Cancer & Nutrition (Linda Eastman McCartney, Vegetarian)
Steven B. Harris
In <353e87b7...@news.ihug.co.nz> kerryd.remo...@ihug.co.nz
(Kerry Thornbury) writes:
>
>On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:42:29 -0700, Katie Jacobs <kja...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>what does anyone think about Linda McCartney? i was shocked and
>>saddened, but if anyone could have had access to the latest cancer
>>treatment, surely it would have been her. and i thought she was
>>extremely careful about her diet and health. my fears are heightened
>>with her death.
>
>People die of cancer ever day. It isn't always cureable. Money
>doesn't help.
>
>Being careful about diet and health would benefit a vast number of the
>population. In this case the scales were tipped too far in the
>direction of cancer, and those things did not prevent her death.
>Maybe without them she would have succumbed at 30 or 40. Maybe it
>didn't make any difference. We will never know, but healthy living
>would increase the life expectancy, and reduce the morbidity , of
>millions of people.
>
>Kerry
>
Well, she couldn't had herself frozen to wait for a cure. Not
everybody has THAT option.
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure,
>and the intelligent are full of doubt
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The best lack all conviction,
While the worst are full of passionate intensity
Surely the second coming is at hand.
Surely the second coming is at hand
W.H. Auden
Robert E. Hughes
The best lack all conviction,
While the worst are full of passionate intensity
Surely the second coming is at hand.
Surely the second coming is at hand
W.H. Auden
This is Not Auden. It's W.B. Yeats.
Randy Smith
On 23 Apr 1998 01:10:08 GMT, sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
wrote:
>In <353e87b7...@news.ihug.co.nz> kerryd.remo...@ihug.co.nz
>(Kerry Thornbury) writes:
>>
>>On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:42:29 -0700, Katie Jacobs <kja...@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>what does anyone think about Linda McCartney? i was shocked and
>>>saddened, but if anyone could have had access to the latest cancer
>>>treatment, surely it would have been her. and i thought she was
>>>extremely careful about her diet and health. my fears are heightened
>>>with her death.
It is a little frightening to see cancer bring down such a powerful
and rich person who was not all that old.
But remember, however, that Paul McCartney, and implication, quite
possibly Linda, was an avowed and oft-busted marijuana user.
Highly carcinogenic, I believe. Remember Bob Marley?
Randy
Cryonics: Gateway to the Future?
http://www.mindspring.com/cryon/
*********************************
Steven B. Harris
*selah*
The extremes that those prejudiced against Marijuana will go.
Linda McCarntney had chemotherapy and surgery. That doesn't sound like
someone who is "extremely careful about her diet and health" to me. People
who are real into nutrition would stay far away from chemo.
The 3 people I knew who had chemotherapy to treat cancer, ended up dying
not long afterwards. The one person I know who didn't have chemo is still
alive 18 years later.
--
Remove nospam from address to reply.
marcie rekenn
Steven B. Harris wrote:
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> The best lack all conviction,
> While the worst are full of passionate intensity
> Surely the second coming is at hand.
> Surely the second coming is at hand
>
> W.H. Auden
Yeats. And misquoted as well.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight; somewhere in the sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Bryan Mealy
In article <354d28f7....@news.mindspring.com>,
Randy Smith <cr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 23 Apr 1998 01:10:08 GMT, sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
>wrote:
>
>>In <353e87b7...@news.ihug.co.nz> kerryd.remo...@ihug.co.nz
>>(Kerry Thornbury) writes:
>>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:42:29 -0700, Katie Jacobs <kja...@aol.com>
>
>and rich person who was not all that old.
>But remember, however, that Paul McCartney, and implication, quite
>possibly Linda, was an avowed and oft-busted marijuana user.
>Highly carcinogenic, I believe. Remember Bob Marley?
Wow! I was not aware that Bob Marley died from breast cancer.
Steven B. Harris
In <slrn6k0ro...@amanda.dorsai.org> so...@nospam.dorsai.org
(*selah*) writes:
>Linda McCarntney had chemotherapy and surgery. That doesn't sound like
>someone who is "extremely careful about her diet and health" to me.
People who are real into nutrition would stay far away from chemo.
>
>The 3 people I knew who had chemotherapy to treat cancer, ended up
>dying not long afterwards. The one person I know who didn't have chemo
>is still alive 18 years later.
Well, hell, keep collecting those statistics. In 100 years you'll
almost have enough to tell you something.
James
Steve, you have really been keeping me amused lately. This one was
especially timely since I just finished a population genetics course.
Keep up the crusade to banish ignorance :)
James
barbara sargent
Robert E. Hughes wrote:
>
> The best lack all conviction,
> While the worst are full of passionate intensity
> Surely the second coming is at hand.
> Surely the second coming is at hand
>
> W.H. Auden
>
Yay! I neglected to comment on that and am glad to see that someone
else knows poetry.
Barbara
John Scudamore
Steven B. Harris wrote:
>
> In <slrn6k0ro...@amanda.dorsai.org> so...@nospam.dorsai.org
> (*selah*) writes:
>
> >Linda McCarntney had chemotherapy and surgery. That doesn't sound like
> >someone who is "extremely careful about her diet and health" to me.
> People who are real into nutrition would stay far away from chemo.
> >
> >The 3 people I knew who had chemotherapy to treat cancer, ended up
> >dying not long afterwards. The one person I know who didn't have chemo
> >is still alive 18 years later.
>
> Well, hell, keep collecting those statistics. In 100 years you'll
> almost have enough to tell you something.
LOL. She had a point there. Linda went 100% orthodox and ended up
dead---not exactly a real alternative person after all, just a veggie
advocate.
We have all the statistics now about your cancer therapies, and it
doesn't look good.
John
According to the Cancer Statistics for 1995, published by the ACS in
their small journal (2), the 5-year survival rate has improved from
50%-56% for whites and 39%-40% for blacks from 1974/1976 - 1983/1990.
However, the data is taken from FIVE of the states with the lowest death
rates AND the smallest populations! NONE of the 10 states with the
highest death rates AND comprising 34% of the Total U.S. Cancer Deaths,
were included in the data! Also, in prior years, the Composite (Ave.)
5-year survival rate for ALL Cancers Combined was computed and
published. This Ave. 5-year survival crept upward to 50%, in the early
nineties. It now stands around 51-52%, due primarily to the improvement
of 11% survival for Colon and 13% increased survival for Prostate.
It gets worse. The ACS boasts of "statistically significant" results
when Uterine Ca survival drops from 89%/60%-85%/55% (W/B)?? Also,
Pancreas Ca is 3-3 (W) and Laryngeal Ca survival drops from 59%-53% (B)
while Cervical Ca drops from 63%-56% (B). Liver Ca improves from
4%-7%. I wonder how many Pancreatic and Hepatic Ca patients cheered
these dramatic results? Ovarian Ca = 36%/40% - 42%/38% (W/B) and Breast
Ca = 75%/63% - 82%/66% (W/B). In 16 years the Breast Ca rate improved
3-7%, while Uterine Ca decreased 4-5%. Aren't these marvelous results
that the Cancer Establishment should boast about??----RD Hodgell, M.D.
*selah*
On 24 Apr 1998 17:07:16 GMT, Steven B. Harris <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <slrn6k0ro...@amanda.dorsai.org> so...@nospam.dorsai.org
>(*selah*) writes:
>
>>Linda McCarntney had chemotherapy and surgery. That doesn't sound like
>>someone who is "extremely careful about her diet and health" to me.
>People who are real into nutrition would stay far away from chemo.
>>
>>The 3 people I knew who had chemotherapy to treat cancer, ended up
>>dying not long afterwards. The one person I know who didn't have chemo
>>is still alive 18 years later.
>
>
> Well, hell, keep collecting those statistics. In 100 years you'll
>almost have enough to tell you something.
The reason I spoke about this is because I have personally observed what
the nutrition doctors have said: that people who use chemo to treat cancer
end up dying faster from the chemo than if they did nothing at all, and
that those who don't use chemo and use the nutritional therapies often do
very well.
I am not expecting my observations to be considered a scientific study.
But it has been my experience, that doing well against a major disease
like cancer, even using nutritional methods, is not easy, and requires a
militarist approach and discipline as well as the right nutritional
doctor. One of the people who died after using chemo had been somewhat
using the nutritional treatments at the same time. She always felt better
after the nutritional treatments, but she made little use of them,
unfortunately.
These people were doing much better before they had chemo and got much
worse, quickly, after.
DDupin
I was wondering ...
There have been many articles lately -- one just the other day in the New York
Times -- about a higher-than-average prevalence of a mutated gene for breast
cancer in Central and Eastern European Jewish women. I am not sure, but in
reading a Linda McCartney obit, I got the impression she was Jewish. And that
she was raised in Scarsdale, NY.
I wonder if it was the gene that caused her cancer. And/or if there was
something environmentally in Scarsdale. Some areas of New York have higher
rates of breast cancer.
My point is that perhaps there were factors out of the control of nutrition or
lifestle that are to blame.
Andrea L Boyd
*selah* wrote in message ...
>
>The extremes that those prejudiced against Marijuana will go.
>
>Linda McCarntney had chemotherapy and surgery. That doesn't sound like
>someone who is "extremely careful about her diet and health" to me. People
>who are real into nutrition would stay far away from chemo.
>
>The 3 people I knew who had chemotherapy to treat cancer, ended up dying
>not long afterwards. The one person I know who didn't have chemo is still
>alive 18 years later.
>
One anecdote a proof does not make. Excisional biopsy and chemotherapy
and/or radiation are well documented, effective treatments for breast
cancer.
Linda McCartney was an avowed vegan. She was very careful about what she
put into her body, even during her chemotherapy. That she didn't survive
does not mean that the treatment does not work for the majority of patients
who are diagnosed.
I would be curious to know the stage at which she was diagnosed. Since she
was on chemo, and, of course, the metastasis to the liver in two years, make
my guess to be that she had several nodes involved at the time of diagnosis,
perhaps even distant ones.
I honestly don't think that making sure she ate more wheat germ would have
helped her more than the chemo.
A
John Scudamore
Andrea L Boyd wrote:
>
> *selah* wrote in message ...
> >
> >The extremes that those prejudiced against Marijuana will go.
> >
> >Linda McCarntney had chemotherapy and surgery. That doesn't sound like
> >someone who is "extremely careful about her diet and health" to me. People
> >who are real into nutrition would stay far away from chemo.
> >
> >The 3 people I knew who had chemotherapy to treat cancer, ended up dying
> >not long afterwards. The one person I know who didn't have chemo is still
> >alive 18 years later.
> >
>
> One anecdote a proof does not make. Excisional biopsy and chemotherapy
> and/or radiation are well documented, effective treatments for breast
> cancer.
An estimated 182,000 cases in 1995 and 46,240 deaths from breast
cancer. Effective treatments? Is this better than placebo? A f......
disaster is more like it.
"The bottom line is after 20 years it is still unclear if adjuvant chemo
in premenopausal women actually cures a greater proportion of patients
than good supportive care alone, or only postpones relapes and
death."---Ralph Moss
"There is no evidence that chemo can cure people with advanced breast
disease."---Moss
Dr Kostler, M.D. disagrees with the practice of radiation following
lumpectomy. Radiation is a source of free radicals that can damage DNA
and predispose the body to later cancers. "It may eliminate the cancer
initially, but not in the long run. You can’t take enough antioxidants
to protect you against radiation. It is like trying to stop the damage
caused by the bombing of Hiroshima. There is no way to safeguard the
potential harm to the DNA."
Breast cancer patients may be at risk of developing lung cancer after
radiation. In one study of 31 patients who'd received radiotherapy for
breast can-cer, 19 went on to develop a lung cancer on average 17 years
later-mostly in the lung on the same side as the breast that had been
irradiated (Med Onc, 1994; 11:121-5). Some oncologists believe that the
lung is especially sensitive to radiation damage, either scar tissue or
inflammation-which would tend to argue against high-dose radiotherapy
for lung cancer (Strahl und Onk, 1995; 171: 490-8). Breast cancer
patients also risk soft-tissue cancers of the breast (Int J Rad Onc, Bio
Phys, 1995; 31: 405-10).
>
> Linda McCartney was an avowed vegan. She was very careful about what she
> put into her body, even during her chemotherapy. That she didn't survive
> does not mean that the treatment does not work for the majority of patients
> who are diagnosed.
We can all sleep easy then.
>
> I would be curious to know the stage at which she was diagnosed. Since she
> was on chemo, and, of course, the metastasis to the liver in two years, make
> my guess to be that she had several nodes involved at the time of diagnosis,
> perhaps even distant ones.
>
> I honestly don't think that making sure she ate more wheat germ would have
> helped her more than the chemo.
>
Flax oil maybe.
> A
She went 100% orthodox and died.
John
"Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy…Chemotherapy
does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. This fact has been
documented for over a decade. Yet doctors still use chemotherapy for
these tumours…Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with
chemo than without it."—Alan Levin, M.D.
Lindsay Berge
so...@nospam.dorsai.org (*selah*) writes:
>But it has been my experience, that doing well against a major disease
>like cancer, even using nutritional methods, is not easy, and requires a
>militarist approach and discipline as well as the right nutritional
>doctor. One of the people who died after using chemo had been somewhat
>using the nutritional treatments at the same time. She always felt better
>after the nutritional treatments, but she made little use of them,
>unfortunately.
This is the catch-all defence of the unscientific. The cure is not easy and
requires discipline or special conditions (positive attitude, good kharma,
alignment of the planets, faith) which are always found to be missing when
the approach fails. This allows any failures to be dismissed while all
successes are embraced, even if not all the special conditions are present.
Best regards, Lindsay Berge
John Scudamore
James wrote:
>
> Steven B. Harris wrote:
> >
> > In <slrn6k0ro...@amanda.dorsai.org> so...@nospam.dorsai.org
> > (*selah*) writes:
> >
> > >someone who is "extremely careful about her diet and health" to me.
> > People who are real into nutrition would stay far away from chemo.
> > >
> > >The 3 people I knew who had chemotherapy to treat cancer, ended up
> > >dying not long afterwards. The one person I know who didn't have chemo
> > >is still alive 18 years later.
> >
> > almost have enough to tell you something.
>
> especially timely since I just finished a population genetics course.
> Keep up the crusade to banish ignorance :)
>
> James
The only thing Steve is out to banish is the competition to drugs. This
guy is so ignorant that he thinks drugs are going to cure all diseases
one day. Can you get any more stupid than that? I don't think so, but
it pays well. He is a walking talking bullshiting drug salesman. He
must have so many drug company leaflets stuffed up his ass to make him
walk like a pill bottle on speed.
This ignoramus thought AZT was going to cure aids, in fact he still
believes it is of some use. It may only have hastened 300,000 towards
death. Yeah, lets have some more of this "knowledge"!
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index/azt.htm
John
"At your next dinner party, try playing the following game. Challenge
everyone around the table to produce a single drug that can cure people
of an illness, other then antibiotics. If you come up with anything,
stop whatever you are doing and call me."---Lynne McTaggart.
Jet Silverman
John Scudamore wrote:
> James wrote:The only thing Steve is out to banish is the competition to
> drugs. This
> guy is so ignorant that he thinks drugs are going to cure all diseasesone
> day.
> LOL! John you are a true moron who needs mental help to get over his
> bitterness. Steve has no desire to banish competition to drugs, he just wants
> to banish bullshit, like the stuff you spew!
He never said drugs will cure all disease one day. So tell me, what diseases to
herbs cure? LOL.
>Can you get any more stupid than that?
You do in every post you make!
> He is a walking talking bullshiting drug salesman. He
> must have so many drug company leaflets stuffed up his ass to make him
> walk like a pill bottle on speed.
Keep your sexual fantasies to yourself.
> This ignoramus thought AZT was going to cure aids, in fact he still
> believes it is of some use. It may only have hastened 300,000 towards
> death. Yeah, lets have some more of this "knowledge"!
AZT prolongs life. At least here on earth. Sorry to hear about how things are
going on your planet.
J
Charles Platt
John Scudamore (wh...@enterprise.net) wrote:
> "At your next dinner party, try playing the following game. Challenge
> everyone around the table to produce a single drug that can cure people
> of an illness, other then antibiotics. If you come up with anything,
> stop whatever you are doing and call me."---Lynne McTaggart.
Of course, the wording of this post cunningly eliminates vaccines (they
don't cure, they prevent), and any drug that provides symptomatic relief
(from pain relievers to antidepressants). On the other hand, if the text
were applied to "natural" remedies, it would eliminate virtually all of
them. So, what's the point?
Seems to me the the hatred here is directed at the practitioner rather
than the product.
Steven B. Harris
In <3542DE...@enterprise.net> John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net>
writes:
>This ignoramus thought AZT was going to cure aids, in fact he still
>believes it is of some use. It may only have hastened 300,000 towards
>death. Yeah, lets have some more of this "knowledge"!
>http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index/azt.htm
It "may"? You don't know enough about it to even discuss the
evidence intelligently. If you wish to discuss any particular AZT
study, I'm here and ready. Meanwhile, do us all a favor and shut
up.
Steve Harris, M.D.
Winter QQ
Children, cant we all just get along .
John Scudamore
Charles Platt wrote:
>
> John Scudamore (wh...@enterprise.net) wrote:
> > "At your next dinner party, try playing the following game. Challenge
> > everyone around the table to produce a single drug that can cure people
> > of an illness, other then antibiotics. If you come up with anything,
> > stop whatever you are doing and call me."---Lynne McTaggart.
>
> Of course, the wording of this post cunningly eliminates vaccines (they
> don't cure, they prevent),
Says who? The people who sell them, that's who, but there are about 20
books now that have collated information saying the opposite--and some.
and any drug that provides symptomatic relief
> (from pain relievers to antidepressants). On the other hand, if the text
> were applied to "natural" remedies, it would eliminate virtually all of
> them.
Oh really?
>So, what's the point?
The point is drugs in general have failed to cure the major diseases,
and never will, while natural healing is far more successful as it deals
with the causes---diet & nutrition etc.
"The pharmaceutical industry has been the major force responsible for
the narrow, arrogant and simple-minded path that has brought physicians
success in less than 10% of the diseases they are called upon to
treat."---Dr Willner, M.D. Ph.D.
>
> Seems to me the the hatred here is directed at the practitioner rather
> than the product.
John
"The medical profession is not informed, or, rather it is instructed
almost exclusively by the journals and brochures from the laboratories,
and thus by advertising. …..The doctors can’t see further than their
own noses. They have become convinced by the laboratory-financed
medical literature that medicines have turned them into demi-gods, and
that attacks on the pharmaceutical industry mean attacks on
medicine."---Dr Henri Pradal.
John Scudamore
Substitute has for may.
John
"I took, at least, the 3 most important studies to show AZT efficacy,
and I showed not only were they very sloppy and bad but it would be
completely fair to describe at least two of them as fraudulent and I
have held out a challenge to people who advocate AZT, I say show me one
study, just one single study, that clearly show benefits for AZT,
research that will stand up under scrutiny. Nobody will do this. A few
cases they have mentioned studies that are just simply ridiculous like
one done by Pitzo where he poisoned a few children with AZT and then he
claimed it boosted their IQ. About a quarter of the children died
rather shortly, but he was so excited by the fact that he thought their
IQ’s went up that he advocated giving AZT to newborn babies. This is
truly sick research, but I have found from my studies that not only are
their no proven benefits to AZT therapy, but that it is deadly, and in
fact right on the label of AZT they list such things as hemotoxicity
…what that means in plain English is that AZT poisons the blood, and
then it will say severe anaemia, and that means that it will be so toxic
to the blood that there will be a very serious shortage of red blood
cells. Now who on earth would want to take such a product, especially
as the benefits are based on research that is based on sloppyness and
cheating."---John Lauritsen
Jet Silverman
John Scudamore wrote:
> "I took, at least, the 3 most important studies to show AZT efficacy,
<worthless quote snipped>
John, what about a study, and not a meaningless quote? I will be stunned if
you can come up with one.
J
Steven B. Harris
In <354373...@enterprise.net> John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net>
writes:
>> >This ignoramus thought AZT was going to cure aids, in fact he still
>> >believes it is of some use. It may only have hastened 300,000
towards
>> >death. Yeah, lets have some more of this "knowledge"!
>> >http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index/azt.htm
>>
>> It "may"? You don't know enough about it to even discuss the
>> evidence intelligently. If you wish to discuss any particular AZT
>> study, I'm here and ready. Meanwhile, do us all a favor and shut
>> up.
