Cesium Cures Cancer? - Page 3

Say not the Struggle nought Availeth <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<aEgLb.54816$wX1.3032@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>...
> As to sodium, we actually, on an average, consume way too much sodium.
>
> It is my impression, that there is no difference in the sodium delivery between sodium chloride,
> sodium phosphate and sodium sulphate. In all three, molecule, when placed in aqueous solution,
> immediately dissociates into the sodium ion and the cation (chloride, phosphate, sulphate). What
> the cation does thereafter is different.

I'm not sure what a cation is. Is it when sodium chloride gets broken up into sodium and chloride,
and perhaps reforms into other combinations?

Regarding table salt, I don't think it is an acceptable form of sodium. The reason I say this is
through my experience with taking cellsalts. If I get knotted muscles in my neck or shoulders and
take sodium phosphate and sodium sulphate tablets, it gets rid of it. I have never noticed that
table salt has this effect. And another thing is that I used to get housedust allergies which would
only be alleviated by taking homeopathic sodium chloride (nat mur 6x), whereas straight table salt
had no effect.

Therefore I conclude that table salt isn't an acceptable form of sodium for nutritional purposes. If
there was a tablet called chelated sodium which would then break down into the three sodiums
(phosphate, sulphate and chloride) it would probably do the job, as I observe that chelated
potassium alleviates all deficiency symptoms related to potassium phosphate, sulphate and chloride.

Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/salt.htm

hurt_beyond_repair@yahoo.com (Hurt Beyond Repair) wrote in message news:<89bbc1e0.0401090848.24e5ea3a@posting.google.com>...
> > Cesium is available in a safe form. I can let you know how to get it, just email me.
> > Meanwhile, calcium in the proper form also does what cesium does - raises the body's pH,
> > thereby allowing more oxygen into the body, and cancer cells can not survive an oxygenated
> > environment and they die.
>
> Actually no. We're talking about intracellular (within the cell), not about blood plasma levels or
> in the intestines. Most people do not need extra calcium; especially in the form they get it in.
> Not unless they want kindney stones.

I don't believe that. I think this type of negative information about nutrition is meant to scare
people off nutritional remedies. They give calcium supplements to dogs, and massive amounts to
horses to get them into top form.

Why is it considered important for animals to have proper nutrition to keep them in top condition,
but not people? This website also promotes a product for keeping the blood from getting too acid,
and also a high potassium product.

Cyberhorse website http://www.cyberhorse.net.au/iah/calciplex.htm To keep bones strong and healthy,
horses must receive enough calcium to meet their daily needs. If they don't, they must "borrow" what
they need from their bones, depleting reserves of this essential nutrient. Calcium deficiency in
young horses causes them to grow with weak thin bones, whereas older horses can suffer from brittle
bones and lameness.* To prevent these problems, calcium supplementation is necessary, particularly
growing and breeding horses, those on high grain diets and horses grazing tropical pastures. Calcium
is also important for the proper functioning of nerves and muscles, so adequate daily intake is
absolutely necessary for competition horses to perform at their best. The following dose rates
provide NRC# 50-100% of the horse's daily calcium requirement for each class of horse.

Horses in Work*- 60 g to 120 g/day Lactating Mares - 80 g to 160 g/day Horses Spelling - 30 g to
60 g/day Dry Mares*- 30 g to 60 g/day Stallions*- 50 g to 100 g/day Yearlings*- 50 g to 100 g/day
Pregnant Mares - 50 g to 100 g/day Weanlings*- 60 g to 120 g/day

Contrast that with 1g for people.

Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/purification.htm

drceephd@aol.com (drceephd) wrote in message news:<afd636a8.0401081740.44d3ca80@posting.google.com>...

> > It is my impression, that there is no difference in the sodium delivery between sodium chloride,
> > sodium phosphate and sodium sulphate. In all three, molecule, when placed in aqueous solution,
> > immediately dissociates into the sodium ion and the cation (chloride, phosphate, sulphate). What
> > the cation does thereafter is different.
> >
> > j.
>
> The difference is like night and day when you consider whether the mineral is organic or
> inorganic.
>
> An inorganic calcium is calcium carbonate, common limestone. Grind it up and someone will claim
> the dust is good for you because it contains calcium and "you need your calcium anyway."

