain and sugar/salt laden anything!
Take a look at a 1000 year curve of modern diseases and overlay that
on a curve when we started screwing with food. It will amaze you.
Fruits, veggies, meats, unaltered from its natural form (processing,
pesticides etc., etc.) is what will keep us healthy.
A ground-up pig's cock/ears/lips/arse (AKA as a hotdog), with a list

I eat Foster Farms Turkey Dogs. (Now with turkey-beak protein!)


of 40 deadly ingredients added is NOT the way to stay healthy. The
salt alone will hurt you... and now they're all on about 'Sea Salt'?
WTF? Does salt really give a **** where it comes from?

Sea salt has lots of other trace minerals in it. It is more healthy
for you...in moderation.

Think about it. All commercial salt is/was sea salt. It may be from
a sea that dried up millions of years ago. It is mined and the
impurities removed.

Uh, no. Just the reverse. All sea salt was originally on the land and washed
into the sea. For example, mammalian blood is slightly less salty than sea
water. From the difference, and by knowing how much salt washes into the sea
each year, anthropologists can calculate almost exactly when our ancestors
moved from the sea to land.

---
* Aside: There are about 2,000 "salt domes" mapped in and around the Gulf of
Mexico. On average, each dome contains six cubic miles of salt. Since all
the people on earth, all 7 billion of them, would, if stacked up like
cordwood, fit in ONE cubic mile, we're not in any danger of running out (of
people or salt).


If you want the impurities, get some road salt.

Heaven forbid but I have to agree with you you on almost all of that.

"You know that what you eat you are."
John Lennon.

-----------
"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
If anything, we don't eat enough meat, but eat waaaaay too much
processed **** they call 'meat'.
Rarely (if ever) does a natural product 'improve' when industrial
corporations screw with it.
Same goes for processed dairy, grain and sugar/salt laden anything!
Take a look at a 1000 year curve of modern diseases and overlay that
on a curve when we started screwing with food. It will amaze you.
Fruits, veggies, meats, unaltered from its natural form (processing,
pesticides etc., etc.) is what will keep us healthy.
A ground-up pig's cock/ears/lips/arse (AKA as a hotdog), with a list
of 40 deadly ingredients added is NOT the way to stay healthy. The
salt alone will hurt you... and now they're all on about 'Sea Salt'?
WTF? Does salt really give a **** where it comes from?

Hey, but find a way, that the nerve that runs from the eyeball to the
brain, can be modified, plumped up, sugared, salted, coloured, and
then sold as a treat to the kids, and the MBA running that outfit will
get another bonus. Of course the packaging will announce in bold
letters: All natural! Sea Salt! Sugar product from natural corn! No
animals were used in the testing of this product..... hey, but testing
on our kids is okay, no?

The absolute garbage they sell in ordinary supermarkets these days
makes me cringe. But wait! There's more! Now they are genetically
modifying that garbage to boot!

How about Occupying Monsanto?

Sea Salt typically does taste better than the Windsor (Toy's fault) stuff.
Check your contents on the box. Sea Salt has no sugar or iodine added to it.

-------------
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:03:29 -0400, Gerald Ross
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:02:20 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

of 40 deadly ingredients added is NOT the way to stay healthy. The
salt alone will hurt you... and now they're all on about 'Sea Salt'?
WTF? Does salt really give a **** where it comes from?

Sea salt has lots of other trace minerals in it. It is more healthy
for you...in moderation.

Think about it. All commercial salt is/was sea salt. It may be from
a sea that dried up millions of years ago. It is mined and the
impurities removed. If you want the impurities, get some road salt.

Not _quite_ the same, but thanks for playing.

--
Inside every older person is a younger person wondering WTF happened.

I would like somebody to show me a case where a pancreatic cancer patient
was cured going to a chem/cut doctor. You know the all God worshipped,
"conventional medicine" doctors.

Some cancers alternative medicines have better results than "conventional
quackery"

----------------
"Han" wrote in message ...
You are contributing to lies. Stick to woodworking. This is not a joke.

There is indeed an immunological aspect to cancer, as well as an oxygen
aspect, and many bad substances can contribute to cancer. Once you have a
mutation leading to, say CML, a diet can't help you. Perhaps Steve Jobs is
an example. He delayed having surgery FAR, FAR too long in favor of
alternative crooked medicine, and he did eventually die, but could have
lived much longer had he had immediate surgery of his rather tame cancer.
Alternative medicine may help conventional medicine, but in the case of
cancer it can't substitute.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Baloney! Some compounds in chocolate are stated good for certain problems.


---------
"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
eb.com...


I just glanced at the original post. One thing that caught my eye was that
chocolate was bad.. That is al I needed to know. If a program bans
chocolate, I am not going to do it. There is lots of studies that say
chocolate is good for you. The fat and sugar may be bad, but the chocolate
it self is very good for you.

Beside, how are you going to live with women without chocolate?