>>
>> Steve Harris, M.D.
>
>
>Substitute has for may.
Let's see your evidence, John. Otherwise, Shut Up.
Steven B. Harris
In <354372...@enterprise.net> John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net>
>The point is drugs in general have failed to cure the major diseases,
>and never will, while natural healing is far more successful as it
>deals with the causes---diet & nutrition etc.
What makes you think diet and nutrition are the "causes" of all
disease? You think you can make somebody immortal by feeding them
right? I'm here to tell you, you can't. Stuff wears out-- that's the
cause of most disease.
>"The pharmaceutical industry has been the major force responsible for
>the narrow, arrogant and simple-minded path that has brought
>physicians success in less than 10% of the diseases they are called
>upon to treat."---Dr Willner, M.D. Ph.D.
De-licenced in Florida for trying to "cure" cancer with ozone (not
diet and nutrition) in 1993. Died of sudden MI at age 65, in 1995.
Great guy to quote on health and diet and how doctors are "arrogant."
Dead doctors don't lie, do they, John?
Steve Harris, M.D.
Charles Platt
John Scudamore (wh...@enterprise.net) wrote:
I said:
> > Of course, the wording of this post cunningly eliminates vaccines (they
> > don't cure, they prevent),
> Says who? The people who sell them, that's who, but there are about 20
> books now that have collated information saying the opposite--and some.
The opposite? Are you talking about isolated cases where a live vaccine
proves dangerous, or are you claiming that vaccines are some kind of
elaborate con game? If the latter, please explain the eradication of
diseases that once killed millions.
> The point is drugs in general have failed to cure the major diseases,
> and never will, while natural healing is far more successful as it deals
> with the causes---diet & nutrition etc.
If you really want to talk about this seriously (which I doubt) you must
begin by naming some specifics. Which "major diseases" have not been
cured? What do you mean by "natural healing" (a huge and messy field,
ranging from homeopathy to rolfing)? What do you mean by, "it deals with
the causes"?
But here, let ME be specific:
If you were diagnosed with Lyme disease, would you use antibiotics? If you
were a staff member in the emergency room in a large urban area, would you
accept vaccination against hepatitis? If you contracted appendicitis,
would you allow conventional doctors to conduct surgery?
--CP
hillary gorman
*In <slrn6k0ro...@amanda.dorsai.org> so...@nospam.dorsai.org
*(*selah*) writes:
*
*>Linda McCarntney had chemotherapy and surgery. That doesn't sound like
*>someone who is "extremely careful about her diet and health" to me.
*People who are real into nutrition would stay far away from chemo.
er, no....
My aunt has a BS and an MS in nutritional science, and is an RD in a
geriatric facility in the NYC area. You do not get more "into nutrition"
than my aunt Joan, believe me. She feeds herself and her family well, and
has been a real help to my dad, who is an insulin dependent diabetes
patient, as well as to me, by formulating meal plans for us, teaching us
about "the science of food" as it were, and explaining to us which types
of foods have which nutrients, etc. Despite her very "pro-nutrition"
stance, and her strong belief (which I share) that a good, balanced,
nutritious diet is one of the key elements to overall health, she would
not, and does not, "stay far away from chemo."
similarly, one of my nutri. sci. professors was undergoing chemo during
the time I took a class from him.
h.
--
hillary gorman...........Official Token Female..........hillary@netaxs.com
"So that's 2 T-1s and a newsfeed....would you like clues with that?"
hil...@hillary.net: for debugging your net or deworming your pet
Net Access...The NSP for ISPs....The NOC that rocks around the clock.
Don Bradley
In a previous article, so...@nospam.dorsai.org (*selah*) says:
>On 24 Apr 1998 17:07:16 GMT, Steven B. Harris <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <slrn6k0ro...@amanda.dorsai.org> so...@nospam.dorsai.org
>>(*selah*) writes:
>>
>>>Linda McCarntney had chemotherapy and surgery. That doesn't sound like
.......much information snipped for brevity's sake .............
Concerning treatment of cancer by chemotherapy.
YES...it is dangerous, the drugs are extremely toxic to all fast
growing cells..(tumor cells, stomach lining, hair, nails, etc etc).
Yes...there are many who feel the benefits do NOt outweigh the risks.
BUT there are recent findings that make prior statistics on chemo
outdated and irrelevent.
NEW chemo techniques are:
PATIENT oriented drugs of First choice.
Energy replenishment via dietary/drug use.
Instead of simply going down a long list of toxic chemotherapy drugs,
hoping to find the 'right one' before the patient dies and before
the tumor develops resistance to chemotherapy agents, there is a
NEW technique of applying a host of agents to a small bit of the
tumor in an array of test tubes and then saying ...well, we will
start the patient on the drug that worked best in the test tube.
This 'patient oriented' chemo selection gives a BEST SHOT FIRST
and diminishes the chances of 'tumor resistance' developing.
The other new development is a dietary or energy replacement
technique that uses either an existing FDA approved drug
or a Swiss-developed dietary flour-like paste for making a
patient on extended chemotherapy feel energetic.
These two recent developments make much of th eprior
statistics on chemotherapy irrelevant to a patient
who today is confronted with the choice.
Particularly the Best Shot First technique has made
the prior statistics useless in the decision making
process.
Message ends..........
David L. Hanson
In article <slrn6k7mfk....@unix3.netaxs.com>, hil...@hillary.net (hillary gorman) wrote:
>*In <slrn6k0ro...@amanda.dorsai.org> so...@nospam.dorsai.org
>*(*selah*) writes:
>*
>*>Linda McCarntney had chemotherapy and surgery. That doesn't sound like
>*>someone who is "extremely careful about her diet and health" to me.
>*People who are real into nutrition would stay far away from chemo.
>
>er, no....
>My aunt has a BS and an MS in nutritional science, and is an RD in a
>geriatric facility in the NYC area. You do not get more "into nutrition"
>than my aunt Joan, believe me. She feeds herself and her family well, and
>has been a real help to my dad, who is an insulin dependent diabetes
>patient, as well as to me, by formulating meal plans for us, teaching us
>about "the science of food" as it were, and explaining to us which types
>of foods have which nutrients, etc. Despite her very "pro-nutrition"
>stance, and her strong belief (which I share) that a good, balanced,
>nutritious diet is one of the key elements to overall health, she would
>not, and does not, "stay far away from chemo."
>
>similarly, one of my nutri. sci. professors was undergoing chemo during
>the time I took a class from him.
These people have simply been taken in by the medical establishment. It is
very unlikely that you can trust anyone with a BS, MS or PhD in "nutritional
science". The establishment has much to gain by treating the sick and very
little incentive to find out how to keep them from getting sick (except
through drugs). Vegetables and fruits don't provide profits to drug companies
or doctors.
David L. Hanson
dha...@hal-pc.org
"Ye MUST be born again"
Steven B. Harris
In <6i0ok7$me0$1...@news.hal-pc.org> dha...@hal-pc.org (David L. Hanson)
writes:
>These people have simply been taken in by the medical establishment.
It is very unlikely that you can trust anyone with a BS, MS or PhD in
"nutritional science". The establishment has much to gain by treating
the sick and very little incentive to find out how to keep them from
getting sick (except through drugs). Vegetables and fruits don't
provide profits to drug companies or doctors.
David L. Hanson
dha...@hal-pc.org
"Ye MUST be born again"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Well, David, you're either a Troll or a complete idiot. If the latter,
it won't take long on fruit and vegetable diet to find that you get
sick with something anyway. Unless you're 20, in which case you may go
for years and years thinking it's your perfect diet, when it's just
your youth.
But you will learn eventually. And I hope you think back to this when
it happens.
Steve Harris, M.D.
Kate
Jet Silverman <jet...@eartXhlink.net> wrote in article
<3542EE11...@eartXhlink.net>...
> He never said drugs will cure all disease one day. So tell me, what
diseases to
> herbs cure? LOL.
>
>
I have Herbalgram in front of me, and it has no cures. But it contains a
JAMA study( LeBasts et al,1997 )
that showed that gingko had a positive effect on Alzheimers patients, and
a study with the same results in
Phytomedicine.( Kanowski et al, 1997 ). The same magazine also contained a
study about arthritis and
nettles( Phytomedicine Cjrubasik et al, 1997 ) that showed a reduction in
inflammation. Clearly, these
studies need careful scrutiny. But its bad science to just dismiss them
without a close look at the evidence.
Unless I completely misunderstand Steve, his target is bad science, not
herbs.
IMPORTANT: The abstracts I mentioned are for information only, and not as
advice.
Consult a health care professional for advice..
>
Kate
Steven B. Harris
In <01bd71a7$a37d0ac0$389f...@klinder.jlc.net> "Kate"
<klin...@jlc.net> writes:
> I have Herbalgram in front of me, and it has no cures. But it
contains a JAMA study( LeBasts et al,1997 )
that showed that gingko had a positive effect on Alzheimers patients,
and a study with the same results in Phytomedicine.( Kanowski et al,
1997 ). The same magazine also contained a study about arthritis and
nettles( Phytomedicine Cjrubasik et al, 1997 ) that showed a reduction
in inflammation. Clearly, these studies need careful scrutiny. But
its bad science to just dismiss them without a close look at the
evidence.<
>
> Unless I completely misunderstand Steve, his target is bad science,
not herbs.<
Comment:
Correct. I love herbs and think they're neat. And I have patients
taking everything from bioflavonoids to ginkgo to ginger to St. John's
Wort, according to the German Commission E recommendations, and
whatever else I can find (I like the Herbalgram and am a fan of Foster
and Tyler and so on). Generally herbs have a low toxicity profile, and
can be used (like vitamins) with a lower level of evidence. But I want
to see at least basic studies, or I tend to say: "Bullcrap!" But the
basic clinical studies exist (albeit some in German) for a surprising
number of herbs.
Notice, also, that herbs aren't cures. They are simply Nature's
drugs in unrefined form. Nothing more. Nothing magic.
Steve Harris, M.D.
Bryan Mealy
In article <6i0ta6$a...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
>writes:
>
>>These people have simply been taken in by the medical establishment.
>It is very unlikely that you can trust anyone with a BS, MS or PhD in
>"nutritional science". The establishment has much to gain by treating
>the sick and very little incentive to find out how to keep them from
>getting sick (except through drugs). Vegetables and fruits don't
>provide profits to drug companies or doctors.
>
>
>it won't take long on fruit and vegetable diet to find that you get
>sick with something anyway. Unless you're 20, in which case you may go
>for years and years thinking it's your perfect diet, when it's just
>your youth.
Yeah, right. So what's new on the nutritional scene now? Are we still
having different groups fight over the structure of the food pryamid?
I would be willing to bet that the latest nutritional studies are
more political than they are scientific. What about school lunches?
Also, if one were to drop in on ten different nutritionists, you
would probably get ten different stories on what is *right*. What
about those hopitial meals? Total crap with a cup of coffee with
every meal to boot. I keep wondering where they got that nutritionist
from. Make them happy not healthy. Got to placate those patients.
Can't tell them to change their diet or they'll never come back.
If they don't come back, I go out of business.
-bryan
Bryan Mealy
In article <6i0ha5$5...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,>In <354372...@enterprise.net> John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net>
>
>>The point is drugs in general have failed to cure the major diseases,
>>and never will, while natural healing is far more successful as it
>>deals with the causes---diet & nutrition etc.
>
>disease? You think you can make somebody immortal by feeding them
>right? I'm here to tell you, you can't. Stuff wears out-- that's the
>cause of most disease.
Stuff gets abused also. Abused stuff wears out even faster. I can't
cite any scientific studies or anything but the people I know who
had a poor diet/nutrition are a lot worse off then the people I
know who did not. We all get old but the ones who have good approach
to diet and nutrition seem a lot more comfortable.
>
>>"The pharmaceutical industry has been the major force responsible for
>>the narrow, arrogant and simple-minded path that has brought
>>physicians success in less than 10% of the diseases they are called
>>upon to treat."---Dr Willner, M.D. Ph.D.
>
> De-licenced in Florida for trying to "cure" cancer with ozone (not
>diet and nutrition) in 1993. Died of sudden MI at age 65, in 1995.
>Great guy to quote on health and diet and how doctors are "arrogant."
>Dead doctors don't lie, do they, John?
>
I guess that means everything he did or said is bad. I guess maybe
we should delete all references to him in all written material. Yeah,
that makes a lot of sense.
-bryan
Bryan Mealy
In article <6i12rb$n...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,>In <01bd71a7$a37d0ac0$389f...@klinder.jlc.net> "Kate"
><klin...@jlc.net> writes:
>>
>> Unless I completely misunderstand Steve, his target is bad science,
>not herbs.<
>
>
>Comment:
>
> Correct. I love herbs and think they're neat. And I have patients
>taking everything from bioflavonoids to ginkgo to ginger to St. John's
>Wort, according to the German Commission E recommendations, and
>whatever else I can find (I like the Herbalgram and am a fan of Foster
>and Tyler and so on). Generally herbs have a low toxicity profile, and
>can be used (like vitamins) with a lower level of evidence. But I want
>to see at least basic studies, or I tend to say: "Bullcrap!" But the
>basic clinical studies exist (albeit some in German) for a surprising
>number of herbs.
>
> Notice, also, that herbs aren't cures. They are simply Nature's
>drugs in unrefined form. Nothing more. Nothing magic.
>
Yes, but... Science is of course good and all that. But who ever said
that there needs to be science for every health decision I make in
my life. Put some emphasis on *my* life. Why the f... can't I go to
a professional herbalist and have him or her legally treat me for cancer?
I don't give a damn about the studies that are there or not there.
Someone is out there trying to limit my access to herbs under the
guise of there not being scientific studies to support their efficacy.
This is wrong and I resent it. I want to see basic studies too but
when I don't see them I tend to say: "Let's study this" rather than
"Bullcrap!".
-bryan
Olaf Henny
In article <3542DE...@enterprise.net>, wh...@enterprise.net says...
>... is a walking talking bullshiting...
John, "bullshitting" is spelled with two 't'. Misspelling foul
language ruins the impact. :)
Best,
Olaf
John Scudamore
Steven B. Harris wrote:
>
> In <354372...@enterprise.net> John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net>
>
> >The point is drugs in general have failed to cure the major diseases,
> >and never will, while natural healing is far more successful as it
> >deals with the causes---diet & nutrition etc.
>
> What makes you think diet and nutrition are the "causes" of all
> disease? You think you can make somebody immortal by feeding them
> right? I'm here to tell you, you can't. Stuff wears out-- that's the
> cause of most disease.
>
> >the narrow, arrogant and simple-minded path that has brought
> >physicians success in less than 10% of the diseases they are called
> >upon to treat."---Dr Willner, M.D. Ph.D.
>
> De-licenced in Florida for trying to "cure" cancer with ozone (not
> diet and nutrition) in 1993. Died of sudden MI at age 65, in 1995.
> Great guy to quote on health and diet and how doctors are "arrogant."
> Dead doctors don't lie, do they, John?
>
Great quote, and spot on. You should try a bit of oxygen therapy, you
might achieve something for your patients and not your pocket for a
change.
John
"I know a number of cases of individuals with T-cell counts that have
been very low, but because of regular ozone therapy they have not gotten
any opportunistic infections. In fact, it's almost as though the ozone
is taking the place of their immune system. Unfortunately, you often do
not see rises in their T-cell counts, but you can see a stabilization
and a management as a chronic manageable illness. It's my belief that
the use of ozone in association with other complementary therapies can
convert AIDS from a uniformly terminal illness to something that is
chronically manageable, which is better than what anyone else can offer
at this point." - -Dr. John Pittman
http://www.oxytherapy.com/aj/total.html
Steven B. Harris
The following is a pretty good recommendation for vegetarianism--
the best I can find in the literature. Note that since
mortality doubles about every 7 years in humans, cutting "all-
cause" mortality in half equates to adding 7 years to your life.
Not bad. About as good as being Japanese. Won't make you
immortal, and you still eventually get to see me, the internist
(sorry). But not bad.
Steve Harris, M.D.
========================================================
BMJ 1996 Sep 28;313(7060):775-779
Dietary habits and mortality in 11,000 vegetarians and health
conscious people: results of a 17 year follow up.
Key TJ, Thorogood M, Appleby PN, Burr ML
Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of dietary habits with
mortality in a cohort of vegetarians and other health conscious
people. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: United Kingdom.
SUBJECTS: 4336 men and 6435 women recruited through health food
shops, vegetarian societies, and magazines. MAIN OUTCOME
MEASURES: Mortality ratios for vegetarianism and for daily versus
less than daily consumption of wholemeal bread, bran cereals,
nuts or dried fruit, fresh fruit, and raw salad in relation to
all cause mortality and mortality from ischaemic heart disease,
cerebrovascular disease, all malignant neoplasms, lung
cancer, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer. RESULTS: 2064 (19%)
subjects smoked, 4627 (43%) were vegetarian, 6699 (62%) ate
wholemeal bread daily, 2948 (27%) ate bran cereals daily, 4091
(38%) ate nuts or dried fruit daily, 8304 (77%) ate fresh fruit
daily, and 4105 (38%) ate raw salad daily. After a mean of 16.8
years follow up there were 1343 deaths before age 80. Overall the
cohort had a mortality about half that of the general population.
Within the cohort, daily consumption of fresh fruit was
associated with significantly reduced mortality from ischaemic
heart disease (rate ratio adjusted for smoking 0.76 (95% confide-
nce interval 0.60 to 0.97)), cerebrovascular disease (0.68
(0.47 to 0.98)), and for all causes combined (0.79 (0.70 to
0.90)). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of health conscious indivi-
duals, daily consumption of fresh fruit is associated with a
reduced mortality from ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular
disease, and all causes combined.
Comments:
Comment in: BMJ 1996 Sep 28;313(7060):765-6
Comment in: BMJ 1997 Jan 11;314(7074):148; discussion 148-9
PMID: 8842068, UI: 96439754
----------
Note, BTW, that not all diseases respond as well to a vegan
lifestyle. Cardiovascular diseases and stroke respond best to
all the extra potassium and lower saturated fat and cholesterol.
Data for breast cancer risk reduction is actually not all that
great, reviewing many studies.
Am J Clin Nutr 1988 Sep;48(3 Suppl):712-738
Health aspects of vegetarian diets.
Dwyer JT
Tufts University School of Medicine, New England Medical Center
Hospital,
Boston, MA 02111.
Recent studies of vegetarian diets and their effects on morbidity
and mortality are reviewed. Vegetarian diets are heterogeneous as
are their effects on nutritional status, health, and longevity.
Mortality rates are similar or lower for vegetarians than for
nonvegetarians. Risks of dietary deficiency disease are increased
on vegan but not on all vegetarian diets. Evidence for decreased
risks for certain chronic degenerative diseases varies. Both
vegetarian dietary and lifestyle practices are involved. Data are
strong that vegetarians are at lesser risk for obesity, atonic
constipation, lung cancer, and alcoholism. Evidence is good that
risks for hypertension, coronary artery disease, type II
diabetes, and gallstones are lower. Data are only fair to poor
that risks of breast cancer, diverticular disease of the colon,
colonic cancer, calcium kidney stones, osteoporosis, dental
erosion, and dental caries are lower among vegetarians. Reduced
risks for chronic degenerative diseases can also be achieved by
manipulations of omnivorous diets and lifestyles.
Publication Types:
Review
Review, tutorial
PMID: 3046302, UI: 88324229
Finally, here is the odd paper about breast cancer in Seventh-
day Adventists (SDAs). They have a lot less of it, but it does
NOT correlate with animal product intake. So they're doing
something right-- but we just don't know what. Suggestions: it
may be that a high fiber diet, which is known to decrease
estrogen levels in vegetarian women, works against breast cancer
even when animal products are consumed. It's not what these
women DON'T eat, but what they DO eat, that is important. Also,
soy products, popular with SDAs, contain genistein, which is a
known estrogen agonist/antagonist (modulator), and very possible
dietary breast cancer protector. Lignans in certain vegetables
are also protective in certain cancer systems.
----------
Am J Epidemiol 1988 Mar;127(3):440-453
Animal product consumption and subsequent fatal breast cancer
risk among Seventh-day Adventists.
Mills PK, Annegers JF, Phillips RL
Department of Preventive Medicine, Loma Linda University, CA
92350.