You might have a point about organic and inorganic but are you sure limestone isn't organic? I have
found calcium carbonate to be a very acceptable form of calcium. And I've tried a lot of different
forms of calcium - dolomite, oyster shell, calcium gluconate and lactate. Calcium carbonate tablets
are strong, 500mg of elemental calcium in each tablet, and work quickly to alleviate any calcium
deficiency symptoms. I've been taking calcium tablets for nearly 30 years and used to take massive
amounts on a daily basis. Maybe in the textbooks calcium carbonate is not all that desirable, but
I've actually taken all these different forms and the old saying goes that "the proof of the pudding
is in the eating".

> An organic calcium is calcium casienate, the calcium in unpasteurized milk. This a complex of
> calcium and protein. Heating the milk destroys the complex.
>
> Both will have totally different absorbtion rates and utilization in the body.
>
> The same is true with other minerals. Potassium is a cation with a positive charge. Why is it that
> German research into biological fluids containing potassium find it at the anode ( as if it were
> K- and not K+ )?
>
> Just some food for thought.
>
> DrC PhD.

I think there is a lot of disinformation in all our science books and misleading information.
Education is designed to support the status quo and to socialise people - these days if you get
onto something they don't want known you get DDT'd - silenced, ridiculed or ex-communicated. Isn't
that right?

Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/conspiracy.htm

hubbca@austarmetro.com.au (Carole) wrote:

> Say not the Struggle nought Availeth <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:<aEgLb.54816$wX1.3032@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>...
>> As to sodium, we actually, on an average, consume way too much sodium.
>>
>> It is my impression, that there is no difference in the sodium delivery between sodium chloride,
>> sodium phosphate and sodium sulphate. In all three, molecule, when placed in aqueous solution,
>> immediately dissociates into the sodium ion and the cation (chloride, phosphate, sulphate). What
>> the cation does thereafter is different.
>
> I'm not sure what a cation is. Is it when sodium chloride gets broken up into sodium and chloride,
> and perhaps reforms into other combinations?
>
> Regarding table salt, I don't think it is an acceptable form of sodium. The reason I say this is
> through my experience with taking cellsalts. If I get knotted muscles in my neck or shoulders and
> take sodium phosphate and sodium sulphate tablets, it gets rid of it. I have never noticed that
> table salt has this effect. And another thing is that I used to get housedust allergies which
> would only be alleviated by taking homeopathic sodium chloride (nat mur 6x), whereas straight
> table salt had no effect.
>
> Therefore I conclude that table salt isn't an acceptable form of sodium for nutritional purposes.
> If there was a tablet called chelated sodium which would then break down into the three sodiums
> (phosphate, sulphate and chloride) it would probably do the job, as I observe that chelated
> potassium alleviates all deficiency symptoms related to potassium phosphate, sulphate and
> chloride.

It's the Iodine Conspiracy. The iodine industry has its claws into our bodies and they'll never let
us go. We're all screwed.

We might as well all get together for one final orgy. Get your shorts off, and let's party!!

> Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/salt.htm

"Rich Shewmaker" <rich@ilhawaii.net> wrote in message news:<U4mdnT1VfcCq52OiRVn-uw@ilhawaii.net>...
> "Say not the Struggle nought Availeth" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:JsqLb.7510$Ac3.3236@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > MY MISTAKE, I said cation, I meant anion. So sorry
> > j.
> >
>
> That's okay, science had the polarities reversed for about fifty years.
>
> ;o) Rich

There's a lot of things in science that are a bit funny -

The scandal of general relativity and quantum mechanics* Roger Anderson
http://www.einsteinconspiracy.co.uk

And scalar or plasma technologies invented by Tesla which are capable of weather engineering, man-
made earthquakes, ufos, new types of healing, mind control etc.
http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/scalar_wars.htm

Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/science.htm

David Wright wrote:

> Why Carole, there's hope for you after all.
>
> >But what you're saying is that I need to go and get some scientific training so I can be as brain-
> >washed as you.
>
> Nope, I'm saying that right now, you are slinging around terms like "calcium" without having the
> faintest idea what they mean.