On Nov 1, 9:12*pm, "Josepi" wrote:
I would like somebody to show me a case where a pancreatic cancer patient
was cured going to a chem/cut doctor. You know the all God worshipped,
"conventional medicine" doctors.

Some cancers alternative medicines have better results than "conventional
quackery"

Put-up or shut-up! All you have to do is present compelling evidence
so we can all look at it!

"conventional medicine" is /anything/ that can be shown to repeatedly
work better than a placebo. If there is any bull**** in there, science
will weed it out, and this is what a lot of alternakooks don't like.
They can't stand someone telling them "You are wrong, and this is
why...".

To paraphrase Carl Sagan "Science is more a way of thinking than it is
a body of knowledge".

I ask you to show me one example and your response is "Put-up or shut-up!"?
Pathetic.


Your definition is flawed the "conventional medicine" only shows what worked
for their "worked better than placebo" tests, as I indicated previously. A
majority of medical testing does not use placebos or double blinded studies.
Much of it uses the same study methods as Alternative medicine techniques.
You have been duped by the Medical Mafia.

I stick with what works. Sometimes it is "conventional" and sometimes
intelligent medicine techniques. I don't like using "better than placebo"
techniques when some have died using them. Get your swine flu vaccine, yet?


----------
"David Paste" wrote in message
...

Put-up or shut-up! All you have to do is present compelling evidence
so we can all look at it!

"conventional medicine" is /anything/ that can be shown to repeatedly
work better than a placebo. If there is any bull**** in there, science
will weed it out, and this is what a lot of alternakooks don't like.
They can't stand someone telling them "You are wrong, and this is
why...".

To paraphrase Carl Sagan "Science is more a way of thinking than it is
a body of knowledge".

------------
On Nov 1, 9:12 pm, "Josepi" wrote:
I would like somebody to show me a case where a pancreatic cancer patient
was cured going to a chem/cut doctor. You know the all God worshipped,
"conventional medicine" doctors.

Some cancers alternative medicines have better results than "conventional
quackery"

"David Paste" wrote in message
...

On Oct 31, 4:02 pm, Robatoy wrote:

How about Occupying Monsanto?

I'm torn between this idea. GM foods can be good, but when the
commercial pressure is applied, it's invariably ****e.

People need to be educated on the matter of diet, but the sad fact is,
people just don't give a ****. I consider myself lucky that the vast
majority of processed foods taste hideous to me, and also I live in a
place where it is seen as socially positive to grow your own food,
etc. I know most places, whilst not having a negative attitude to
this, it just doesn't register at all.

(Of course, this is just my opinion...)

===================

Sounds like your, how did you phrase it? "better than placebo" attitude
only applies when you need it.

All these "processes foods" have been approved by most of our nutritional
boards by massive money studies and now you indicate they are not as good as
natural methods.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with what you are saying but you appear to
contradict yourself, as pointed out by others.

--

Eric

On Nov 2, 1:54*am, "Josepi" wrote:

I ask you to show me one example and your response is "Put-up or shut-up!"?
Pathetic.

You're the one making the claim:

"Some cancers alternative medicines have better results than
"conventional quackery" "

You make the claim, you provide the evidence!

Your definition is flawed the "conventional medicine" only shows what worked
for their "worked better than placebo" tests, as I indicated previously.

I don't know what you mean here / what your point is, please can you
clarify.

A majority of medical testing does not use placebos or double blinded studies.

Bull****. Prove it. I would imagine that in the US market, with it's
hungry lawyers, ANY chink in the armour of testing is going to be
ruthlessly exploited. Your previous sentence is laughable.

Much of it uses the same study methods as Alternative medicine techniques..
You have been duped by the Medical Mafia.

Ha ha ha, whatever. You keep saying things you can't prove! If you
think you can, please present your evidence. I'm happy to evaluate new
evidence.

I stick with what works. Sometimes it is "conventional" and sometimes
intelligent medicine techniques.

So conventional medicine isn't intelligent? Can you please give me a
few examples of what you would regard as 'intelligent' medicine. I am
genuinely interested in your thoughts here.

I don't like using "better than placebo"
techniques when some have died using them.

Yeah, and people who have used bull**** of all bull****s - homoeopathy
- have died as a result too! So what's your point? That people get
sick and die? No, really? Do they?!

Get your swine flu vaccine, yet?

No, why would I? Are you assuming that I need one?

I think you're a troll.

On Nov 2, 2:05*am, "Eric" wrote:

Sounds like your, how did you phrase it? *"better than placebo" attitude
only applies when you need it.

In what way?

All these "processes foods" have been approved by most of our nutritional
boards by massive money studies and now you indicate they are not as good as
natural methods.

I didn't indicate they weren't as good, I indicated that I don't
consider them as good as the alternatives I have access to, for me. I
also acknowledged that many people just don't care.

Also, all food is natural. Maybe best to use the phrases
'processed' (or 'highly processed'?) and 'unprocessed' rather than
'natural' and 'processed' as it would seem to be setting up a false
dichotomy.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with what you are saying but you appear to
contradict yourself, as pointed out by others.

How?