Seventh-day Adventist women experience lower mortality rates from
breast cancer than other white females in the United States. To
evaluate the role of diet in relation to breast cancer within
this unique population (more than one-half of all Adventist women
are lacto-ovo-vegetarians), a nested case-control study was
conducted including 142 cases of fatal breast cancer and 852
matched controls among California Seventh-day Adventist women in
1960-1980. No significant relations between the consumption of
animal products (meat, milk, cheese, and eggs) and breast cancer
were evident. Odds ratios of 1.00, 1.22, and 1.03 were observed
for meat consumption categories of none or occasional, 1-3
days/week, and 4+ days/week, respectively. However, among those
women who experienced a relatively early age at natural menopause
(less than or equal to 48 years), a suggestive though
nonsignificant, positive association between meat consumption
and risk was noted. These relations remained unchanged after
simultaneously controlling for the effects of other covariates
(menstrual characteristics and obesity) via conditional logistic
regression analysis. Risk was not related to age at first
exposure to the vegetarian lifestyle nor to duration of exposure
to the vegetarian lifestyle.
PMID: 3341351, UI: 88130970
----------
Steven B. Harris
In <6i14da$q...@darkstar.ucsc.edu> bme...@cse.ucsc.edu (Bryan Mealy)
writes:
>Yes, but... Science is of course good and all that. But who ever said
>that there needs to be science for every health decision I make in
>my life. Put some emphasis on *my* life. Why the f... can't I go to
>a professional herbalist and have him or her legally treat me for
>cancer?
Don't ask me-- I'm a libertarian. If it were up to me, you could
get your heart bypass from your plumber, and you certainly wouldn't
have to bother with building inspectors. You could also buy any drug
you liked, over the counter, provided you were an adult. With the
exception of antibiotics, which even in a libertarian world need to be
controlled like any other form of pollution.
>I don't give a damn about the studies that are there or not there.
>Someone is out there trying to limit my access to herbs under the
>guise of there not being scientific studies to support their efficacy.
Not me. And BTW, you can still buy just about any herb you want
OTC in any state in the US. Only exceptions are the really toxic ones,
like Comfrey (in Germany they monitor Comfrey preparations for nasty
alkaloids, but we don't here).
>This is wrong and I resent it. I want to see basic studies too but
>when I don't see them I tend to say: "Let's study this" rather than
>"Bullcrap!".
Hey, I'd like to study everything. You know how we scientists are.
But meanwhile we live in an imperfect world, and the tough question is
how much do you want to protect people from their own mistakes and
ignorance (which we all have, just in different areas). My general
belief is: little. Freedom is more important than life (tought choice,
though!) I would let people do dumb things medically. You must
understand that when I say "Bullcrap!" I'm trying to impose my opinion
on you, not my will. I hate cops. Generally, medicine and health care
is none of their business (exceptions: incompetents like children, and
antibiotic controls, as above. Also, fraud CLEARLY comes in when
people sell you something that is not what's on the label. But we
generally agree on that stuff, I'm sure).
Steve Harris, M.D.
John Scudamore
You've just said that already.
I'll go with Lauritsen myself. You can always write a book to present
your evidence. When we have good therapies as practiced by Dr Pittman
and Gary Null---to then give toxic drugs like AZT is a crime.
http://www.thehealingcenter.com/
http://www.he.net/~center/
How much longer does AZT give you in your book? Was it 2 weeks, 2
months, or 2 years, I can't recall.
John
"I took, at least, the 3 most important studies to show AZT efficacy,
John Scudamore
Steven B. Harris wrote:
>
> In <01bd71a7$a37d0ac0$389f...@klinder.jlc.net> "Kate"
> <klin
> Notice, also, that herbs aren't cures. They are simply Nature's
> drugs in unrefined form. Nothing more. Nothing magic.
Enough of your medical myths---that they make herbs into drugs to
improve efficacy---it is mainly to get the patent.
John
"St. John’s wort has the potential to really shake up the drug
companies’ monopoly on the antidepressant ($6 Billion) market……it could
easily make Prozac and the other synthetic drugs virtually
obsolete."---J. Zuess, M.D. (The Natural Prozac Program).
D.
Steven B. Harris
In <6i13qj$q...@darkstar.ucsc.edu> bme...@cse.ucsc.edu (Bryan Mealy)
writes:
>> What makes you think diet and nutrition are the "causes" of all
>>disease? You think you can make somebody immortal by feeding them
>>right? I'm here to tell you, you can't. Stuff wears out-- that's
the>>cause of most disease.
>
>Stuff gets abused also. Abused stuff wears out even faster. I can't
>cite any scientific studies or anything but the people I know who
>had a poor diet/nutrition are a lot worse off then the people I
>know who did not. We all get old but the ones who have good approach
>to diet and nutrition seem a lot more comfortable.
Yes. It's that way with animals also. I spent ten years trying to
make mice immortal by feeding them different stuff, ala Walford. A
losing game, but you can load your dice by a certain amount. In
humans, a pefect diet might buy you an extra decade. Maybe two or even
three. But at the end of that time, you'll just look young for your
age. And young for your age at 100 is that you look, feel, and are as
diseased, as if you were 80.
The aging process is the enemy here. Not doctors. The cure for
aging is not to be found in your back yard or in the herb shop, or in
alternative medicine, either, I'm sorry to say. It will come from
really high tech research, and a LOT of money, starting with the human
genome project and ending with nanotechnology. Not everything worth
having is free, or nearly free. Sorry, again, tree-huggers. I didn't
invent the human condition-- all I do is report on it here on the nets,
as best I can understand it.
>>>"The pharmaceutical industry has been the major force responsible
for the narrow, arrogant and simple-minded path that has brought
>>>physicians success in less than 10% of the diseases they are called
>>>upon to treat."---Dr Willner, M.D. Ph.D.
>>
>> De-licenced in Florida for trying to "cure" cancer with ozone
(not diet and nutrition) in 1993. Died of sudden MI at age 65, in
1995.Great guy to quote on health and diet and how doctors are
"arrogant." Dead doctors don't lie, do they, John?
>>
>I guess that means everything he did or said is bad. I guess maybe
>we should delete all references to him in all written material. Yeah,
>that makes a lot of sense.
No. But one should pay less attention to hypocrits. Has to do with
intellectual honesty and trust. If I was John, I'd find somebody else
other than "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" Willner to quote as being a force
for progressive insight into medicine and biology. Especially since
he's dead of a disease he said doctors were stupid about. I really
hate that. Linus Pauling can thumb his nose at medicine, and I have to
respect him, in general. He was a smart guy, and not crazy, and we
still don't know if he was right about a lot of stuff he said.
Willner, no. Willner was a nutcase.
Steve Harris, M.D.
Andrea L Boyd
John Scudamore wrote in message <354278...@enterprise.net>...
>Andrea L Boyd wrote:
>>
>> One anecdote a proof does not make. Excisional biopsy and chemotherapy
>> and/or radiation are well documented, effective treatments for breast
>> cancer.
>
>An estimated 182,000 cases in 1995 and 46,240 deaths from breast
>cancer. Effective treatments? Is this better than placebo? A f......
>disaster is more like it.
>
It is certainly a disaster, but I do still believe that its better than
placebo effect. You WILL agree that it must be excised, won't you? Or is
surgery of any kind against the holistic way?
>"The bottom line is after 20 years it is still unclear if adjuvant chemo
>in premenopausal women actually cures a greater proportion of patients
>than good supportive care alone, or only postpones relapes and
>death."---Ralph Moss
>
>"There is no evidence that chemo can cure people with advanced breast
>disease."---Moss
I believe I said that in my post. Not knowing at what stage she was
diagnosed, there's a very good possibility that NOTHING would really have
given her good odds.
>Dr Kostler, M.D. disagrees with the practice of radiation following
>lumpectomy. Radiation is a source of free radicals that can damage DNA
>and predispose the body to later cancers. "It may eliminate the cancer
>initially, but not in the long run. You can’t take enough antioxidants
>to protect you against radiation. It is like trying to stop the damage
>caused by the bombing of Hiroshima. There is no way to safeguard the
>potential harm to the DNA."
In regards, the most recent information I've seen seemed to show only a very
slight, if not negligible, decrease in mortality using lumpectomy w/
radiation vs. lumpectomy w/ no radiation.
>
>
<snip>
>> That she didn't survive
>> does not mean that the treatment does not work for the majority of
patients
>> who are diagnosed.
>
>We can all sleep easy then.
No, actually, we can't. We WOMEN cannot sleep easy, even with the current r
ates of survival. It is not enough. (And please don't point out that men
get breast cancer, too. We both know that I am more at-risk than you.)
>She went 100% orthodox and died.
Which is exactly why we can't "all sleep easy." But you must admit that
there are those patients out there that go 100% holistic and die, too. I'm
sure there is a happy medium somewhere in there where I won't have to worry
about my genetic predisposition quite so much.
>"Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy…Chemotherapy
>does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. This fact has been
>documented for over a decade. Yet doctors still use chemotherapy for
>these tumours…Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with
>chemo than without it."—Alan Levin, M.D.
I did not mean to imply that chemo is the end-all be-all answer to our
problems. Most women diagnosed with breast cancer are not given chemo. It
has not shown itself to be more efficacious than excision/radiation or
excision alone at the stages at which most breast cancer is caught, just as
mastectomy doesn't appear to be any more efficacious than lumpectomy, now.
Remember, though, there was a time when lumpectomy was the red-headed
step-child.
A
Steven B. Harris
A TASTY VEGETARIAN HEALTH SHAKE (NO LIE)
(c) 1995-98 Steven B. Harris, M.D.
For many reasons, breakfast is the most important meal of the
day, just as mom used to tell you.
For one thing, in the A.M. your brain's hormonally controlled
desire for sweets and carbohydrates is high, and for fat, is low.
This makes it easy to eat "good for you" low-fat meals in the
A.M., but also makes it increasingly difficult to eat virtuously
as the day wears on. We've all had this experience.
For another thing, breakfast calories count less, as we know
now. As it turns out, the popular idea that calories eaten in
the evening are more likely to get turned into fat during sleep,
is an old wives' tale which is perfectly true. Eat calories in
the morning so they don't stay on you.
Which doesn't mean your body ignores A.M. calories. Since
your body "counts" calories during the day, eating a significant
amount of calories (even low-fat calories) for breakfast offers
you the opportunity to have the willpower to bypass those
nutritionally disastrous foods which may be the only things
you'll find in vending machines, cafeterias, or fast food places
while at work.
But many people don't eat breakfast. They don't, because they
don't have much time in the mornings, and they mistakenly believe
that they should take advantage of the relative lack of appetite
which many people have just after getting up (sometimes boosted
by coffee, or even a cigarette). But this strategy doesn't
really work, and in fact tends to backfire. We know that the
average overweight person does not eat breakfast (beyond perhaps
some wake-up coffee), has one or two high-fat snacks during the
day, then begins to eat high-fat foods continuously from the time
he or she arrives home from work in the afternoon, until time for
bed at night. The results speak for themselves. Sometimes
people think that the results would be even worse for them if
they started eating at breakfast. But with the right breakfast,
they are wrong.
A decently-planned breakfast shake is an alternative to the
daily starve-and-then-binge cycle now trapping too many people in
affluent countries. Such shakes are quick and easy to make with
a blender, and are also easy to design to near nutritional
perfection. The components of a good shake are carbohydrate,
protein, fat, fiber, and flavor-- and with a blender it's
possible to put in exactly what we need, and still get something
that tastes good. And it's still possbile to make a product
which is superior in nearly every way to canned supplements like
Ensure or Boost.
LET'S LOOK INDIVIDUALLY AT THE COMPONENTS A SHAKE NEEDS:
CARBOHYDRATE
=============
A little sugar is necessary for a good shake, but most of the
calories ought to come from easy-to-dissolve, but nearly tastel-
ess small sugar-polymers. These are intermediate in complexity
between starch (which is hard to dissolve), and sugars. These
smaller polymers are digested slowly enough not to raise insulin
as much as simple sugars. The small sugar polymer product
derived from corn is called "maltodextrin," and it can be bought
under trade names like "CARBO-HIT" (Mega-Pro) in the
body-building sections of health food stores. Any body-building
product which is 100% carbohydrate, but contains no sugar, is
pure or, close to pure, maltodextrin (even if the label does not
contain the word). Maltodextrin is a white granular powder
containing about 225 Calories per 1/2 cup (56 grams). It is
lactose-free.
If you cannot find pure maltodextrin, you can still get sports
"performance powders" which are mostly maltodextrin, although you
pay a premium markup (a factor of 3 in price) for the milk
protein, vitamins, minerals, and other things added to them to
make a proprietary mix. An example of such a product is
TWINLAB's vanilla-flavor "Gainer's Fuel 1000," which is 80%
maltodextrin, and can be substituted for it in our breakfast
shake.
PROTEIN:
========
Here the choices are between soy, milk, and egg proteins.
Soy protein (available as 90-95% isolates in body builder
sections of health food stores) has a number of benefits,
including low methionine, unless methionine is added (look on the
label). You want to stay away from extra methionine, since this
amino acid causes generation of a toxic metabolite called
homocysteine, which probably does damage to your arterial walls,
and is involved in atherosclerosis and perhaps even in
Alzheimer's disease. Soy is naturally low in methionine, and
that's great. Though this is an essential amino acid, you're
sure to get more than you need the rest of the day.
Methionine is great for your cat, since the acid it makes helps
him to keep from getting kidney stones. All that acid will
merely wash out YOUR calcium, though, and put you at risk for
osteoporosis.
Soy also has low lysine levels, which help keep insulin
levels low (which helps hunger). Soy is not quite so "balanced"
in essentially amino acid composition as milk and egg proteins,
but the differences are mostly due to the very same limiting
amino acids which may make soy protein beneficial, and (in any
case) limited protein is hardly a problem in Western diets.
Soy products also contain other compounds like saponins and
isoflavones (principally a substance called genistein) which both
decrease cancer risk (prostate, breast, colon), and impressively
lower cholesterol levels (far better than equal weights of bran
or corn oil). Some of the cholesterol and weight loss properties
of soy appear to be is related to soy protein's ability to mildly
stimulate thyroid activity, without doing so to a dangerous
extent.
For fighting the major late life diseases, it's hard to beat
soy protein as a single food. Soy is probably a major reason why
Japanese enjoy some of the world's longest life spans, dispite
smoking and high blood pressure.
Soy protein is also present in soy milk, which is available in
non-fat versions which have 6 or 7 grams protein per cup (don't
bother with the 3 g protein per cup versions, which are too
watery for the author's taste). Soy protein isolates, such as
soy powder and the soy protein in soy milk, contain about 60
Calories per 1/4 cup (13 grams protein). These soy isolates do
not contain the high levels of protease inhibitors which cause
problems in animals fed raw soybeans as a single protein source.
Processed soy products are perfectly good foods for human
consumption, as demonstrated by the diet and disease profiles of
millions of Asians, who use soy and soy products as major
staples. Read the lable carefully, and do not buy any soy milk
product which contains hydrogenated vegetable oils of any kind.
Some health food stores offer powdered soy milk, which is
basically soy protein plus some sugar. If you buy this in bulk
and follow the directions, it can substitute for the soy milk
liquid, although not (to this author) as tastily. If you use
powdered soy milk, you should still use powdered soy protein as
above, to get the full protein power of the recipe.
THE KETOGENIC OPTION
For those on a weight loss program, soy protein alone with soy
milk and fruit (but no added maltodextrin and oil) can be used in
the shake recipe to make up a low fat, low calorie, "ketogenic"
meal, and this can be taken up to twice a day (no more). Such
low carbohydrate diets will, like the Atkin's style diets,
suppress appetite by making protein breakdown products called
"ketones" in the blood. These ketones turn off some of the
brain's craving for fat.
Nuturitionists have generally not been happy with the Atkins
style diets, because they can raise cholesterol levels. Such low
fat protein-rich meals are not optimal, nutritionally, but at
least they are are safer than the meats recommended in the
Atkin's diet programs (since they have no cholesterol and very
low saturated and hydrogenated fat levels).
High protein diets are a strain on the kidneys, and are not
recommended for those with kidney disease. Also, (again) the
acid load to the body associated with protein necessitates taking
a basic salt of calcium with the excess protein: an extra 500 mg
of calcium as the carbonate or citrate (these are essentially
alkaline or basic forms of calcium) should be taken with each
shake, since soy itself is not high in calcium. Those who fail
to supplement with calcium with high protein meals, in theory
risk loss of bone calcium after many years use of high protein
concentrates for weight loss. Women especially, with their
higher calcium needs and greater risk for osteoporosis, should
pay attention to calcium supplementation when using high protein
shakes. Regular bone-density checks (such as DEXA scans) are a
necessity for women over 45 years of age.
--------
OILS
=====
Polyunsaturated omega-6 fats (such as occur in corn or
safflower oil) lower cholesterol levels in the body, but
apparently also increase cancer rates when used as a major source
of dietary fat. On the other hand, most saturated fats (such as
occur in coconut or palm oils), and also trans-fats (which occur
in hydrogenated oils and naturally in whole milk) raise
LDL cholesterol levels-- a major risk factor for coronary
disease. Thus, the ideal fats to stave off fat-hunger and add
calories, are the monounsaturate-residue triglycerides, which
lower blood cholesterol without causing cancer. The best sources
of these fats are hazel nut oil, avocado oil, extra virgin olive
oil, macademia nut oil, and almond oil. Of all these, the author
prefers almond oil, and finds that the many of the others have
peculiar "olive-like" tastes which are hard to hide in a sweet
breakfast shake.
For those who would like to include their daily requirement
of omega-3 fatty acids (about 1 gram), Canola oil (watch the
label carefully to make sure it's unhydrogenated) can be used in
place of almond oil, or for part of it. Or, one teaspoon of VERY
fresh linseed/flax oil (cold expelled oil, such as can be bought
refrigerated in some health food stores in a black bottle), can
be used in the amount of 1 tsp of oil with 2 tsp of almond oil.
The best quality unoxidized linseed oil has a nutty taste, and
does not hurt the flavor of shakes substantially. (It must be
kept refrigerated and bottles resplaced each month. Empty or
partly filled bottles must be filled with water before discarding
because they are a spontaneous combustion hazzard; remember this
drying oil is used in paint thinners.)
Oil could be left out of a shake completely, but because of
dedicated fat receptors on the tongue which are known to
influence the brain's satiety centers subconsciously, it's hard
to fool the body completely about fat in the diet. Thus, any
shake which "sticks to the ribs" through lunch, must
realistically contain a little fat. The 1 tablespoon of almond
oil added to this shake (14 g fat) represents only 120 Kcals.
A note about peanut oil: don't. Peanut fats are atherogenic,
even though they contain all the right fatty acid residues. The
problem is that the residues are in the wrong order in the
molecule, and it's not something easily fixable. Do not eat
peanut butter or peanuts, except as flavoring agents. Learn to
like sandwiches of other nut-butters (which taste better anyway),
and NEVER fry in peanut oil.
FIBER
======
For fiber and body in a shake it's hard to beat a banana,
which not only adds flavor, but also potassium and 100 nearly
fat-free Calories.
This, plus fruit-ice for cooling, and vanilla for additional
flavor, completes our recipe:
******************************************************
All products below can generally be purchaced at General
Nutrition Center (GNC) sports stores (this is not a
promotion or product endorsement-- the author has not
connection with GNC).
***********************************************************
***********************************************************
-----------------------------------------------------------
Banana-Vanilla Anti-Cancer Anti-Heart-Disease
Weight-Loss Breakfast Shake:
Step 1: In a cup mix dry:
1/2 cup maltodextrin
1/4 cup soy protein (get brands with no added methionine such as
CHALLENGE brand with 95% isolated soy).
This can be done as dry ingredients the evening before. A mix of
2 parts maltodextrin and 1 part soy protein powder (by volume)
can also be made up in bulk, for even faster measurement
Step 2: In the AM, add to your blender:
8 oz non-fat 6 or 7 gram protein per cup soy milk
(author's favorite: SOY-MOO brand)
1 tablespoon almond oil
5 drops vanilla extract
2 large ice cubes (made from distilled water), or 1/2 to 1 cup
frozen fruit (preferred)
1 large banana (partly for sweetness, and also consistency)
Or the blender pitcher-top can be left in the refrigerator
overnight with the liquids in it, and the ice in the freezer
(there never seems to be enough time in the mornings for the
author, so this kind of preparation works well).
Step 3:
In the AM, simply add the protein powder on top of the liquid
ingredients, add a banana and ice, and blend on "low" blend
setting, until smooth (60 seconds or so), for a drink of 16 oz.