I don't think she understands the atomic theory of Democritus, therefore words like "cation" have
about as much meaning to her as "antibody" or "immune system".

> >They tell you the rules, how to apply them, a few case histories but you aren't encouraged to
> >think for yourself.
>
> Oh, but you are. After all, you can go replicate any experiment you like, do your own checking if
> you don't believe what's in the books.

Yeah, right. She's going to replicate an experiment.

> But you don't even know what's in the books.

Books? What books? :-)

"Carole" <hubbca@austarmetro.com.au> wrote in message
news:fcb180f1.0401131710.1c886953@posting.google.com...
>
> You might have a point about organic and inorganic but are you sure limestone isn't organic? I
> have found calcium carbonate to be a very acceptable form of calcium.

DDT is organic.

Calcium carbonate is not.

--Rich

Dear All

For all Cancer Related Herbal Medicines. Kindly visit www.HerbalGlobal.com

This site contains the best herbal product of all the important ailments in the world with the
maximum discount and gives different sort of special packages.

If you are registered user then this amazing site have special discounts to offer you.

I must say this site is THE BEST online herbal store I have ever seen.

I also purchase a lot of products from them and I am fully satisfied with the services that they
give to their customers right from order placement to shipments.

If you love herbal medicine then you must enter in herbal global

Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<4004DED4.E272FE3E@sonic.net>...
> David Wright wrote:
>
> > Why Carole, there's hope for you after all.
> >
> > >But what you're saying is that I need to go and get some scientific training so I can be as brain-
> > >washed as you.
> >
> > Nope, I'm saying that right now, you are slinging around terms like "calcium" without having the
> > faintest idea what they mean.
>
> I don't think she understands the atomic theory of Democritus, therefore words like "cation" have
> about as much meaning to her as "antibody" or "immune system".
>
> > >They tell you the rules, how to apply them, a few case histories but you aren't encouraged to
> > >think for yourself.
> >
> > Oh, but you are. After all, you can go replicate any experiment you like, do your own checking
> > if you don't believe what's in the books.
>
> Yeah, right. She's going to replicate an experiment.
>
> > But you don't even know what's in the books.
>
> Books? What books? :-)

"Carole" <hubbca@austarmetro.com.au> wrote in message
news:fcb180f1.0401131650.70a3fb13@posting.google.com...
> Say not the Struggle nought Availeth <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<aEgLb.54816$wX1.3032@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>...
> > As to sodium, we actually, on an average, consume way too much sodium.
> >
> > It is my impression, that there is no difference in the sodium delivery between sodium chloride,
> > sodium phosphate and sodium sulphate. In all three, molecule, when placed in aqueous solution,
> > immediately dissociates into the sodium ion and the cation (chloride, phosphate, sulphate). What
> > the cation does thereafter is different.
>
> I'm not sure what a cation is.

You get them when you dissolve a feline in H2O.

Is it when sodium chloride gets broken
> up into sodium and chloride, and perhaps reforms into other combinations?

Nope.

Anth wrote:

> Well I read the Brewer report and all the people who used the protocol died due to toxicity. Some
> of them had no evidence of cancer when they were autopsied though. As I recall the inside of
> cancer cells are no more acidic than normal cells.

How about doing a search on PubMed.com on "cesium AND cancer" and seeing what journals you can find?

e.g. http://www.users.on.net/russ/cancer/

Russ.

hubbca@austarmetro.com.au (Carole) wrote in message news:<fcb180f1.0401131744.613d8ab8@posting.google.com>...
> hurt_beyond_repair@yahoo.com (Hurt Beyond Repair) wrote in message
> news:<89bbc1e0.0401090848.24e5ea3a@posting.google.com>...

I appreciate the info Carole, but I have one concern.

Horses are herbavores and eat grass. It is the bacteria in their digestive tracts that releases the
nutrients in the grass for the horse to absorb. These same bacteria can process large amounts of
Calcium for the horse to absorb.

Humans are frugivores. We were meant to live eating fruits, nuts, seeds, and veggies. We can eat
grass but we do not have the digestive system to digest it like a horse or cow does.

A calcium product that may benefit a horse may only poison a human and create "stone" rather
than "bone."

DrC PhD
> > > Cesium is available in a safe form. I can let you know how to get it, just email me.
> > > Meanwhile, calcium in the proper form also does what cesium does - raises the body's pH,
> > > thereby allowing more oxygen into the body, and cancer cells can not survive an oxygenated
> > > environment and they die.
> >
> > Actually no. We're talking about intracellular (within the cell), not about blood plasma levels
> > or in the intestines. Most people do not need extra calcium; especially in the form they get it
> > in. Not unless they want kindney stones.
>
> I don't believe that. I think this type of negative information about nutrition is meant to scare
> people off nutritional remedies. They give calcium supplements to dogs, and massive amounts to
> horses to get them into top form.
>
> Why is it considered important for animals to have proper nutrition to keep them in top condition,
> but not people? This website also promotes a product for keeping the blood from getting too acid,
> and also a high potassium product.
>
> Cyberhorse website http://www.cyberhorse.net.au/iah/calciplex.htm To keep bones strong and
> healthy, horses must receive enough calcium to meet their daily needs. If they don't, they must
> "borrow" what they need from their bones, depleting reserves of this essential nutrient. Calcium
> deficiency in young horses causes them to grow with weak thin bones, whereas older horses can
> suffer from brittle bones and lameness.* To prevent these problems, calcium supplementation is
> necessary, particularly growing and breeding horses, those on high grain diets and horses grazing
> tropical pastures. Calcium is also important for the proper functioning of nerves and muscles, so
> adequate daily intake is absolutely necessary for competition horses to perform at their best. The
> following dose rates provide NRC# 50-100% of the horse's daily calcium requirement for each class
> of horse.
>
> Horses in Work*- 60 g to 120 g/day Lactating Mares - 80 g to 160 g/day Horses Spelling - 30 g to
> 60 g/day Dry Mares*- 30 g to 60 g/day Stallions*- 50 g to 100 g/day Yearlings*- 50 g to 100
> g/day Pregnant Mares - 50 g to 100 g/day Weanlings*- 60 g to 120 g/day
>
> Contrast that with 1g for people.
>
> Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/purification.htm

"Anth" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message news:<3fffc997$0$61054$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net>...
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...lationreg.html Hellfried E.Sartori, MD
> (MD: License revoked DC: License revoked) The article originates from a doctor who lost his
> license. Anth

Well, hell, if I was a part of the medical monopoly and profiting from all the cancer donations and
treatments, I would surely want this guy out of the picture.

Can you imagine all the unemployed people if Sartori's results were ever validated? Better to
crucify him than lose all that money.

My question to you Anth is this. Where is the data showing that his tests were repeated and the
results were not the same? That is science. In science other investigators will attempt to reproduce
the work in an effort to validate or invalidate the data. An investigator reports data that is this
significant, yet no one attempts to repeat the work and validate it or improve upon it?

Yet you attempt to invalidate his years of work with the simple statement "he lost his license."

DrC PhD

Agreed there's a lot of data on pubmed about cesium and cancer, but nothing really of 'proof'.