Chug it down, quickly rinse the blender before it becomes a
problem to wash (you can use soapy water and blend again for a
few seconds), and you can be out the door in a minute or two.
For other flavors, frozen whole organic strawberries,
peaches, blueberries, blackberries, or melon, can be added to
taste. Just keep small bags of frozen fruit in the freezer, and
prepare and use a packet of mixed frozen fruits in your shake,
instead of ice.
Don't be afraid to experiment with mixed fruits (the purple
and blue ones may make the shake look strange, but they taste
good). Bananas are easy to freeze also, when they are ripe
(never mind the dark appearance of frozen bananas--they also
taste fine after blending). Epidemiologically, strawberries and
melons top the list of anti-cancer fruits, and huckleberries,
blackcurrents, blueberries and blackberries are highest in the
bioflavonoids which possibly naturally prevent some heart disease
and thrombophlebitis problems.
For those mornings when a chance from fruit is in order,
Hershey chocolate syrup makes for a health non-fat flavor, as
(aside from satisfying the odd craving that some people have for
it) it contains healthful flavonoids as well. The banana-
chocolate shake is excellent.
************************************************************
Nutritional Analysis (for the plain banana/vanilla version):
Protein: 20 grams (about 1/3 of daily protein requirement)
Carbohydrate: 105 g (~30 grams simple sugars, no lactose)
Fat: 15 grams (70% monounsaturate)
Fiber: 1.6 grams
Energy: 615 Cals (Kcals), 20% from fat
Cost (Banana/Vanilla with 100% maltodextrin): About $1.75,
depending on where you shop or mail-order. This compares
reasonably to $1.50 for the same calories from 3 Carnation
Instant Breakfasts with skim milk (200 Calories each).
Calorically, note that an "Instant Breakfast" is not much of a
breakfast. It would be possible to duplicate the approximate
food value in the above shake in the same volume at about the
same cost with *two* Instant Breakfasts, condensed skim and
regular skim milk (50:50) to make 16 oz, and some almond oil.
But the resulting drink would have milk casein in place of soy
protein and soy nutrients, and also have a lot of lactose (unless
you added lactase enzyme such as Lactaid too...). Generally,
this would be inferior.
Again, note that some fat and fat-calories have been added
deliberately, in order to avoid "daily Calories eaten late in the
day" trap. There is no point in trying to make this a "low-
calorie" shake-- that defeats the entire purpose of the thing!
Also, vitamins, minerals, and omega-3 fatty acids have been not
been balanced, on assumption that supplement pills, fruits,
vegetables, and other fat sources will be added later in the
daily diet.
Some health-seekers will immediately think of adding the
traditional things like brewer's yeast, vitamins, wheatgerm oil,
and lecithin to this recipe. My best advice on this is: don't.
These things taste awful to many people! It takes an unusual
person to drink something most mornings over the long run if it
doesn't taste pretty good. If you make these sweet and tasty
shakes correctly, however, you can drink one every morning and
never get tired of them. The clean taste of strawberries,
several types of mellon balls, peaches, and almond oil in a shake
go particularly well.
ENJOY!
Steven B. Harris, M.D.
Salt Lake City, Utah
sbha...@ix.netcom.com
(May be reprinted anywhere without permission, if done not-for-
profit).
Steven B. Harris
In <35441F...@enterprise.net> John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net>
writes:
>> Let's see your evidence, John. Otherwise, Shut Up.
>
>You've just said that already.
>
>I'll go with Lauritsen myself.
Lauritsen is not "evidence." He's full of his own opinions, not
one of which is backed up by any scientific studies of the matter. He
used to go on and on about how AZT supposedly caused AIDS, until
reminded that there was the same amount of AIDS in both arms of the
Concorde trial. We haven't seen hide nor hair of him since. There's
not really anything he can say, is there? The largest study that has
ever been done didn't agree with the entire premise of two of his
books. That leaves him sort of stuck. Especially since the smaller
studies all show the same, too.
>How much longer does AZT give you in your book? Was it 2 weeks, 2
>months, or 2 years, I can't recall.
>
>John
AZT lengthened life in AIDS patients by a few months. It was
beginner's therapy, and it wasn't that great. It was not the monster
Lauritsen said it was. It was just a drug. Today there are better
ones for AIDS.
>"I took, at least, the 3 most important studies to show AZT efficacy,
>and I showed not only were they very sloppy and bad but it would be
>completely fair to describe at least two of them as fraudulent and I
>have held out a challenge to people who advocate AZT, I say show me
one study, just one single study, that clearly show benefits for AZT,
>research that will stand up under scrutiny.<
Lauritsen didn't like it when 19 people died in the placebo group,
and only one in the AZT group, in the initial study. He labored long
and hard to show that it was really 18 to 2, and one had been
miscounted. Like, so what?
Given the results, nobody has tried to repeat that particular study
(ACTG 016), because it would be rather monsterous, and you couldn't get
volunteers. So the benefits of AZT, which are best when used very late
in the disease, never showed up so clearly again in any other study.
But the benefits do show up in at least a dozen studies, some placebo
controlled and some not. And in animal studies where animals are
infected with SIV, their own version of AIDS. It's all enough for
almost everyone who's reviewed the evidence to see that there is an
effect. Lauritsen simply refuses to believe it. That's fine-- some
people don't believe smoking causes lung cancer. No number of studies
will convince them.
> Nobody will do this. A few cases they have mentioned studies that
are just simply ridiculous like one done by Pitzo where he poisoned a
few children with AZT and then he claimed it boosted their IQ.<<
You see? "Claimed" If Lauritsen doesn't want to believe a study,
he just refuses to. What can you do?
> About a quarter of the children died rather shortly, but he was so
excited by the fact that he thought their IQ’s went up that he
advocated giving AZT to newborn babies.<
The natural history of AIDS is that children with it die. That was
true before AZT, and AZT didn't change it. But here Lauritsen is
pretending that AZT caused the deaths. There is no evidence whatsoever
from any study that AZT causes AIDS, or shortens life span in this way.
The only study I know of which showed AZT to be worse than nothing,
took 5 years of very high doses to do it. And the AIDS rate didn't
change in the AZT group even there. The extra deaths were suicides and
auto accidents. If Lauritsen wants to argue that 5 years of high dose
AZT makes you depressed, and a bad driver, he'll have evidence for
that. Real, scientific evidence! But the rest of what he writes is
drivel.
> This is truly sick research, but I have found from my studies that
not only are their no proven benefits to AZT therapy, but that it is
deadly, and in fact right on the label of AZT they list such things as
hemotoxicity …what that means in plain English is that AZT poisons the
blood, and then it will say severe anaemia, and that means that it will
be so toxic to the blood that there will be a very serious shortage of
red blood cells.<
Only the dose makes the poison, something we tried to remind
Lauritsen of when he volunteered that he'd once taken Warfarin for a
blood clot in the lung. Who'd want to take rat poison? Lauritsen,
that's who. He decided that poisons in careful doses could be
medicines. But the lesson didn't take.
Now-- are you willing to discuss specific studies, or do you just
want to keep on ranting with somebody else's delusions? Lauritsen did
no good when he was here in the NGs "in person," and he was better at
presenting his arguments than you're likely to be. So what's the
point? You have no idea what you're talking about.
Lauritsen's welcome back any time, too.
Steve Harris, M.D.
Steven B. Harris
In <354420...@enterprise.net> John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net>
writes:
>Enough of your medical myths---that they make herbs into drugs to
>improve efficacy---it is mainly to get the patent.
>
>John
Sometimes. So? It's often as difficult to standardize a poisonous
herb as it is to make the pure stuff. Why not do it right? It saves a
lot of wondering if that gram of dried foxglove leaf you took is going
to kill you or help you.
Steve Harris, M.D.
ago...@dd.palmer.edu
In article <6i0ta6$a...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) writes:
>In <6i0ok7$me0$1...@news.hal-pc.org> dha...@hal-pc.org (David L. Hanson)
>writes:
>
>>These people have simply been taken in by the medical establishment.
>It is very unlikely that you can trust anyone with a BS, MS or PhD in
>"nutritional science". The establishment has much to gain by treating
>the sick and very little incentive to find out how to keep them from
>getting sick (except through drugs). Vegetables and fruits don't
>provide profits to drug companies or doctors.
>
>dha...@hal-pc.org
>"Ye MUST be born again"
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>it won't take long on fruit and vegetable diet to find that you get
>sick with something anyway. Unless you're 20, in which case you may go
>for years and years thinking it's your perfect diet, when it's just
>your youth.
>
>it happens.
>
> Steve Harris, M.D.
to see people suffer...Steve
John Scudamore
Thanks Olaf. Can I send my posts through you to splellcheck?
John
Steven B. Harris
In <6i1r3m$p...@ng1.icn.state.ia.us> ago...@dd.palmer.edu writes:
>>But you will learn eventually. And I hope you think back to this
when
>>it happens.
>>
>> Steve Harris, M.D.
> There's nothing quite as nice as a medical "doctor" who hopes
he'll get to see people suffer...Steve
Nothing of the sort. However, it is true that education is painful,
and pain is educational. Experience keeps a dear school, but a fool
will learn in no other. Nature is the most unfair teacher, for she
gives the test first and the lesson afterwards.
Steve Harris, M.D.
John Scudamore
Steven B. Harris wrote:
>
>
> Don't ask me-- I'm a libertarian.
Well fight for the other doctors liberty to practice, and protect
alternative M.D.s from harrassment, like Wright. You want liberty to
run a monopoly of drug doctors which is what we have now for cancer.
Some libertarian that is.
> >I don't give a damn about the studies that are there or not there.
> >Someone is out there trying to limit my access to herbs under the
> >guise of there not being scientific studies to support their efficacy.
>
> Not me. And BTW, you can still buy just about any herb you want
> OTC in any state in the US. Only exceptions are the really toxic ones,
> like Comfrey (in Germany they monitor Comfrey preparations for nasty
> alkaloids, but we don't here).
>
So what? We invented doctors to advise us on medicine, and it would be
nice if we could consult a herbalist in the use of herbs for cancer.
Which we can't do now as it is illegal. That is like saying you can buy
any drug you want from a chemist to treat cancer---fat lot of use
without the doctors isn't it?
John
babe
I took chemo in 1984 and I'm still here to talk about it, along with many
others.
You can look at alternative medicine as just that an alternative, or you
can look
at it as complimentary medicine, my money is on the later.
When you are faced with an illness such as Linda's you do whatever, you
can to stay alive. When you have walked in her or my shoes you will
understand.
Andrea L Boyd <GAN...@prodigy.net> wrote in article
<6ht46a$s40$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>
> >The 3 people I knew who had chemotherapy to treat cancer, ended up dying
> >not long afterwards. The one person I know who didn't have chemo is
still
> >alive 18 years later.
> >
>
Steven B. Harris
In <35447F...@enterprise.net> John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net>
writes:
>Steven B. Harris wrote:
>>
>>
>> Don't ask me-- I'm a libertarian.
>
>Well fight for the other doctors liberty to practice, and protect
>alternative M.D.s from harrassment, like Wright. You want liberty to
>run a monopoly of drug doctors which is what we have now for cancer.
>Some libertarian that is.
Well, I do fight. I'm not out picketing city hall on behalf of
Wright, but I contribute to the libertarian cause in many ways. Here
on the net being one. You don't often hear people say they think that
freedom is more important than life, or if you do, it's not in
relationship to airbags or motorcycle helmets. Rather, it's a long
complicated socialist argument which boils down to the fact that if I'm
going to be paying your health care bills ("free" health care being a
"right") then I get to say what you can and can't do to your body, in
order to insure my investment. Which means I have nearly complete
control over your life. For your own good, of course.
>> Not me. And BTW, you can still buy just about any herb you want
>> OTC in any state in the US.
>
>So what? We invented doctors to advise us on medicine, and it would
be nice if we could consult a herbalist in the use of herbs for cancer.
Well, you can most places. In Utah, where I live, you can. In
California, no. But I'm not responsible for California. It's, well,
California.
>Which we can't do now as it is illegal. That is like saying you can
buy any drug you want from a chemist to treat cancer---fat lot of use
without the doctors isn't it?<
Not to hear you tell it. I'm all the time getting grief from people
who think that because they've read a health book and own a body, that
makes them as much an expert as I am. Okay, so why are they so upset
when they get to prove it? I suppose that all encompassing egoism
doesn't extend to herbology, eh? Just simple stuff like internal
medicine.
But I've already said I don't agree with trade restrictions and
business licenses, including medical licenses of any kind. Don't blame
me for Wright's problems.
Steve Harris, M.D.
John Scudamore
That is the myth put out by drug research people and the drug industry.
Truth is herbalists rarely or never use Foxglove. Or Willow Bark for
that matter. Nearly all of the medicinal herbs used by herbalists such
as Shulze (a red flag here) are completely safe, eg garlic, cayenne, and
certainly very safe under supervision. In fact Shulze says there are no
side effects to his medicine, so it is baloney to carry on making the
claim that they make herbs into drugs for our benefit.
I see some non-toxic herbal products, like Allicin from garlic, but the
drugs from herbs you talk about, some take your skin off at 20 paces,
and were from plants never used for healing---like the Yew and Taxol---a
nifty litte poison if there ever was one. You certainly wouldn't want
to make a mistake on dosage on that one as plenty found out in early
trials and didn't live to tell the tale.
John
"Medicine in our country has been on a crusade over the last 100 years
to wipe out every other form of medicine. One of the things they did
that was unique was they lobbied to make words legal only for them to
use. Today in the US, only a medical doctor can diagnose a disease,
prescribe something, and cure you. Nobody else can say "diagnose",
"prescribe" and "cure". That means that nobody can cure you but a
medical doctor….I can’t say "Chaparral is the cure for a tumour". I
can’t say garlic is the cure for cholestrol or high blood pressure.
They have made the laws. So that makes me look stupid, impotent, and it
makes the herbs look weak and wimpy.
I can’t as a herbalist, say that an herb will cure, even though a
lot of prescription drugs are made from herbs.
This was a tactic by organised medicine to wipe out the
opposition, by making them look silly and impotent…they have the
words…they control the high ground. They can walk out and say, "Yes, if
you take this drug, you will cure yourself." But they hired lawyers and
got the government behind them. If I say that I go to jail. It isn’t
because the herbs don’t work and the drugs are better, it’s just because
they have more money, they lobbied more and got the law passed in their
favour. That is why people get this idea that herbs don’t cure you."—Dr
Shulze.
John Scudamore
Charles Platt wrote:
>
> John Scudamore (wh...@enterprise.net) wrote:
> I said:
> > > Of course, the wording of this post cunningly eliminates vaccines (they
> > > don't cure, they prevent),
>
> > Says who? The people who sell them, that's who, but there are about 20
> > books now that have collated information saying the opposite--and some.
>
> The opposite? Are you talking about isolated cases where a live vaccine
> proves dangerous, or are you claiming that vaccines are some kind of
> elaborate con game? If the latter, please explain the eradication of
> diseases that once killed millions.
This is a myth put into allopathic text books and other history books.
If you look at smallpox you will find the vaccine didn't work. But, the
rich people write the history books.
"Back then I was working in one of the oldest lung illness treatment
centres in Germany, and just by chance, I looked at the files of those
people who had fallen ill during the first German epidemic of smallpox,
in 1947...We had always been told that the smallpox vaccination would
protect against smallpox. And now I could verify, thanks to the files
and papers, that all of those who had fallen ill had been vaccinated.
This was very upsetting for me...
The decline in infectious diseases in developed countries had
nothing to do with vaccinations, but with the decline in poverty and
hunger.
One vaccine against smallpox costs about 600DM and the proclaimed
target is to vaccinate 3 billion people...Vaccination is a huge business
for the pharmaceutical industry. The population is constantly
threatened with epidemics, they have been made to fear them, and the
reports conclude---Go and get vaccinated.
Hepatitis B stayed at the same level even after vaccine
introduction. It was believed in Germany that we made a mistake, it's
not being passed through blood but by sexual contact. We expected the
response to be to vaccinate everyone where the event of sexual
intercourse would be a factor...However, the response was to vaccinate
everyone. And this is where you can see that it all revolves around
money."---Dr Buchwald.
>
> > The point is drugs in general have failed to cure the major diseases,
> > and never will, while natural healing is far more successful as it deals
> > with the causes---diet & nutrition etc.
>
> If you really want to talk about this seriously (which I doubt) you must
> begin by naming some specifics. Which "major diseases" have not been
> cured?
Cancer, aids, diabetes, asthma, alzheimer's, heart disease, arthritis,
depression, schizophrenia, with drugs that is.
>What do you mean by "natural healing" (a huge and messy field,
> ranging from homeopathy to rolfing)?
Natural healing uses nutrients (Vitamins, minerals and super
food/juices), naturopathy (diet therapy, hydrotherapy, opening the
elimination channels---skin, colon, liver, kidneys), and boosting the
immune system, and allowing the bodies own healing ability to work.
Orthomolecular medicine, Naturopathy, Natural Hygiene, Naturopathic
herbalism, Naturopathic homeopathy, are the ones I am familiar with.
Also environmental medicine.
>What do you mean by, "it deals with
> the causes"?
Allopathy just treats symptoms with drugs, in a nutshell. Disease comes
from malnutrition, poor diet, toxins (eg mercury amalgam, root canals)
leading to toxemia. Generally speaking.
>
> But here, let ME be specific:
>
> If you were diagnosed with Lyme disease, would you use antibiotics?
I would unless I had a decent homeopath around. Antibiotics are OK
taken in life threatening situations but there over use has bred lethal
germs and caused diabetes and asthma in children.
>If you
> were a staff member in the emergency room in a large urban area, would you
> accept vaccination against hepatitis?
No, and most health care workers have refused that vaccine as they know
of the very serious side effects that you can get from this vaccine.
The main one being CFS.
"We looked at hep B immunisation in Quebec province because one nurse
phoned us saying she had CFS after having hep B imminisation.....About a
month later the same nurse called again, she now had 5 other nurses in
the area who had fallen ill with CFS-like symptoms after the vaccine,
all were unable to return to work. I told her to phone the maker,
Merck. She told me she did and they said the 6 nurses were the only
persons in the whole world that had ever had a serious side effect and
therefore there couldn't possibly be a link. And, they told her that
she was the only person who had ever phoned....she said that when her
doctor phoned, he too was told he was the only person in the world that
had ever called, and when each of the doctors of the other nurses called
in, each was told the same thing.
I also called merck...and they said.."Oh Dr Hyde, you are the
only doctor in all of Canada that has ever contacted us with such a
complaint."
This same nurse....(had) amassed 20 or 30 names of individuals,
all post hep B immunisation cases...We received close to 120 calls from
nurses and health care workers in the Quebec area with problems...many
were severly disabled." Dr Hyde.
And the aids virus was in another experimental hep b vaccine. These are
side effects, before we get onto the subject of whether the vaccine
works or not.
>If you contracted appendicitis,
> would you allow conventional doctors to conduct surgery?
Only if it was going to burst. Otherwise I would use naturopathy or
homeopathy. A huge amount of appendices are found to be normal after
surgery. I shouldn't get this problem on the proper diet. It is worth
bearing in mind most of the things they deem useless and whip out are
later found to be essential like tonsils, now linked (removal of) polio.
John
"We’ve had numerous people diagnosed with Alzheimer’s who got better;
they just come out of it; they are leading normal lives today. And
then, of course, what the doctors say is it’s not Alzheimer’s. You run
into that Catch-22 all the time. They say, well, it was probably just a
temporary premature dementia, and they write-off the recovery to
preserve their ignorance."---Dick Shulze, N.D. M.H.
http://www.healthfree.com/schulze/
OrthoMed http://www.internetwks.com/pauling/
http://www.orthomed.org/
http://www.bbc.org/~hoffer/hofferhp.htm
http://www.mall-net.com/cathcart/
> Hep B
http://www.trufax.org/vaccine/hepb.html
http://home.sprynet.com:80/sprynet/Gyrene/hepB.htm
http://www.i-wayco.com/niin/knowledgereport/hep_newborns.html
http://webpages.netlink.co.nz/~ias/dunbar.htm
http://webpages.netlink.co.nz/~ias/hepb.htm
Smallpox
http://pages.prodigy.com/gval/small.htm
> --CP
Carey Gregory
John Scudamore wrote:
>
> If you look at smallpox you will find the vaccine didn't work. But, the
> rich people write the history books.