I remember taking the Brewer report to an oncologist - she said "Well I can poke so many holes in
this!" I said "What holes?" she said "Well look at the date for a start" (I think the date was in
the 80s - she pointed at the date on the paper and reasoned if there was anything in it then it
would already have come about. What a quack! Then she started muttering about how this isn't
science. Basically she was more interested in the science that saving someone. I bet she never even
looked on pubmed for more data. I've got no time for people like this. A good scientist would take
time to look and explore and be aware of anything that has potential to heal people. Textbook
oncologists basically. In fact I should print out every alt med treatment and details and mail them
off to her. Of course she wouldn't read them I bet. Anth

"Russ" <shadz@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:bu4ugo$dp85f$1@ID-205837.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Anth wrote:
>
> > Well I read the Brewer report and all the people who used the protocol
died
> > due to toxicity. Some of them had no evidence of cancer when they were autopsied though. As I
> > recall the inside of cancer cells are no more acidic than normal
cells.
>
> How about doing a search on PubMed.com on "cesium AND cancer" and seeing what journals you
> can find?
>
> e.g. http://www.users.on.net/russ/cancer/
>
>
> Russ.

Well A. Adam you are a spammer. A moron spammer at that.

"Aaries Adam" <aariesadam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:80b457e7.0401140432.68e390a8@posting.google.com...
> Dear All
>
> For all Cancer Related Herbal Medicines. Kindly visit www.HerbalGlobal.com
>
> This site contains the best herbal product of all the important ailments in the world with the
> maximum discount and gives different sort of special packages.
>
> If you are registered user then this amazing site have special discounts to offer you.
>
> I must say this site is THE BEST online herbal store I have ever seen.
>
> I also purchase a lot of products from them and I am fully satisfied with the services that they
> give to their customers right from order placement to shipments.
>
> If you love herbal medicine then you must enter in herbal global
>
>
>
>
> Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:<4004DED4.E272FE3E@sonic.net>...
> > David Wright wrote:

Carole wrote:
>
> Say not the Struggle nought Availeth <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:<aEgLb.54816$wX1.3032@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>...
> > As to sodium, we actually, on an average, consume way too much sodium.
> >
> > It is my impression, that there is no difference in the sodium delivery between sodium chloride,
> > sodium phosphate and sodium sulphate. In all three, molecule, when placed in aqueous solution,
> > immediately dissociates into the sodium ion and the cation (chloride, phosphate, sulphate). What
> > the cation does thereafter is different.
>
> I'm not sure what a cation is. Is it when sodium chloride gets broken up into sodium and chloride,
> and perhaps reforms into other combinations?

Actually sodium is the cation and the chloride/phosphate/sulphate is the anion. Cations are
positively charged ions and anions are negatively charged ions. Positive and negative attract to
make a salt. In water sodium ions are free and not in salt form (they're more attracted to water
than chloride/phosphate/sulphate).

> Regarding table salt, I don't think it is an acceptable form of sodium. The reason I say this is
> through my experience with taking cellsalts. If I get knotted muscles in my neck or shoulders and
> take sodium phosphate and sodium sulphate tablets, it gets rid of it. I have never noticed that
> table salt has this effect.

Well the important thing is what's different between them, not what's the same i.e. it's the
phosphate and sulphate that counteracts acidity, not the sodium.

> And another thing is that I used to get housedust allergies which would only be alleviated by
> taking homeopathic sodium chloride (nat mur 6x), whereas straight table salt had no effect.

Homeopathic sodium chloride contains so little sodium chloride you'd be overdosing if you took a
single grain of table salt.

> Therefore I conclude that table salt isn't an acceptable form of sodium for nutritional purposes.

It is for sodium purposes.

> If there was a tablet called chelated sodium which would then break down into the three sodiums
> (phosphate, sulphate and chloride)

Chelation is what you do if the salt form of an ion is poorly absorbed
i.e. if sodium from sodium chloride didn't dissolve in water very well, you could chelate it instead
to get it into the body. Chelated sodium can't breakdown into three different salts, because
only the sodium ion is present in the chelate. Even after the chelation is broken down and the
sodium ion released it won't bind to the anions, so won't be in the form of salt.

> it would probably do the job, as I observe that chelated potassium alleviates all deficiency
> symptoms related to potassium phosphate, sulphate and chloride.

Then whatever is being alleviated is probably due to potassium. MattLB