You really are a piece of work. How do you keep a straight face when you spew
this crap?
So go ahead. Tell us all about how smallpox vaccine didn't work. Explain how
a highly contagious, highly lethal disease that has been afflicting humans
(and only humans) for thousands of years simply up and vanished from the face
of the earth as if by magic. And don't forget to explain how, after thousands
of years of epidemics, this miracle happened in a few short years immediately
following a worldwide vaccination campaign using a vaccine that didn't work.
--
Carey Gregory
Charles Platt
John Scudamore (wh...@enterprise.net) tells us that he would use
homeopathy against Lyme disease. Very interesting!
Would you use it against syphilis also, John? I believe the bacterium in
each case is in the spirochete family, though I may be wrong.
Carey Gregory
John Scudamore wrote:
>
> >If you
> > were a staff member in the emergency room in a large urban area, would you
> > accept vaccination against hepatitis?
>
> No, and most health care workers have refused that vaccine as they know
> of the very serious side effects that you can get from this vaccine.
> The main one being CFS.
Yet another patently false statement.
--
Carey Gregory
Tom Matthews
Steven B. Harris wrote:
>
> A TASTY VEGETARIAN HEALTH SHAKE (NO LIE)
>
> (c) 1995-98 Steven B. Harris, M.D.
First, Steve, my compliments on a very nice explanatory introduction to
your shake receipe and the wealth of detailed information throughout.
However, what you suggest, while similar to my morning fruit "smoothie",
is sufficiently different that I want to ask a few questions about why
mine is not even better.
> CARBOHYDRATE
> =============
>
> A little sugar is necessary for a good shake, but most of the
> calories ought to come from easy-to-dissolve, but nearly tastel-
> ess small sugar-polymers. These are intermediate in complexity
> between starch (which is hard to dissolve), and sugars. These
> smaller polymers are digested slowly enough not to raise insulin
> as much as simple sugars. The small sugar polymer product
> derived from corn is called "maltodextrin,"
While I understand the virtues of maltodextrin. IMO, it is still "empty"
calories (abeit pure low-glycemic fuel calories). Why would it not be
better to leave out this component and add more sweet fruit as I do
(soaked dried-apricots, apple, dried pitted prunes, etc.)?
> PROTEIN:
> ========
>
> Here the choices are between soy, milk, and egg proteins.
While I agree on the virtues of soy protein, whey protein has a higher
BV rating (the amount of body protein stores 100 grams of it can
replace), a better amino acid profile, and some benefits which soy does
not have (as well as vice-versa). In my smoothies, I therefore use half
soy and half whey. Whey protein concentrates are now just as available
as soy.
> Soy protein (available as 90-95% isolates in body builder
> sections of health food stores) has a number of benefits,
> including low methionine, unless methionine is added (look on the
> label). You want to stay away from extra methionine, since this
> amino acid causes generation of a toxic metabolite called
> homocysteine, which probably does damage to your arterial walls,
> and is involved in atherosclerosis and perhaps even in
> Alzheimer's disease.
This is true, however, methionine (or cystine) is also essential for
complete protein needs and it (and cystine too) is generally low in near
vegetarian diets. Furthermore, such diets also usually contain more than
enough folic acid to keep the homocysteine at safe levels. Therefore, at
the least, I believe that your recommendation about the methionine
should possibly be modified for near or complete vegetarians.
> Soy is naturally low in methionine, and
> that's great. Though this is an essential amino acid, you're
> sure to get more than you need the rest of the day.
Maybe not if you are a vegetarian.
[snip]
> Soy also has low lysine levels, which help keep insulin
> levels low (which helps hunger).
Please supply a mechanism, reference or abstract for the statement that
low lysine levels "help keep insulin levels low".
> Soy is not quite so "balanced"
> in essentially amino acid composition as milk and egg proteins,
> but the differences are mostly due to the very same limiting
> amino acids which may make soy protein beneficial, and (in any
> case) limited protein is hardly a problem in Western diets.
Whey protein is high in anti-catabolic muscle sparing branched chain
amino acids. I don't believe that soy has these. For a near vegetarian
or reduced calorie dieter whey may be better for this reason.
> Soy products also contain other compounds like saponins and
> isoflavones (principally a substance called genistein) which both
> decrease cancer risk (prostate, breast, colon), and impressively
> lower cholesterol levels (far better than equal weights of bran
> or corn oil). Some of the cholesterol and weight loss properties
> of soy appear to be is related to soy protein's ability to mildly
> stimulate thyroid activity, without doing so to a dangerous
> extent.
Whey protein boosts glutathione levels and general immunity.
> THE KETOGENIC OPTION
>
> For those on a weight loss program, soy protein alone with soy
> milk and fruit (but no added maltodextrin and oil) can be used in
> the shake recipe to make up a low fat, low calorie, "ketogenic"
> meal, and this can be taken up to twice a day (no more). Such
> low carbohydrate diets will, like the Atkin's style diets,
> suppress appetite by making protein breakdown products called
> "ketones" in the blood. These ketones turn off some of the
> brain's craving for fat.
My use of a lot of extra fruit also increases the carbohydrate to
protein ratio and decreases the ketogenicity of the shake.
> an extra 500 mg
> of calcium as the carbonate or citrate (these are essentially
> alkaline or basic forms of calcium) should be taken with each
> shake, since soy itself is not high in calcium.
Whey protein concentrate also contains calcium (more than soy, I think).
> OILS
> =====
>
> Polyunsaturated omega-6 fats (such as occur in corn or
> safflower oil) lower cholesterol levels in the body, but
> apparently also increase cancer rates when used as a major source
> of dietary fat. On the other hand, most saturated fats (such as
> occur in coconut or palm oils), and also trans-fats (which occur
> in hydrogenated oils and naturally in whole milk) raise
> LDL cholesterol levels-- a major risk factor for coronary
> disease. Thus, the ideal fats to stave off fat-hunger and add
> calories, are the monounsaturate-residue triglycerides, which
> lower blood cholesterol without causing cancer. The best sources
> of these fats are hazel nut oil, avocado oil, extra virgin olive
> oil, macademia nut oil, and almond oil.
To supply some oils (and extra protein) I add 1 to 2 ounces of mixed raw
nuts (almonds, brazils, walnuts, pumpkin seeds - no peanuts). I also
leave all seeds which are soft enough for the blender to cut up, in the
mix (mellon, apple, citrus).
> For those who would like to include their daily requirement
> of omega-3 fatty acids (about 1 gram), Canola oil (watch the
> label carefully to make sure it's unhydrogenated) can be used in
> place of almond oil, or for part of it. Or, one teaspoon of VERY
> fresh linseed/flax oil (cold expelled oil, such as can be bought
> refrigerated in some health food stores in a black bottle),
I use flaxseed oil (or Udo's "Perfected Oil Blend") in addition to the
nuts. Be sure to shake/mix the flaxseed oil well before each use so that
the lignans (which tend to settle out) are included.
> Oil could be left out of a shake completely, but because of
> dedicated fat receptors on the tongue which are known to
> influence the brain's satiety centers subconsciously, it's hard
> to fool the body completely about fat in the diet. Thus, any
> shake which "sticks to the ribs" through lunch, must
> realistically contain a little fat.
This is true. My smoothie is much more satisfying and longer lasting now
that I am adding the nuts and flaxseed oil.
> FIBER
> ======
>
> For fiber and body in a shake it's hard to beat a banana,
> which not only adds flavor, but also potassium and 100 nearly
> fat-free Calories.
Since my smoothie contains more fruit in addition to a banana (apple
containing lots of pectin), it contains more fiber too. (That is another
part of the "non-empty calorie" advantage of fruit over maltodextrin.)
> This, plus fruit-ice for cooling,
The nuts and some of my fruit is kept in the refrigerator and unless you
are in the hot south why do you want it so cold anyway? It had much more
delicious flavor if not so cold.
> and vanilla for additional flavor,
My smoothie requires no additional flavoring, although sometimes I add a
bit of chocolate for variety.
The other benefit of my smoothie is that since the fruits vary somewhat,
so does the taste vary and supply surprising and delight full variety.
> the author has no connection with GNC
Then why do you keep constantly refering to them in so much of what you
write? Why not simply refer to a generic "health food store" or
"supplement supplier"?
[full receipe snipped]
If anyone is interested in my full smoothie receipe, I will post it.
--Tom
Tom Matthews
The LIFE EXTENSION FOUNDATION - http://www.lef.org - 800-841-5433
A non-profit membership organization dedicated to the extension
of the healthy human lifespan through ground breaking research,
innovative ideas and practical methods.
LIFE EXTENSION MAGAZINE - The ultimate source for new
health and medical findings from around the world.
Patrick V. Suglia
"Kate" <klin...@jlc.net> wrote:
>
>
>Jet Silverman <jet...@eartXhlink.net> wrote in article
><3542EE11...@eartXhlink.net>...
>> He never said drugs will cure all disease one day. So tell me, what
>diseases to
>> herbs cure? LOL.
>>
>>
> I have Herbalgram in front of me, and it has no cures. But it contains a
>JAMA study( LeBasts et al,1997 )
> that showed that gingko had a positive effect on Alzheimers patients, and
>a study with the same results in
>Phytomedicine.( Kanowski et al, 1997 ). The same magazine also contained a
>study about arthritis and
> nettles( Phytomedicine Cjrubasik et al, 1997 ) that showed a reduction in
>inflammation. Clearly, these
>studies need careful scrutiny. But its bad science to just dismiss them
>without a close look at the evidence.
>
> Unless I completely misunderstand Steve, his target is bad science, not
>herbs.
>
> IMPORTANT: The abstracts I mentioned are for information only, and not as
>advice.
> Consult a health care professional for advice..
>>
>
>
>Kate
>
Herbs and drugs are one in the same, just in different forms.
When misused, both can be poisons. Neither cures diseases but alters
effects.
Patrick V. Suglia
Life University School of Chiropractic
http://www.collegeclub.com/~suglia
sug...@mindspring.com-nospam
Please remove "-nospam" when replying by e-mail.
Jeff Jones
Tom Matthews (tma...@netcom.ca) wrote:
: Steven B. Harris wrote:
: >
: > A TASTY VEGETARIAN HEALTH SHAKE (NO LIE)
: >
: > (c) 1995-98 Steven B. Harris, M.D.
: First, Steve, my compliments on a very nice explanatory introduction to
: your shake receipe and the wealth of detailed information throughout.
: However, what you suggest, while similar to my morning fruit "smoothie",
: is sufficiently different that I want to ask a few questions about why
: mine is not even better.
: > CARBOHYDRATE
: > =============
: >
: > A little sugar is necessary for a good shake, but most of the
: > calories ought to come from easy-to-dissolve, but nearly tastel-
: > ess small sugar-polymers. These are intermediate in complexity
: > between starch (which is hard to dissolve), and sugars. These
: > smaller polymers are digested slowly enough not to raise insulin
: > as much as simple sugars. The small sugar polymer product
: > derived from corn is called "maltodextrin,"
: While I understand the virtues of maltodextrin. IMO, it is still "empty"
: calories (abeit pure low-glycemic fuel calories). Why would it not be
: better to leave out this component and add more sweet fruit as I do
: (soaked dried-apricots, apple, dried pitted prunes, etc.)?
Just a comment here - maltodextrin is *not* a low glycemic index fuel. It
is lower than maltose (150), but according to Rick Mendosa's GI tables, it
is equivalent to glucose (137). I use maltodextrin in my bottle in bike races
to give me a very quick supply of energy. When you are exercising, you don't
experience the negative effects of high GI carbs so long as a) you are
reasonably well trained and b) you keep your carb ingestion up at regular
intervals after you start eating/drinking. Maltodextrin also tastes like
crap (aspirin?) IMHO.
I therefore agree with Tom about adding more fruit and leaving out the
maltodextrin. Lactose is another low very GI sugar that could be added in
the form of skim milk powder to get protein as well, so long as you are ok
with digesting it. Oats could be added for their satiety value and nutrient
density (contain w-3 and w-6 fats, iron, potassium, soluble fibre and other
good stuff). Nuts are good as well, though higher in fat and very calorie
dense, but this doesn't matter at breakfast.
Loved the rest of the shake analyses from you both though :-).
Jeff
--
***************************************************************
* Dr. Jones * __o *
* jon...@chem.usyd.edu.au * _'\<,_/ *
* nutriti...@miningco.com * (Y)/ (Y) *
* http://nutrition.miningco.com * *
* This weeks feature: The Seven Levels of Eating *
***************************************************************
Steven B. Harris
In <3544C6...@enterprise.net> John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net>
writes:
Nearly all of the medicinal herbs used by herbalists such
>as Shulze (a red flag here) are completely safe, eg garlic, cayenne,
and certainly very safe under supervision. <
What does this statement mean? Nearly all herbs used by herbalists
such as Shulze are completely safe? And if we name some unsafe use of
herbs by herbalists in the past, you'll just say they aren't herbalists
such as Shulze. Herbs are completely safe when used by those
herbalists who use them completely safely. Wow, what a piece of
important information! Damn, today's newsflash.
Guess what? Nearly all drugs are completely safe when used by those
doctors who use them safely.
Don Bradley
In a previous article, so...@nospam.dorsai.org (*selah*) says:
>>>>>saddened, but if anyone could have had access to the latest cancer
>>>>>treatment, surely it would have been her. and i thought she was
wealth does not guarantee quality of care...only the ability to
pay the bills.
Often a doctor will still be well behind the latest developments
or will simply subscribe to a school of thought that blinds him
to recent changes...
Breast cancers are inherrantly different...thats what mutation
of DNA means..differences in tumors. Some DNA damage can be
very bad... some can be repaired by th ebody's own dna repiar
mechanisms...
While I would never accdept chemo therapy, that does not
mean that others would make the same choice. The particular
chemo therpeutic agent may have been a 'standaard drug of
choice, but perhaps it was not suited for that particula
r tumor and it conferred on the tumor a resistance to later
chemo agents?
Wealth does not guarantee expertise...how many wealthy
persons had thier houses float away in floods, despite
having paid for first rate architechts??
John Scudamore
What is this, some sort of quiz? I already said antibiotics are OK if
used wisely.
Why don't you tell me when drugs are going to cure all those diseases I
listed?
John
John Scudamore
Carey Gregory wrote:
>
> John Scudamore wrote:
> >
> > If you look at smallpox you will find the vaccine didn't work. But, the
> > rich people write the history books.
>
> this crap?
>
> So go ahead. Tell us all about how smallpox vaccine didn't work. Explain how
> a highly contagious, highly lethal disease that has been afflicting humans
> (and only humans) for thousands of years simply up and vanished from the face
> of the earth as if by magic. And don't forget to explain how, after thousands
> of years of epidemics, this miracle happened in a few short years immediately
> following a worldwide vaccination campaign using a vaccine that didn't work.
>
> --
> Carey Gregory
Sorry to upset such cherished beliefs on how you saved the world with
vaccines Carey.
Smallpox Vaccine by Ian Sinclair.
In England, compulsory vaccination against smallpox was first introduced
in 1852, yet in the period 1857 to 1859, a smallpox epidemic killed
14,244 people. In 1863 to 1865, a second epidemic claimed 20,059 lives.
In 1867, a more stringent compulsory vaccination law was passed and
those who evaded vaccination were prosecuted. After an intensive tour
year effort to vaccinate the entire population between the ages of 2 -
50, the Chief Medical Officer of England announced in May 1871 that
97.5% had been vaccinated. In the following year, 1872, England
experienced its worst ever smallpox epidemic which claimed 44,840 lives.
Between 1871-1880, during the period of compulsory vaccination, the
death rate from smallpox leapt from 28 to 46 per 100,000 population.
Writing in the British Medical Journal (21/1/1928 p116) Dr L Parry
questions the vaccination statistics which revealed a higher death rate
amongst the vaccinated than the unvaccinated and asks:
"How is it that smallpox is five times as likely to be fatal in the
vaccinated as in the unvaccinated?
"How is it that in some of our best vaccinated towns - for example,
Bombay and Calcutta - smallpox is rife, whilst in some of our worst
vaccinated towns, such as Leicester, it is almost unknown?
"How is it that something like 80 per cent of the cases admitted Into
the Metropolitan Asylums Board smallpox hospitals have been vaccinated,
whilst only 20 per cent have not been vaccinated?
"How is it that in Germany, the best vaccinated country in the world,
there are more deaths in proportion to the population than In England -
for example, in 1919, 28 deaths in England, 707 In Germany; In 1920, 30
deaths In England, 354 In Germany In Germany In 1919 There were 5,012
cases of smallpox with 707 deaths; in England In 1925 There were 5,363
cases of smallpox with 6
deaths. What is the explanation?
In Scotland, between 1855-1875, over 9,000 children under 5 died of
smallpox despite
Scotland being, at that time, one of the most vaccinated countries in
the world. In 1907-
1919 with only a third of the children vaccinated, only 7 smallpox
deaths were recorded for
children under 5 years of age.
in Germany, in the years 1870-1 871, over 1,000,000 people had smallpox
of which 120,000 died. 96% of these had been vaccinated. An address sent
to the governments of the various German states from Bismarck, the
Chancellor of Germany, contained the following comments:
"... the hopes placed in the efficacy of the cowpox virus as
preventative of smallpox have proved entirely deceptive".
In the Philippines, prior to US takeover in 1905, case mortality from
smallpox was about 10%. in 1905, following the commencement of
systematic vaccination enforced by the US Government, an epidemic
occurred where the case mortality ranged from 25% to 50% in different
parts of the islands. In 1918-1919 with over 95% of the population
vaccinated, the worst epidemic In the Philippine's history occurred
resulting in a case mortality of 65%. The highest percentage occurred in
the capital Manila, the most thoroughly vaccinated place. The lowest
percentage occurred in Mindanao, the least vaccinated place owing to
religious prejudices. Dr V de Jesus, Director of Health, stated that the
1918-1919 smallpox epidemic resulted in 60,855 deaths. The 1920 Report
of the Philippines Health Service contains the following comments:
"From the lime in which smallpox was practically eradicated In the city
of Manila to the year 1918 (about 9 years) in which the epidemic appears
certainly In one of its severest forms, hundreds after hundreds of
thousands of people were yearly vaccinated with the most unfortunate
result that the 1918 epidemic looks prima facie as a flagrant failure of
the classic Immunization towards future epidemics".
In Japan, 1885, 13 years after compulsory vaccination commenced in 1872,
a law was passed requiring re-vaccination every seven years. From 1886
to 1892, 25,474,370 re-vaccinations were recorded in Japan. Yet during
this same period Japan had 156,175 cases of smallpox with 38,979 deaths
representing a case mortality of nearly 25%. In 1896, Japanese
Parliament passed another act requiring every Japanese resident to be
vaccinated and re-vaccinated every 5 years. Between 1889 and 1908, there
were 171,611 smallpox cases with 47,919 deaths, a case mortality of 30%.
This case mortality exceeds the smallpox death-rate of the
pre-vaccination period when nobody was vaccinated. It is noteworthy that
Australia, one of the least vaccinated countries in the world for
smallpox had only three smallpox cases. In 15 years, in comparison with
Japan's record of 165,775 cases and 28,979 deaths in only 6 years of
compulsory vaccination and re-vaccination.
In an article, Vaccination In Italy' which appeared In the New York
Medical Journal, July 1899, Chas Rauta, Professor of Hygiene and
Material Medical in the University of Perguia, italy, points out:
"Italy Is one of the best vaccinated countries in the world, if not the
best of all, for twenty years before 1885, our nation was vaccinated in
the proportion of 98.5%. Notwithstanding, the epidemics of smallpox that
we have had have
been something so frightful that nothing before the invention of
vaccination
could equal them. During 1887, we had 16,249 deaths from smallpox; in
1888- 18,110 and 1889, 131413".
Professor Rauta has stated:
"Vaccination is a monstrosity a misbegotten offspring of error and
ignorance; it should have no place in either hygiene or medicine
....Believe not in vaccinaton, it is a world-wide delusion, an
unscientific practice, a fatal superstition with consequences measured
today by tears and sorrow without end'.
From his book, The Vaccination Superstition, Dr J W Hodge writes:
"After a careful consideration of the history of vaccination gleaned
from an impartial and comprehensive study of vital statistics, and
pertinent data from every reliable source, and after an experience
derived from having vaccinated 31000 subjects, I am firmly convinced
that vaccination cannot be shown to have any logical relation to the
diminution of cases of smallpox....
"Vaccination does not protect, it actually renders its subjects more
susceptible by depressing vital power and diminishing natural
resistance, and millions of people have died of smallpox which they
contracted after being vaccinated'.
In the USA, June 25th, 1937, Dr William Howard Hay addressed the Medical
Freedom Society on the Lemke Bill to abolish compulsory vaccination. He
stated:
"l have thought many times of all the insane things we have advocated in
medicine, that is one of the most insane - to insist on the vaccination
of children, or anybody else, for the prevention of smallpox when, as a
matter of fact, we are never able to prove that vaccination saved one
man from smallpox....
"I know of one epidemic of smallpox comprising nine hundred and some
cases, in which 95 per cent of the infected had been vaccinated, and
most of them recently....
"it is now thirty years since I have been confining myself to the
treatment of chronic disease ... I have run across so many histories of
children who had never seen a sick day until they were vaccinated and
who... have never seen a well day since....
"In England, where statistics are kept a little more frankly and
accurately and above board... than in this country the actual official
records show 3 times as many deaths directly from vaccinations as from
smallpox for the past twenty one years... I will guarantee you that
there are 3 times as many deaths that were not recorded, that are
directly traceable to vaccinations. That doesn't take into account the
many many cases of encephalitis or sleeping sickness, and of this or
that form of degeneration, that occurs as the result of vaccination....
"it is nonsense to think that you can Inject pus - and it is usually
from the pustule end of the dead smallpox victim... it is unthinkable
that you can inject that into a little child and in any way improve its
health. What is true of vaccination is exactly as true of all forms of
serum immunization, so called...if we could by any means build up a
natural resistance to disease through these artificial means, I would
applaud it to the echo, but we can't do it....
"The body has its own methods of defence. These depend on the vitality
of the body at the time. If it is vital enough, it will resist all
infections; if it Isn't vital enough, it won't, and you can't change the
vitality of the body for the better by introducing poison of any kind
into it".
According to the official figures of the Register General of England
only 109 children (under 5) in England and Wales died of smallpox in the
twenty-three years ending December 1933, but 270 died of vaccinations in
the same period in these two countries. Between 1934 and 1961, not one
smallpox death was recorded and yet during this same period 115 children
under 5 years of age died as a result of the smallpox vaccination. This
ultimately forced the government to repeal the Vaccination Act for
smallpox.
The situation was just as bad in the USA. An article in the July 1969
issue of Prevention Magazine stated that 300 children in the USA died
from the complications of smallpox vaccine since 1948. Yet during that
same period there was not one reported case of smallpox in the country.
In October 1971, Dr Samuel Katz, Duke University Medical Centre,
speaking at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics
said that an average of six to nine Individuals die each year from
smallpox vaccinations. Authorities eventually abandoned the vaccine as
Dr Archie Kalokerinos points out:
"About 10 - 15 years ago some of my colleagues in the United States gave
me some very interesting information. They said that smallpox
vaccination had been stopped, not because smallpox had been wiped out,
but because they were having trouble with the vaccine. They would
vaccinate an individual and that individual would give active smallpox
to a contact. The whole thing was out of control and they weren't game
to use it'.
This is probably why Professor Ari Zuckerman, a member of the World
Health organisation's advisory panel on viruses has stated,
"Immunization against smallpox is more hazardous that the disease
itself'. Even the British Medical Journal (1/5/1976) states:
"It is now accepted that the risks of routine smallpox vaccination
outweigh those of natural infection In Britain"'.
On May 11th 1987, the London Times ran a front-page story, headlines,
"SMALLPOX
VACCINE TRIGGERED AIDS VIRUS". The gist of the story was that, somehow,
the World
Health Organisation (WHO) in its efforts to eradicate smallpox in the
third world, had
triggered millions of AIDS cases in Africa, Haiti, and Brazil. A WHO
adviser said:
"I thought it was lust a coincidence until we studied the latest
findings about the reactions which can be caused by Vaccination. Now I
believe the smallpox vaccine theory is the explanation to The AIDS
explosion".
Health statistics from WHO reveal that the greatest spread of HIV (AIDS
virus) Infection coincides with the areas having the most intensive
vaccination programs. It has been speculated that smallpox vaccine given
to millions throughout Africa, Haiti and Brazil has the potential to
weaken the immune system of susceptible individuals. This can result in
the dormant AIDS viruses present In such people to become activated and
assume virulent powers. Dr Robert Gallo, America's number one AIDS
researcher has stated:
"I have been saying for some years that the use of live vaccines such as
that used from smallpox can activate a dormant infection such as HIV
(AIDS)."
WHY VACCINATION CONTINUES
"The propaganda in favour of Immunization has won the minds of the
masses and has Influenced medical thinking, and government and
international measures, relating to disease con trol. This has been at
the expense of methods which might have raised the real level of
well-being of the people at risk. This begins to impinge upon the realms
of politics and economics, for the gains are great In this area, and the
truth is not always palatable. The removal of the idea of protection,
via immunization, and the implementation of expensive measures to
improve nutrition in countries which can hardly make ends meet, would
not be welcome themes for politicians, even if they could be made to
listen to the facts.
Leon Chaitow
Vaccination And Immunization
"That vaccination continues to this day Is not because of its 'assumed'
benefits, but (1) because it yields millions of dollars profit to the
Drug Industry, (2) because it is one of the foundation stones of Medical
Science upon which they have undeservedly built their power and
prestige, and for that reason, must remain In place, and (3) because the
majority of the public, brainwashed by medical propaganda, and unwilling
to think for themselves, blindly accept it."—Ian Sinclair
"If humanity Is to pass safely through its present crisis on earth, ft
will be because a majority of individuals are now doing their own
thinking". Buckminster Fuller
Patrick V. Suglia
sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) wrote:
Nearly all drugs are completely safe? Interesting belief! Then
why does the PDR list paragraphs full of adverse side effects for each
and every medication in its hundreds and hundreds of pages? And why
was it reported in almost every major newspaper in the U.S. on April
15th that 108,000 deaths are caused EACH YEAR by the side effects of
"proper" medications?
Steven B. Harris
In <3544D7...@enterprise.net> John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net>
writes:
>If you look at smallpox you will find the vaccine didn't work. But,
the rich people write the history books.<
If you think that history and medical texts and filled with lies,
it relieves you of any responsibility for knowing what's in them, I
suppose. That attitude must've stood you in great stead (in your own
mind, at any rate) during your student days.
There is no such thing as "a" smallpox vaccines, but a long and
complicated series of them. The last series was quite effective, and
succeeded in wiping out the disease completely in 1976. It hasn't been
seen or heard from since. Twenty years is a long time for a virus to
hide, especially one that requires fresh hosts every few weeks.
Steve Harris, M.D.
Mo.ron (mo^r' on) n. 1. Person exhibiting the mildest degree of mental
deficiency, permitting adequacy in simple life activities. 2. Loosely,
a very foolish person. 3. A person believing that smallpox, a viral
disease infecting only humans and incapable of chronic infection,
disappeared completely from the Earth spontaneously in many remote and
undeveloped countries where it had historically always been epidemic,
simultaneously with the coordinated vaccination campaign by the World
Health Organization in the late 1970's, by complete coincidence.
---Syn. see IDIOT. [Gk. moron, neut. of moros, stupid].
haz...@fnol.net
In article <6i13qj$q...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>,
bme...@cse.ucsc.edu (Bryan Mealy) wrote:
>
> In article <6i0ha5$5...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
> Steven B. Harris <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >In <354372...@enterprise.net> John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net>
> >
> >>The point is drugs in general have failed to cure the major diseases,
> >>and never will, while natural healing is far more successful as it
> >>deals with the causes---diet & nutrition etc.
> >
> >disease? You think you can make somebody immortal by feeding them
> >right? I'm here to tell you, you can't. Stuff wears out-- that's the
> >cause of most disease.
>
Again - the point is not immortality (despite your research focus) but
improved quality of life while it is being lived. When someone dies peacefully
at a ripe old age, that is stuff wearing out. Suffering with chronic disease
is a function (or rather dysfunction) of something, most likely the immune
system. What specifically has worn out when someone gets cancer, or arthritis?
hazmat
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Tom Matthews
Tom Matthews wrote:
> Steven B. Harris wrote:
> > A TASTY VEGETARIAN HEALTH SHAKE (NO LIE)
> >
> > (c) 1995-98 Steven B. Harris, M.D.
> > A little sugar is necessary for a good shake, but most of the
> > calories ought to come from easy-to-dissolve, but nearly tastel-
> > ess small sugar-polymers. These are intermediate in complexity
> > between starch (which is hard to dissolve), and sugars. These
> > smaller polymers are digested slowly enough not to raise insulin
> > as much as simple sugars. The small sugar polymer product
> > derived from corn is called "maltodextrin,"
> While I understand the virtues of maltodextrin.
When I wrote this I had not checked it out for glycemic index. In spite
of what you state about, the table at http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm
rates maltodextrin as having *exactly* the same very high glycemic index
value as does glucose!
Can you please provide references for your statements about the virtues
of maltodextrin?
Tom Matthews
Jeff Jones wrote:
>
> Tom Matthews (tma...@netcom.ca) wrote:
> : Steven B. Harris wrote:
> : >
> : > A TASTY VEGETARIAN HEALTH SHAKE (NO LIE)
> : >
> : > (c) 1995-98 Steven B. Harris, M.D.
> : While I understand the virtues of maltodextrin. IMO, it is still "empty"
> : calories (abeit pure low-glycemic fuel calories). Why would it not be
> : better to leave out this component and add more sweet fruit as I do
> : (soaked dried-apricots, apple, dried pitted prunes, etc.)?
>
> Just a comment here - maltodextrin is *not* a low glycemic index fuel. It
> is lower than maltose (150), but according to Rick Mendosa's GI tables, it
> is equivalent to glucose (137).
Yes, thanks for this. I too was just reading something else which
mentioned maltodextrin as being hi glycemic and sure enough found what
you did in Rick's tables. (I posted that before I read this post).
> I therefore agree with Tom about adding more fruit and leaving out the
> maltodextrin. Lactose is another low very GI sugar that could be added in
> the form of skim milk powder to get protein as well, so long as you are ok
> with digesting it.
Or you could use some sweet whey powder (which contains lactose) instead
of only whey protein concentrate. I have done that but I prefer it to be
less sweet using only the natural sugars from the fruits (and all the
extra phytonutrients which they supply).
> Oats could be added for their satiety value and nutrient
> density (contain w-3 and w-6 fats, iron, potassium, soluble fibre and other
> good stuff).
Yes, I sometimes put in some mixed whole grain cereal if I want it
thicker and/or the fruits I use are more "watery" than usual. My
preference is to have it so thick that it hardly pours out of the
blender. That makes it very easy to swallow my regimen of morning
supplement pills with. To tell the truth, I drink it right out of the
blender container and use a rubber scrapper to get it all.
> Nuts are good as well, though higher in fat and very calorie
> dense, but this doesn't matter at breakfast.
That's why I don't put in many. I always eat nuts in very small doses.
> Loved the rest of the shake analyses from you both though :-).
Thanks.
Greg Nee
Did your eyes stop reading the sentence before it got to the period? Or do
you just troll for fun?
In article <35455616...@news.mindspring.com>, sug...@mindspring.com
says...
Steven B. Harris
In <6i419i$p3e$2...@news-t.computek.net> gn...@marlin.utmb.edu (Greg Nee)
writes:
Ah, but you forgot the qualifier. They're safe when used by doctors
who use them safely. This has as much informational content as what
Scudamore's been saying.
John Scudamore
Steven B. Harris wrote:
>
> In <3544C6...@enterprise.net> John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net>
> writes:
>
> Nearly all of the medicinal herbs used by herbalists such
> >as Shulze (a red flag here) are completely safe, eg garlic, cayenne,
> and certainly very safe under supervision. <
>
> What does this statement mean? Nearly all herbs used by herbalists
> such as Shulze are completely safe? And if we name some unsafe use of
> herbs by herbalists in the past, you'll just say they aren't herbalists
> such as Shulze. Herbs are completely safe when used by those
> herbalists who use them completely safely. Wow, what a piece of
> important information! Damn, today's newsflash.
>
> doctors who use them safely.
LOL. LOL LOL LOL. Been dreaming while walking again Steve!
Newsflash:
Some 80,000, minimum, people are killed by your medical drugs every
year.
Perhaps you need some more training in the use of drugs.
John
Carey Gregory
Hey John - got any information on smallpox from, say, this century, or
thereabouts?
I can't believe you posted this stuff.
--
Carey Gregory
John Scudamore wrote:
>
> in 1852
> In 1863 to 1865
> In 1867
> In the following year, 1872, England
> Between 1871-1880, during the period of compulsory vaccination, the
> Writing in the British Medical Journal (21/1/1928 p116) Dr L Parry
> for example, in 1919, 28 deaths in England, 707 In Germany; In 1920, 30
> In Germany In 1919 There were 5,012
> in England In 1925 There were 5,363
> 1855-1875, over 9,000 children under 5 died of
> In 1907-1919
> in the years 1870-1871
> in 1905, case mortality from
> in 1905, following the commencement of
> In Japan, 1885, 13 years after compulsory vaccination commenced in 1872,
> From 1886 to 1892
> During 1887
> 1888
Beverly Erlebacher
In article <354278...@enterprise.net>,
John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net> wrote:
>
>An estimated 182,000 cases in 1995 and 46,240 deaths from breast
>cancer. Effective treatments? Is this better than placebo? A f......
>disaster is more like it.
Hmm, this says that only 25% of women with breast cancer die of it.
Sounds pretty good to me - 3 out of 4 women with breast cancer live
long enough to die of something else! Back in the good old days,
100% of women with breast cancer died of it, unless they managed to
die of pneumonia or some such first.
>"The bottom line is after 20 years it is still unclear if adjuvant chemo
>in premenopausal women actually cures a greater proportion of patients
>than good supportive care alone, or only postpones relapes and
>death."---Ralph Moss
What's wrong with "postponing relapses and death"? Faced with death
within weeks or months, most people would prefer to postpone death
for years.
Note that half of all diagnoses of breast cancer are in women 70 years old
or older. If you can give a woman this age an extra 5, 10 or 15 years of
remission, it's not too different from a cure.
>"There is no evidence that chemo can cure people with advanced breast
>disease."---Moss
Again, if you are 75 years old, and surgery plus chemo gives you another
10 or 15 years, so you can die of heart disease before the cancer kills
you, is this a disaster?
>Breast cancer patients may be at risk of developing lung cancer after
>radiation. In one study of 31 patients who'd received radiotherapy for
>breast can-cer, 19 went on to develop a lung cancer on average 17 years
>later-mostly in the lung on the same side as the breast that had been
>irradiated (Med Onc, 1994; 11:121-5). Some oncologists believe that the
>lung is especially sensitive to radiation damage, either scar tissue or
>inflammation-which would tend to argue against high-dose radiotherapy
>for lung cancer (Strahl und Onk, 1995; 171: 490-8). Breast cancer
>patients also risk soft-tissue cancers of the breast (Int J Rad Onc, Bio
>Phys, 1995; 31: 405-10).
If you are over 70 years old, developing another cancer 17 years later may
not be a big issue, especially if the alternative is death within months.
You don't like chemo and you don't like surgery and you don't like
radiotherapy. Well, some new immunotherapies are coming along, but right
now, it's still cut, burn and poison, or die.
>> Linda McCartney was an avowed vegan. She was very careful about what she
>> put into her body, even during her chemotherapy. That she didn't survive
>> does not mean that the treatment does not work for the majority of patients
>> who are diagnosed.
>
>We can all sleep easy then.
Well, you will get old and die, unless you die before you get old. A healthy
lifestyle may help put off diseases of aging, and maintain a better quality
of life, but you aren't going to live forever.
>She went 100% orthodox and died.
She could have resisted all 'orthodox' treatment, and died too.
John Scudamore
Carey Gregory wrote:
>
> Hey John - got any information on smallpox from, say, this century, or
> thereabouts?
>
> I can't believe you posted this stuff.
Don't ever question smallpox vaccine story---the great taboo. The
sacred tablet cast in stone (sand actually).
>
> --
> Carey Gregory
>
> John Scudamore wrote:
> >
> > in 1852
>
> > In 1863 to 1865
>
> > In 1867
>
> > In the following year, 1872, England
>
> > Between 1871-1880, during the period of compulsory vaccination, the
>
> > Writing in the British Medical Journal (21/1/1928 p116) Dr L Parry
>
> > for example, in 1919, 28 deaths in England, 707 In Germany; In 1920, 30
>
> > In Germany In 1919 There were 5,012
>
> > in England In 1925 There were 5,363
>
> > 1855-1875, over 9,000 children under 5 died of
>
> > In 1907-1919
>
> > in the years 1870-1871
>
> > in 1905, case mortality from
>
> > in 1905, following the commencement of
>
> > In Japan, 1885, 13 years after compulsory vaccination commenced in 1872,
>
> > From 1886 to 1892
>
> > During 1887
>
> > 1888
Hmmm, lets ignore the nasty stuff from the last one. I thought anything
with 19 after it was this century?
Never mind here is another doc story:
"Back then I was working in one of the oldest lung illness treatment
centres in Germany, and just by chance, I looked at the files of those
people who had fallen ill during the first German epidemic of smallpox,
in 1947...We had always been told that the smallpox vaccination would
protect against smallpox. And now I could verify, thanks to the files
and papers, that all of those who had fallen ill had been vaccinated.
This was very upsetting for me...
The decline in infectious diseases in developed countries had
nothing to do with vaccinations, but with the decline in poverty and
hunger.
One vaccine against smallpox costs about 600DM and the proclaimed
target is to vaccinate 3 billion people...Vaccination is a huge business
for the pharmaceutical industry. The population is constantly
threatened with epidemics, they have been made to fear them, and the
reports conclude---Go and get vaccinated.
John
"There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunisation of
children does more harm than good."---Dr Anthony Morris, former Chief
Vaccine Control Officer, FDA.
John Scudamore
Beverly Erlebacher wrote:
>
> In article <354278...@enterprise.net>,
> John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net> wrote:
> >
> >An estimated 182,000 cases in 1995 and 46,240 deaths from breast
> >cancer. Effective treatments? Is this better than placebo? A f......
> >disaster is more like it.
>
> Hmm, this says that only 25% of women with breast cancer die of it.
> Sounds pretty good to me - 3 out of 4 women with breast cancer live
> long enough to die of something else! Back in the good old days,
> 100% of women with breast cancer died of it, unless they managed to
> die of pneumonia or some such first.
>
Oh I don't know about that. Here is one therapy from the good old days:
"It was discovered at MSK in 1893 and the results...over a 1000 people
were treated with it. It is basically a high fever treatment. Some
guy rung a radio show I was on, he had a sarcoma that was operated on,
it spread, and his doctor sent him to Dr Coley. He was 13 at the time
and 95 now. This is 82 years. Sarcoma is an incurable disease. A blow
away treatment. In advanced terminal breast cancer they got complete
remissions in 50% of the cases using this treatment.
That is not saying what you would get if you used it in
conjunction with surgery, you may get a 100%.……..it is criminal. I have
known about this and lived with it for 20 years. You know what? THEY
know about it at Sloane Kettering. They even put Coleys picture in
their publicity material, as a pioneer of immunology, but they would
never use the treatment themselves. They want to develop DRUGS that can
be spun off like Tumour Necrosis Factor, like these other
immunologically based drug treatments, highly toxic, destructive of the
immune system, incredibly expensive. …this is really an effective
treatment and it an OUTRAGEOUS crime of the century that we at MSK were
able to cure cancer a 100 years ago that they can't cure today. This is
a fraud being perpetrated on the public..."---Ralph Moss.
Heard of that one? I believe 1 in 3 women die of breast cancer.
> >"The bottom line is after 20 years it is still unclear if adjuvant chemo
> >in premenopausal women actually cures a greater proportion of patients
> >than good supportive care alone, or only postpones relapes and
> >death."---Ralph Moss
>
> What's wrong with "postponing relapses and death"?
Side effects.
The bottom line for me is there are many good alternative therapies out
there that are not being offered to the public. Here are two
nutritional ones:
6) Reversing Breast Cancer
Roberta, aged 65, a highly successful realtor, investor, and de-veloper,
was diagnosed with cancer of the left breast, Stage II, Grade 3, for
which she underwent lumpectomy. At the time she refused radiation but
accepted chemotherapy, and had 2 cycles of Cytoxan, methotrexate, and
5-FU. Roberta decided on her own, based on her research, that she did
not want any more chemotherapy; she believed it was doing her body more
harm than good.
"She was feeling quite awful, very tired and weak, having some hair loss
and nausea, and decided she wanted to go on her own," says Dr Forsythe,
who helped her design a program that included vita-mins, minerals,
herbs, and other substances. This program included ger-manium, 2X daily;
DHEA, 25 mg, 3X daily; bovine cartilage, 4 g daily (500 mg capsules);
thymus glandular extract, 200 mg, 3X daily; evening prim-rose oil
gelatin capsules, 2 daily; red clover, 300 mg, 3X daily; vitamin C, lOg
dairy, divided into 2.5 g, 4X daily; garlic capsules, 3X daily;
glucosamine, 500 mg, 3X daily; Armour natural thyroid glandular extract,
2 grains dai-ly; calcium citrate, 1,500 mg daily, taken as 500 ung, 3X
daily; chlorella, 3X daily; pau d'arco, 200 mg, 2X daily; barley greens
(barley grass), 500 mg, 3X daily; and Essiac tea, 3 cups daily. She used
cat's claw and glutathione for a while, but discontinued them as they
did not agree with her system. Roberta began this program immediately
after discontinuing chemotherapy and remained on it faithfully for 3 1/2
years, says Dr Forsythe. Her cancer markers, which had been elevated
before, became normal. "Here is a woman with a Stage II cancer who
didn't take the prescribed radiation and chemotherapy. She did not have
what we call a complete cancer surgery, yet she is doing beautifully,
extremely well. Roberta is a very assertive per-son who runs her own
business. She really took charge of her disease and did the healing her
own way. She's been very successful."
James, Forsythe, M.D. 75 Pringle Way, Suite 909, Reno, NV 89502. Tel:
702 329 5000.
7) Reversing Breast Cancer. When Martha found she had a large tumor
and two smaller tumors in her left breast, she refused surgery and
chemotherapy. The tumors continued to grow. She tried a variety of
dietary treatments, including the raw foods diet (the Living Diet)
designed byAnn Wimore, Ph. D., N.D., of Boston, Massachusetts. For 3
months she felt well, but her tumors showed no sign of reversal.
When Dr Hoffer saw her 5 months later, she was extremely ill and
emaciated (she weighed only 85 pounds). Conventional physicians
con-sidered her to be a "terminal" case and expected her to die within 2
weeks. "One doctor refused to give her another appointment in a week,
telling her she would be dead before then," says Dr Hoffer "I could see
how he could arrive at this decision, but I could not comprehend his
unwillingness to provide her any support."
Under Dr. Hoffer's guidance, Martha began taking vitamin C (4 g, sodium
ascorbate) 3 times a day. One month later, she consulted a natur-opath,
who recommended organ extracts and vitamins in small doses, as well as
large doses of vitamin A (1 million units per day), and Martha took
these as well.
After 3 months on this program, Martha began to gain weight. More
metastases were found and she was told her prognosis was still very
bleak. She might live 6 months at best. Because the cancer was still
progressing, Martha received an experimental preparation of intravenous
collagen (a connective tissue that helps hold bone together) for 2
weeks, after which she took it orally.
Only 1 month later, having gained a few pounds, Martha felt upbeat and
more energetic. For the next few months, she received vitamin C in both
the oral and intravenous forms. However, the cancer had ulcerated, which
means, it had risen and broken out on the skin of her breasts.
Several months later, and a little under 1 year since being diagnosed,
Martha's hair fell out and her liver became enlarged. She was still on
high doses of vitamin A. Fluid had entered her lungs and abdomen, and
she was diagnosed as anemic. Dr Hoffer immediately had her discontinue
the vi-tamin A and within a month her hair began to grow back. Martha's
liver was still enlarged.
Yet after another 3 months, Martha was showing clear signs of recov-ery.
Her energy levels were substantially higher, she weighed 102 pounds, her
liver tests were improved, and her hair was growing. The breast pains
she had experienced were gone. After another 6 months, with her
condition not show-ing any further signs of substantial improvement,
following Dr Hoffer's rec-ommendation, Martha opted for chemotherapy
without radiation.
The results were immediately apparent. The tumor began to recede, new
skin began to cover up the previously ulcerated part of her breast
(le-sion), and the painful swelling that had affected her arm for months
was gone. "She experienced very little nausea or discomfort during the
chemother-apy treatment, probably because of the nutritional program we
placed her on," says Dr Hoffen
After about 15 months on Dn Hoffer's orthomolecular program, Martha
could no longer tolerate vitamin C, so Dr Hoffer placed her on
bioflavonoids instead at a dosage of 1 g taken 3 times daily. After a
month, the lesion on the breast surface was healing well, with only 1
small sign of cancer on the surface of her breast; after 3 more months,
Martha's hair was growing back, she weighed 111 pounds, and the tissue
on her breast had returned to normal. There was no sign of cancer upon
visual examination and palpation. By all indications, says Dr Hoffer,
Martha was in remission.
Abram Hoffer, M.D., 2727 Quadra, Suite 3, Victoria, British Columbia,
Canada V8 4E5. Tel: 250 386 8756.
Naturopathic herbalism from Dr Shulze. He is not allowed to practice.
18 a) A 75 year old woman did not want surgery; because at her age; the
operation could kill her. Cancer had destroyed her breast. The tumor was
like an alien donut attached to her chest. In the center was a huge hole
that went almost down to her bones.
The tumor on her breast started peeling off a couple of weeks after
we started. Corners of it started coming up and separating from the
rest of her breast. You have to imagine there was no nipple anymore, and
on the end of her breast, it looked like this alien donut had attached
to it. This is gross, but this is the best way that I can describe it.
It almost looked like a ring sausage. Around the edges where she pulled
on it, it would bleed.
It would hurt quite a bit. I said, "We'll just keep putting the poultice
on it. Hang in there." Then it really started getting very loose.
Corners of it started detaching, and it got to the point where half of
it was not attached. Where it did come off, there were little tentacles,
kind of like white, sinewy tissue that went from this ring sausage down
into her breast, and then, eventually she kept working it and working
it.
Then it was three quarters off; then just barely hanging on and then
.she wanted to go to the surgeon because it got so disgusting And I
said, "No!", because she wanted to cut into it, and cut the majority of
it off And I said, "No, just hang in there."
I said, "Keep the poultices on it." She did, and finally the whole thing
came off. She pulled it a little bit prematurely, there was a little bit
of excess bleeding. But we used a lot of cayenne with her for the
bleeding. You know she had a gaping hole when this came off.
Her breast was, we might say an average size well maybe even a
medium size or a little bit bigger breast. And you could have fit your
fist inside it; it was that much tissue gone. But it eventually all came
back with the poultices.
Her nipple is just like scar tissue over that area. It looks better
than any mastectomy I've seen. The greatest thing is she knows that she
did her healing. This was probably the worst gigantic tumor I've seen.
It looked like the sausage my parents bought, we called it liver
sausage. It was horrible stuff but it came in kind of a ring.
With surgery they would have gotten the tumor out. They probably would
have cut out some of her lymph glands and everything would have probably
been the same and a lot less, we might say trauma and drama for her. The
problem is, every time that happens, the next thing you know the cancer
comes back in the other breast or in the uterus. This way; at least she
knew she killed the cancer. She was doing all the internal cleansing'
routines and everything to make her body reject the cancer.
All the tissue re-grew in her breast. It filled in. You know; her breast
is smaller on that side. It's not as big as the other one.
b) Marianne was about 23 years old. She came to me with a malignant
tumor in her left breast.
I'm going to say golf-ball size. She'd gone to three surgeons and all
three surgeons at independent hospitals suggested a mastectomy They said
minimum a full mastectomy and one suggested a radical, including taking
out some of the lymph nodes and muscle.
They wanted to schedule her for two or three days, and I said, "Let's go
to work."
She was an absolute perfect patient. She worked hard, 19 hours a day and
in six or seven days, she noticed she could hardly feel the lump.
She went back to the doctors, and they said it was 50% reduced but they
did not change their diagnosis. They said sometimes these things go up
and down. She came back home and worked even harder and it was 10 days
when she finally went back, and they absolutely could not find it
whatsoever in her breast. It was gone, period. And that was the end of
that story.
Dr Shultz, School of Natural Healing, PO Box 3628, Santa Monica,
California 90408-3628, USA. Tel: 001 310 576 6565. Fax: ---6575.
http://www.healthfree.com/schulze/
And there are immune ones of Dr Burton & Dr Govallo. And so on.
Plus ignored causes of braest cancer---woudn't want to upset someones
business income.
Radiation from breast screening
http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PBC/indexT.html
Dental---nickel crowns & root canals.
John
"I am particularly concerned that the cancer "establishment," and even
our own President label mammograms and other screening techniques as
"preventive medicine." These techniques are early detection methods and
are no more effective at preventing cancer than watering your lawn is at
preventing automobile accidents. It's understandable that the President
could confuse detection with prevention but not the cancer
establishment. I believe they deliberately misuse the language to cover
their backsides for not paying attention to preventive techniques."—Dr
Whitaker, M.D.
John Scudamore
Steven B. Harris wrote:
>
> In <3544D7...@enterprise.net> John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net>
> writes:
>
> the rich people write the history books.<
>
> it relieves you of any responsibility for knowing what's in them, I
>suppose. That attitude must've stood you in great stead (in your own
> mind, at any rate) during your student days.
>
from cradle to grave.
> There is no such thing as "a" smallpox vaccines, but a long and
> complicated series of them. The last series was quite effective, and
> succeeded in wiping out the disease completely in 1976. It hasn't been
> seen or heard from since. Twenty years is a long time for a virus to
> hide, especially one that requires fresh hosts every few weeks.
I don’t know, your HIV virus seems to be hiding for years.
>
>
> Steve Harris, M.D.
>
> Mo.ron (mo^r' on) n. 1. Person exhibiting the mildest degree of mental
> deficiency, permitting adequacy in simple life activities. 2. Loosely,
> a very foolish person. 3. A person believing that smallpox, a viral
> disease infecting only humans and incapable of chronic infection,
> disappeared completely from the Earth spontaneously in many remote and
> undeveloped countries where it had historically always been epidemic,
> simultaneously with the coordinated vaccination campaign by the World
> Health Organization in the late 1970's, by complete coincidence.
> ---Syn. see IDIOT. [Gk. moron, neut. of moros, stupid].
4. Medical moron. A term to describe the group of medical doctors who
clung to the belief that drugs were going to cure all diseases, and that
vaccines would prevent all disease, and who ridiculed the idea that
nutrition, diet, hygiene, and body terrain had anything to do with
disease. It took them 300 years to discover scurvy was a nutrient
deficiency, 50 years with pellagra, and they still believe heart
disease is a job for plumbers to deal with. They developed just one
drug (antibiotics) that could cure disease, which they pinched off the
plants immune system. They kill your immune system while attempting to
kill your disease with a few sledgehammers, which also cause the disease
they are trying to kill (cancer for example). To produce this special
type of moron they send them to special schools where they have their
common sense removed and replaced by drug industry propaganda and
loot---this takes about 8 years, and is there for life. Occasionally
some medical morons manage to get back their common sense but this is
usually around retirement age.
John
"I charge that they (medical men) have encouraged superstition and
humbug by the germ theory of disease. I do not question the existence
of infinitesimal microorganisms, but they are the result not the cause
of disease. They are scavengers, their legitimate work is to clean out
the sewers of our bodies. Whenever their is decay, pus or decomposing
matter these little life-scavengers are doing their work of
neutralisation, sanitation and purification. They feast upon effete
decaying animal matter. They are beneficial helpers to an important
end."---Dr Alexander Ross, FRS, FCPS, Professor of Hygiene and
Sanitation.
Carey Gregory
John Scudamore wrote:
>
> Don't ever question smallpox vaccine story---the great taboo. The
> sacred tablet cast in stone (sand actually).
Show me the numbers and we'll question it. All you've done is come up with
some interesting historical anecdotes describing vaccine technology and
medical beliefs from the 1800's. Lessee now... 1800's... that would be when
doctors believed bathing was harmful and cold weather caused disease, right?
LOL! You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel on this one.
> Hmmm, lets ignore the nasty stuff from the last one. I thought anything
> with 19 after it was this century?
>
> Never mind here is another doc story:
>
> *yet another ancient anecdote snipped*
Oh, pardon me. You quoted a doc from this century... a mere 50 years ago.
How rude of me to ignore it. Why don't you skip the ancient nonsense and
admit you're just plain wrong? You're making a fool of yourself producing
quotes to dispute something that happened long after the writers were dead.
--
Carey Gregory
Carey Gregory
John Scudamore wrote:
>
> Hardly as you boys have been raming your medical beliefs down our throat
> from cradle to grave.
LOL! That's good coming from a guy who just posted about 500 pages of quotes
from 19th century... DOCTORS.
So what's your criteria for which doctors you believe? Long dead?
--
Carey Gregory
Steven B. Harris
>Yes, thanks for this. I too was just reading something else which
>mentioned maltodextrin as being hi glycemic and sure enough found what
>you did in Rick's tables. (I posted that before I read this post).
Yup, looks like I flubbed up reading a table somewhere on
maltodextrin. The question is, where?
Well, doesn't matter. It doesn't look any better than glucose, as
you say. That much glucose might well be too sweet, but you can (as
you also note) partly make up for that by "hiding" it in fruit. If you
can get that many carbo calories into the shake as fruit, and still
drink, rather than have to "eat" your shake. Some of this depends on
how powerful your blender is (juicers, give up now).
Looks like I've got some tinkering to do, in order to find out how
much maltodextrin it's possible to get rid of. It's not good to just
trade it for sucrose or fructose in fruit, either. There you pay the
price of a lower glycemic index at the cost of screwing up your
triglyceride levels. Which is why diabetics basically stopped using
fructose some time ago. Also, were there not strange effects of
fructose on copper metabolism? This is one more area in which rodent
studies don't help us much, since clearly rodents weren't "built" to
eat a lot of fruit, and our more direct ancestors were.
Anybody have tables showing sugar composition in fruits?
Steve Harris, M.D.
Steven B. Harris
>When I wrote this I had not checked it out for glycemic index. In
spite
>of what you state about, the table at
http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm
>rates maltodextrin as having *exactly* the same very high glycemic
index
>value as does glucose!
Sigh. One more error I get to fix. Thanks to all for pointing
this boo-boo out. It's a little counterintuitive, but then so are many
things about glycemic indicies of foods. The basic problem, of course,
being that we're built to absorb sugars better as small oligomers than
as the pure monomer, which monomer (glucose) therefore has a rather
unnaturally "high" index, as it were.
Also, it should be noted that glycemic indexes of foods aren't
additive (you can't predict what the index of a mix of foods will be,
by looking up the indices of components of the mix). So we still don't
know for sure how a shake with maltodextrin compares with a shake with
glucose. All we can say is that the difference is certainly not what I
thought it was.
Steve Harris, M.D.
Keith Lynch
In article <6i60u9$p...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
> screwing up your triglyceride levels. Which is why diabetics
> basically stopped using fructose some time ago.
They did? Who are fructose cookies being marketed to? I see them
in the "special diets" section of local grocery stores.
--
Keith Lynch, k...@clark.net
http://www.clark.net/pub/kfl/
I boycott all spammers.
Jeff Jones
Steven B. Harris (sbha...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
Here's a few url's that might help you:
The USDA has a sugar content database in pdf format at:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Other/herr48.pdf
It's pretty long - I think the fruit data starts on p19. Also, it only gives
composition of simple sugars (6 basic ones) + "other sugars".
Alternatively, the doc's and basic data can be found at:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data
Re: the glycemic index of mixed meals. Supposedly you can get a good idea
of the total GI by multiplying the individual GI's by the percentage of total
carbohydrate that each food comprises, followed by a summation of all these
partial GI's. More can be found in "Carbohydrates in Human Nutrition" at:
http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/economic/esn/carbohyd/carbohyd.htm#glycemic
Section 6.3 is the relevant one.
Hope this helps.
Jeff
--
***************************************************************
* Dr. Jones * __o *
* jon...@chem.usyd.edu.au * _'\<,_/ *
* nutriti...@miningco.com * (Y)/ (Y) *
* http://nutrition.miningco.com * *
* This weeks feature: Enhancing your Immune System *
***************************************************************
Steven B. Harris
In <6i65cb$kni$1...@clarknet.clark.net> k...@clark.net (Keith Lynch)
writes:
Well, they should know better.
Steve
Steven B. Harris
In <6i66nc$g...@metro.usyd.edu.au> jon...@alf.chem.usyd.edu.au (Jeff
Jones) writes:
>Here's a few url's that might help you:
>
>The USDA has a sugar content database in pdf format at:
>
>http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Other/herr48.pdf
>
>It's pretty long - I think the fruit data starts on p19. Also, it only
gives
>composition of simple sugars (6 basic ones) + "other sugars".
>
>Alternatively, the doc's and basic data can be found at:
>
>http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data
Thanks!
>
>Re: the glycemic index of mixed meals. Supposedly you can get a good
idea >of the total GI by multiplying the individual GI's by the
percentage of total >carbohydrate that each food comprises, followed by
a summation of all these >partial GI's. More can be found in
"Carbohydrates in Human Nutrition" at:
>
>http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/economic/esn/carbohyd/carbohyd.htm#
lycemic
Gracias again. But this implies independent action of each food
stuff, which is exactly what I thought did NOT happen! Will let you
know more after I look up more papers.
Steve
Tom Matthews
Steven B. Harris wrote:
> Looks like I've got some tinkering to do, in order to find out how
> much maltodextrin it's possible to get rid of. It's not good to just
> trade it for sucrose or fructose in fruit, either. There you pay the
> price of a lower glycemic index at the cost of screwing up your
> triglyceride levels.
I think there is some research which suggests that, but I am not
convinced that this isn't secondary to obesity or diabetes. Certainly it
isn't true for me. I eat as much fruit as vegetables and both together
are probably 2/3 of my calorie intake, but my triglycerides are very
low.
Here is an abstract (and I found others) which finds that the fructose
causes triglyceride increase monotonically to both fasting
triglyceride-rich lipoproteins and concomittantly ingested fats. This
could be why fructose does not raise my triglycerides: mine are low to
start with and I eat very little fat with my fructose (now that I have
read this, I am going to cut back on the amount in my smoothies).
Am J Clin Nutr 1995 Apr;61(4):787-791
Postprandial triglyceride and retinyl ester responses to oral fat:
effects of fructose.
Jeppesen J, Chen YI, Zhou MY, Schaaf P, Coulston A, Reaven GM
Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, CA.
It has been shown that addition of fructose to an oral fat load results
in higher postprandial concentrations of triglyceride. The present
study, performed in 11 healthy volunteers, was initiated to see whether
the effect of fructose on fat-induced lipemia also involved changes in
postprandial concentrations of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins of
intestinal origin. Vitamin A was used to label intestinal lipoproteins,
and the retinyl palmitate concentrations were determined in plasma and
in the Sf > 400 and Sf 20-400 lipoprotein fractions (Sf denotes the
Svedberg flotation index). Addition of fructose (50 g) to a standard
(40-g oral) fat
load resulted in higher postprandial concentrations of triglyceride and
retinyl palmitate in plasma and the Sf > 400 lipoprotein fraction (P <
0.001, analysis of variance), and the higher the fasting plasma
triglyceride concentration, the greater the magnitude of the fructose
effect (r = 0.83, P < 0.002). These data show that triglyceride-rich
lipoproteins of intestinal origin play a role in the fructose-induced
accentuation of postprandial lipemia.
> Which is why diabetics basically stopped using
> fructose some time ago.
There is evidence that fructose is a much stronger glycation agent than
glucose, especially in diabetics.
J Diabetes Complications 1995 Apr;9(2):87-91
Significance of fructose-induced protein oxidation and formation of
advanced glycation end product.
Takagi Y, Kashiwagi A, Tanaka Y, Asahina T, Kikkawa R, Shigeta Y
Third Department of Medicine, Shiga University of Medical Science,
Japan.
To investigate the significance of fructose-induced protein
modification, we examined both fructose- and glucose-induced protein
oxidation and the formation of advanced glycation end products (AGE) in
vitro. Albumin incubated in the presence of 100 mM fructose at 37
degrees C for 1 week showed 5.1-fold and 3.1-fold increases in the
content of carbonyl, which is a marker for oxidized protein, when
compared with either control incubated without sugar or with 100 mM
glucose. Similarly, the same incubation with fructose increased the
fluorescence intensity over 100-fold and 15-fold formation compared with
that of no sugar and glucose controls, respectively. Both
fructose-induced fluorescence and protein oxidation were almost
completely suppressed in the presence of the iron chelator; deferoxamine
(100 microM), the hydroxyl radical scavenger;
MK-447 (1 mM), or aminoguanidine (200 mM), which is an inhibitor of AGE
formation. In contrast, the fructose-induced formation of fluorescent
albumin was potentiated in the presence of 100 microM FeCl2. This was
completely inhibited in the presence of 60 microM or more deferoxamine.
These results suggest that fructose promotes both AGE formation and
protein oxidation possibly through the formation of hydroxyl radicals.
Clin Chem 1992 Jul;38(7):1301-1303
Failure of common glycation assays to detect glycation by fructose.
Ahmed N, Furth AJ
Oxford Research Unit, Open University, U.K.
Serum albumin was modified by in vitro glycation with either fructose or
glucose, to see whether the common clinical assays for glycation were
able to detect both fructose- and glucose-induced changes in protein
structure in diabetes. Although fluorescence measurements showed that
fructose causes far more protein damage than glucose, neither serum
fructosamine (SFA) nor phenylboronate affinity (PBA) glycation assays
reflected these changes. The SFA method implied that fructose causes
only about 5% of the glycation induced by glucose; with PBA the
proportion was 25%. The thiobarbituric acid- and periodate-based assays
also greatly underestimated the true extent of fructation. We discuss
these discrepancies with respect to the underlying chemistry,
emphasizing the difference between aldehydic and ketonic Amadori
products (exemplified by fructose and glucose derivatives,
respectively). The implications for detecting fructose-induced secondary
diabetic
complications are also discussed.
> Also, were there not strange effects of
> fructose on copper metabolism?
Yes, but maybe only in rats. Here are some abstracts.
Am J Clin Nutr 1995 Jan;61(1):105-110
Copper deficiency: interaction with high-fructose and high-fat diets in
rats.
Wapnir RA, Devas G
Department of Pediatrics, North Shore University Hospital--Cornell
University Medical College, Manhasset, NY 11030.
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a high fat intake
would potentiate an excess of fructose in the diet of rats to alter
energy metabolism and worsen the nutritional status for copper. Weanling
male rats were fed diets with 45% fat and 20% cornstarch, 45% fat and
20% fructose, 5% fat and 60% cornstarch, or 5% fat and 60% fructose for
3 wk, with either sufficient (+) or deficient (-) amounts of copper.
Copper deficiency, as demonstrated by low plasma copper and
ceruloplasmin, caused a decrease of liver, heart, and testes copper; a
decline of liver and heart zinc; and an increase of hepatic iron.
High-fat diets reduced liver glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PDH)
and, to a lesser extent, glycerophosphate dehydrogenase (GPDH). The
interaction between high-fat and high-fructose diets, superimposed on
copper deficiency, resulted in a lowering of G6PDH, GPDH, and malic
enzyme. These results support the hypothesis that a high fat ingestion
becomes an aggravating stress factor, which, in combination with a
high-fructose intake in a copper-deficient diet, adversely alters key
organ mineral content, with detrimental effects on copper nutritional
status and intermediary metabolism.
Am J Clin Nutr 1993 Nov;58(5 Suppl):771S-778S
Fructose and mineral metabolism.
O'Dell BL
Department of Biochemistry, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211.
Fructose affects to some extent the bioavailability of iron, zinc, and
copper. Its effect on copper has been studied most intensively. Fructose
forms stable complexes with iron and promotes its absorption and also
that of zinc. Compared with starch, fructose and sucrose decrease copper
bioavailability in rats fed diets based on egg white and containing 60%
carbohydrate. There is no apparent fructose effect on copper
bioavailability in pigs. In humans fructose consumed as 20% of energy
has no effect on copper balance and minimal effects on the criteria of
copper status.
> Anybody have tables showing sugar composition in fruits?
Maybe some of the tables that Jeff Jones pointed you to.
Jet Silverman
John Scudamore wrote:
> The decline in infectious diseases in developed countries had
> nothing to do with vaccinations, but with the decline in poverty and
> hunger.
Bullshit. Smallpox is gone. Totally. Gone from the Black Hole of Calcutta as
well as Beverly Hills.
> One vaccine against smallpox costs about 600DM and the proclaimed
> target is to vaccinate 3 billion people...
Hey, nice to hear how things are going on your planet. Hear on earth vaccines
agaisnt small pox cost 0 DM, because the disease was eliminated by vacs in 1977.
J
Steven B. Harris
In <6i3q78$hih$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> haz...@fnol.net writes:
>Again - the point is not immortality (despite your research focus) but
>improved quality of life while it is being lived. When someone dies
peacefully at a ripe old age, that is stuff wearing out. Suffering with
chronic disease is a function (or rather dysfunction) of something,
most likely the immune system. What specifically has worn out when
someone gets cancer, or arthritis?
>
>
>hazmat
Well, with arthritis (the most common type), it's your joint
cartilage. Hope that's not news. With cancer, it looks like cells
decide on anarchy. It's not quite a wearing out, unless possibly a
wearing out of the control mechanisms. When your car wears out, it
does so in all kinds of ways. Including things that go bang.
I don't really know how you can decide that when somebody dies
"peacefully" (whatever that means-- what, they don't complain?) in old
age, that this is "wearing out" --- but that chronic disease isn't.
I've got news for you-- the only thing different between the two is
that the thing that wears out in chronic disease doesn't kill you. Or
else it hurts, and you do complain. Otherwise, it's the same basic
processes. A big heart attack, and you pass away peacefully. Put the
same lesion in a different place, but the same process, and now you
have a ventricle that doesn't work, a lot of pain, chronic disease
(congestive heart failure), and you're a cripple.
Perhaps you mean to say that the same disease in old age is wearing
out, but that getting it prematurely, isn't? Well, it's true that
different things wear out at different rates in different people. But
that would be true even if we all ate the same. In fact, I've got
news: it would be true if we all ate the same and had the same genes.
My mice didn't die of the same thing, or look the same in old age, and
yet they were genetically all essentially identical (inbred) twins, all
fed the same diet. The roll of the dice is important. I know you
don't like to think so.
Steve Harris, M.D.
Steven B. Harris
In <3546DE78...@Xearthlink.net> Jet Silverman
<jet...@Xearthlink.net> writes:
>> One vaccine against smallpox costs about 600DM and the
proclaimed target is to vaccinate 3 billion people...
>
>Hey, nice to hear how things are going on your planet. Hear on earth
vaccines agaisnt small pox cost 0 DM, because the disease was
eliminated by vacs in 1977.
>
>J
>
DM here is Deutsch Marks. John is quoting from some German "natural
hygeine" stupidity. The usual kind of Neitschzefied young healthy
blond Aryan breeding-for-the-superior-youth-of-tomorrow Duesberg
healthy-people-never-get-sick crap. Ze healthy wis ze gut genz vill
not ze infections get. Only ze genetically inferior vill ill becomen,
due to ze bad shtock und ze genes. Ze bad genes. Ze inVERior
genzssss. Ze zoil ist everyzink. Ze germ ist nozink! Ze Alpine luft
und ze Lederhosen vill ze hikink make eazy. You vill do it. Und you
vill LIKE it!
Steve Harris, M.D.
John Scudamore
Carey Gregory wrote:
>
> John Scudamore wrote:
> >
> > Hardly as you boys have been raming your medical beliefs down our throat
> > from cradle to grave.
>
> LOL! That's good coming from a guy who just posted about 500 pages of quotes
> from 19th century... DOCTORS.
I am not against doctors en masse Carey dear. Just medical bollocks. I
am sorry if this makes things too complex for you----you may need a
rewiring job to take that in. See if you can get some other work done
while you are at it.
> So what's your criteria for which doctors you believe? Long dead?
No, ones who know the truth about drugs, disease and vaccines.
Like Dr Hoffer, M.D. http://www.bbc.org/~hoffer/hofferhp.htm
Dr Cathcart, M.D. http://www.mall-net.com/cathcart/
Dr Kalokerinos, M.D. http://webpages.netlink.co.nz/~ias/swine.htm
http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/newsl/kalo.html
Dr Cranton, M.D. http://www.drcranton.com/chelation/rebuttal.htm
Dr Mendelsohn, M.D. and so on.
John
"Furthermore, as far as I know I was the only practicing doctor who
spoke out against it (Swine flu vaccine) and warned about almost certain
consequences. How was it that a doctor with only basic qualifications
and not even the possessor of American citizenship stood out alone?
There was at least one researcher, Anthony Morris, who did try to speak
out but he was at the time censored and censored very hard.
This, therefore, is a classical example of how only one man got it
right and everyone else got it wrong. This is an important consideration
because, when the subject of vaccines is discussed the fact that the
vast bulk of the medical establishment states that something is so it is
not, in reality, necessarily so. If the establishment can get something
so vast and important as the swine fiu vaccine campaign so wrong then it
is logical to reason that they could also get a lot of other things
wrong. At least it gives reasons to doubt what the establishment claims
to be fact. If doctors and members of the general public considered this
fewer errors would be made and fewer individuals would suffer
unnecessarily."---Dr Kalokerinos
"There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunisation of
children does more harm than good."---Dr Morris, former Chief Vaccine
Control Officer, Us Food and Drug Administration.
Mf...@aol.com
In article <354531...@netcom.ca>,
tma...@netcom.ca wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> If anyone is interested in my full smoothie receipe, I will post it.
>
> --Tom
> Tom Matthews
>
Tom,
I'd be interested in your smoothie recipe, if you'd care to post it.
Michael
John Scudamore
Carey Gregory wrote:
>
> John Scudamore wrote:
> >
Get a grip Carey. The smallpox vaccine story goes back to that guy
Jenner. You are doing a great job of ignoring the data with your
century and dead doctor babble.
John
"It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we ever vanquished smallpx with
vaccines, when only 10% of the population was ever vaccinated." Dr Glen
Dettman
> --
> Carey Gregory
Steven B. Harris
In Message-ID: <354531...@netcom.ca>
tma...@netcom.ca writes:
>>While I understand the virtues of maltodextrin. IMO, it is
still "empty" calories (abeit pure low-glycemic fuel calories).
Why would it not be better to leave out this component and add
more sweet fruit as I do (soaked dried-apricots, apple, dried
pitted prunes, etc.)? <<
Comment:
If you can do it with the same calories without making it too
thick, and without fructose--- yes.
>>While I agree on the virtues of soy protein, whey protein
has a higher BV rating (the amount of body protein stores 100
grams of it can replace), a better amino acid profile, and some
benefits which soy does not have (as well as vice-versa). In my
smoothies, I therefore use half soy and half whey. Whey protein
concentrates are now just as available as soy.<<
I have to admit I do this sometimes also, as isolated whey
is the best tasting of all pure proteins, and whey does have
those -SH containing aminos which probably do boost immune
response and glutathione. I think, however, as I've said before,
that unless you're a CR vegetarian, the BV rating is irrelevant.
>>This is true, however, methionine (or cystine) is also
essential for complete protein needs and it (and cystine too) is
generally low in near vegetarian diets. Furthermore, such diets
also usually contain more than enough folic acid to keep the
homocysteine at safe levels.<<
You haven't tried to bring down as many homocysteines by now
as I have. It's not as easy as I was let to believe, even at 600
mcg of folate, 100 mcg B12, and 25 mg B6 (a Daily One plus diet).
We'll see if the extra betaine is indeed the key (something I've
not been giving my patients).
>> Therefore, at the least, I believe that your recommendation
about the methionine should possibly be modified for near or
complete vegetarians.<<
Nonsense. Not unless they're cats. Vegetarians not eating
junk food, and taking pure protein powders, are so unlikely to be
protein deficient as it's not worth worrying over. How many
times have you heard that the American diet is way over protein
essential requirements? It's true. The 20 g soy protein in this
shake alone has 440 mg (methionine plus cysteine) which is the
way you have to calculate need for these, which represents over 7
mg/kg already for a 60 kg person. The requirement for these
combined is 11-14 mg/kg, so you see we're 1/2 to 3/4 of the way
to requirements for these aminos with this shake alone. You
couldn't possibly stay under recommended allowance, eating the
rest of your calories as any halfway reasonable mix of halfway
reasonable whole foods. Even if you deliberately picked them to
be low proteins fruits and vegetables. So stop worrying over
this. It's crazy. Methionine restriction, BTW, is the one
method rarely discussed for lowering homocysteine. But it should
work also. I think there's even a calorie restriction study
where they did it this way (shorting on methionine).
> Soy also has low lysine levels, which help keep insulin
> levels low (which helps hunger).
Please supply a mechanism, reference or abstract for the statem-
ent that low lysine levels "help keep insulin levels low".
Later.
>>Whey protein is high in anti-catabolic muscle sparing
branched chain amino acids. I don't believe that soy has these.
For a near vegetarian or reduced calorie dieter whey may be
better for this reason.<<
Again, nonsense. You're way over what you need on any kind
of reasonable vegetarian diet, and with this shake you can't
possibly be under. Adding your nuts you are probably over with
just this shake alone, and the rest of the day you could eat
nothing but junk and be fine.
>>>My use of a lot of extra fruit also increases the
carbohydrate to protein ratio and decreases the ketogenicity of
the shake. <<<
Do you know how many calories of protein you use?
>>Whey protein concentrate also contains calcium (more than
soy, I think).<<
Doubt it. The ion exchange removes it, and it's not a
significant source.
>>To supply some oils (and extra protein) I add 1 to 2 ounces
of mixed raw nuts (almonds, brazils, walnuts, pumpkin seeds - no
peanuts). I also leave all seeds which are soft enough for the
blender to cut up, in the mix (mellon, apple, citrus).<<<
Hmmm, that sounds good,
<<I use flaxseed oil (or Udo's "Perfected Oil Blend") in
addition to the nuts. Be sure to shake/mix the flaxseed oil well
before each use so that the lignans (which tend to settle out)
are included.<<
Yep.
>>Since my smoothie contains more fruit in addition to a
banana (apple containing lots of pectin), it contains more fiber
too. (That is another part of the "non-empty calorie" advantage
of fruit over maltodextrin.)<<
Yeah. However it's getting to be a lot more work than mine.
> "the author has no connection with GNC." Then why do you
keep constantly referring to them in so much of what you write?
Why not simply refer to a generic "health food store" or
"supplement supplier"?<<
They're the biggest chain in the country, and the only one
where I know that all this stuff (including the good tasting soy,
and incidentally several varieties of isolated whey) is available
on a walk-in basis, likely near where my reader shops. Not the
grocery store. And not always the local supplement supplier,
which might be a pill place, or even the "health food store,"
which sometimes has foods and vitamins, but not sports stuff (the
proteins). Also, I've gotten into a habit referring to G.N.C.,
because I know most carry TWINLAB Daily One (with and without
iron), which has a special place in my heart as the supplement
which does the best job of removing your deficiencies, in a
dissolvable capsule, of any one-pill reasonably swallowable
"multi" I know of. And I have many patients who allow me ONE
vitamin pill. I can recommend more, but one is all that goes in.
It's One a Day or Daily One. Or Theragran M or Centrum Silver
55+. I don't get to choose Life Extension Mix or XYZ-MEGA-75-
PRO-- it's just not an option.
Steve Harris, M.D.
Steven B. Harris
In <354711...@enterprise.net> John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net>
writes:
>"It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we ever vanquished smallpx with
>vaccines, when only 10% of the population was ever vaccinated." Dr
>Glen Dettman
Hey, a new quote from a new idiot. There were whole countries where
nobody was vaccinated for decades because they had quaranteen, and
nobody from smallpox areas was allowed in. The UK keeps itself free of
animal rabies by such a procedure to this day. It does work, although
doubless some people in Britain probably think they remain free of
rabies by means of eating vegetables, or something.
In countries where outbreaks were still occuring with smallpox, you
are dealing with a virus which doesn't have a long latency-- it's not
like AIDS, but is 1 to 3 weeks. And the period during which it MUST be
transmitted to another, after the person becomes ill, is about a week.
The ill person is usually too sick to move, and transmitts to no more
than 5 cases or so during that time-- usually people in the household.
If these people can be quaranteend for 3 weeks and vaccinated, and all
contacts with them vaccinated, you can isolate cases without
vaccinating more than a tiny fraction of the population. If you don't
see a new case in an area in a month, the virus is gone. No place for
it to hide.
That's what made smallpox succesptable, and what allowed the last
wild case to peter out, without infecting any new people, in Somalia in
October 1977. It wasn't seen again until a lab accident a year later
with a frozen sample of virus. And those cases weren't allowed to
become an epidemic, and again isolated, and the virus died out, with no
place to go. TIIIME was on our side. Yes it was. No animal
reservoir. And we got it.
Steve Harris, M.D.
mike_...@hotmail.com
> It has been shown that addition of fructose to an oral fat load results
> in higher postprandial concentrations of triglyceride. The present
> study, performed in 11 healthy volunteers, was initiated to see whether
> the effect of fructose on fat-induced lipemia also involved changes in
> postprandial concentrations of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins of
> intestinal origin. Vitamin A was used to label intestinal lipoproteins,
> and the retinyl palmitate concentrations were determined in plasma and
> in the Sf > 400 and Sf 20-400 lipoprotein fractions (Sf denotes the
> Svedberg flotation index). Addition of fructose (50 g) to a standard
> (40-g oral) fat
> load resulted in higher postprandial concentrations of triglyceride and
>
Why would you eat 40 g of fat and 50 g of fructose at one meal???!!?
Seems rather extreme for real life eating situations, unless you are a
glutton.
David Rind
Beverly Erlebacher wrote:
> Hmm, this says that only 25% of women with breast cancer die of it.
> Sounds pretty good to me - 3 out of 4 women with breast cancer live
> long enough to die of something else! Back in the good old days,
> 100% of women with breast cancer died of it, unless they managed to
> die of pneumonia or some such first.
Be careful here -- there's no way that treatment for breast cancer
has resulted in a 75% reduction in death. I don't know the actual
figures (perhaps someone else does) but they are not on this order.
Even with no treatment, lots of women with breast cancer will die
of something else, and the harder you look for breast cancer
(by screening with mammography, for instance) the better the
breast cancer survival statistics will look, because of lead time
bias.
--
David Rind
ri...@enterprise.bidmc.harvard.edu
Carey Gregory
John Scudamore wrote:
>
> "It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we ever vanquished smallpx with
> vaccines, when only 10% of the population was ever vaccinated." Dr Glen
> Dettman
Dr. Dettman really ought to learn something about smallpox before making
statements like this, and you should read some objective material on smallpox
and infectious disease before allowing such shallow, ignorant reasoning to
sway you.
Unlike most other infectious diseases, there is no reservoir for smallpox
outside of humans. It was a disease beautifully tailored for eradication,
which is, of course, exactly why it was targeted. Dr. Harris explained it
well, so I won't repeat it.
You would do much better convincing others of your position if you would read
and learn some basics before reading conspiracy theorists. You are easy prey
for them.
--
Carey Gregory
marcie rekenn
David Rind wrote:
> bias.\
I don't know the numbers either, but many of the statistics include
ductal carcinoma in situ as cases of breast cancer. Since DCIS
frequently does not progress to invasive cancer even without treatment,
this addition further inflates the cure rate statistics.
>
>
> --
> David Rind
> ri...@enterprise.bidmc.harvard.edu
Charles Platt
John Scudamore (wh...@enterprise.net) wrote:
> I am not against doctors en masse Carey dear. Just medical bollocks.
This is not consistent with your sweeping denunciations. I'm sorry, but
you remind me of a naive and trusting person who takes one walk in the
woods, gets sprayed by a skunk, and feels so outraged, he runs around
telling everyone that all striped animals smell bad.
I'm sure you will object to this analogy, but your categorical
denunications do suggest a mindset that has hardened to the point where
you no longer show any interest in points of view that conflict with your
preconceptions. I suspect, for instance, you only read "medical skeptic"
books as distinct from medical books in general. Personally I feel that we
all have a duty to challenge our preconceptions (which is why I read Gary
Null, despite the irritation factor, as well as my copy of the PDR). And I
suggest you would become a far more plausible advocate if you were willing
to consider orthodoxy as well as heterodoxy and present a more balanced
view. Extremists seldom convince many people. In fact, they simply
reinforce skepticism and discredit more moderate advocates by association.