Cesium Cures Cancer? - Page 4

"Anth" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message
news:4006735d$0$61063$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> 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

Scientists are always looking for "potentials to heal people." But they tend to look in the places
that have proven productive in the past, the ideas of educated scientists and researchers. The
"treatments" designed by fringe elements have not proven to often provide good researchable
hypotheses. (Often? Make that never.) And when, at a glance, a scientist can see that the quack's
treatment is based on erroneous notions of physiology and anatomy and ignorance of what is well
known about the causes and nature of cancer, then it is not unreasonable to toss it aside without
another look.

--Rich

In article <4006679b$0$31364$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com>,
William A. Noyes <no.address@ctc.net> wrote:
>Well A. Adam you are a spammer. A moron spammer at that.

Yes, William, he is. And you are a bigger moron for reposting his entire ad, including the URL. Not
to mention the fact that most spammers don't read this newsgroup, they just post and run.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

>"Aaries Adam" <aariesadam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:80b457e7.0401140432.68e390a8@posting.google.com...
>> Dear All

"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:y6FNb.24970$uI6.2365@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <4006679b$0$31364$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com>, William A. Noyes
> <no.address@ctc.net> wrote:
> >Well A. Adam you are a spammer. A moron spammer at that.
>
> Yes, William, he is. And you are a bigger moron for reposting his entire ad, including the URL.

It is not like I left an entire Todd Gastaldo posting intact.

> Not to mention the fact that most spammers don't read this newsgroup, they just post and run.

Some do.

(the following is munged for my enjoyment)
> -- David Wrong :: omegaman at AOL.net These are my insults only, but they're almost always good
> as any thoughts expressed by John Gohde. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because I
> haven't purchased spectacles."
(B.S.Wrong, Smallburg Community College)

Just one moron to another............ ........................William A. Noyes

>
>
>
>
>
> >"Aaries Adam" <aariesadam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:80b457e7.0401140432.68e390a8@posting.google.com...
> >> Dear All

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:18:30 -0000, "Anth" <anon@anon.com> wrote:

>It claims 30 out of 30 patients were 'cured' (in essence their tumours

I guess dead patients are counted as cured. Like they were with another stuff where cyanide do kill
the patient while also killing the cancer cells .

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:24:36 -0000, "Anth" <anon@anon.com> wrote:

>treatment and were considered terminal cases. The Cs-treatment consisted of CsCl in addition to
>some vitamins, minerals, chelating agents and salts of selenium, potassium and magnesium. In
>addition, a special diet was also instituted. There was an impressive 50% recovery of various
>cancers, i.e., cancer of unknown primary, breast, colon, prostate, pancrease, lung, liver,

Since it is already know for a long time that the rest of the therapy indeed does relieve symptoms
of cancer, like vitamins and selenium, maybe even more patients would have been cured and not died,
if CsCl had been left out of the treatment. For my part I¨'m very sure many more patients would have
survived if CsCl had been left out of the cure. Maybe all of them.

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

Why doesn't anybody understand money? Why, oh why, oh why. You're losing social structure; "the
machine". With roughly a 1/2 million deaths per year (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm),
you can imagine all the associated jobs? Nurses, doctors, scientists, insurance agents, grant
organizations, etc. The number of associated jobs must be in the tens of millions. And that's why
we're going to the Moon and Mars.

In article <89bbc1e0.0401170848.71d69f06@posting.google.com>,
Hurt Beyond Repair <hurt_beyond_repair@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Can you imagine all the unemployed people if Sartori's results were ever validated? Better to
>> crucify him than lose all that money.
>
>Why doesn't anybody understand money? Why, oh why, oh why.

Much more money to be made by curing cancer. Then the patient lives to pay another day. Why oh why
do these conpsiracy theorist never understand how stupid they sound?

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

drceephd@aol.com (drceephd) wrote in message news:<afd636a8.0401141828.47d0b7dc@posting.google.com>...
> 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.

I don't think it matters whether an animal is a herbivore, vegan, vegetarian, frugivore and
carnivore. I think the principle is the same even for plants. Some plants will thrive in a more acid
or alkaline medium but the calcium needs to be kept in balance with other nutrients.

> 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."

I think what stops bone turning to stone is to keep calcium in balance with the other minerals. I've
been taking mega amounts of calcium for 27 years now and have heard that large amounts of calcium
can result in kidney stones, but this hasn't happened. Keeping the calcium in balance with other
minerals is the key and this is where an understanding of cellsalts comes in.

What the pharmaceutical companies don't want people to know is that deficiencies in cellsalts causes
symptoms, and each symptom can be identified and shown to be a deficiency of one or other of the
cellsalts. For example, a headache can result from a deficiency of any one cellsalt, but there are
associated symptoms, such as watery eyes, sneezing, difficulty in thinking, constipation etc. With a
knowledge of cellsalts a person is able to keep the calcium in balance with the other cellsalts and
avoid the problem of bone turning to stone, which is just another name for arthritis isn't it?

The treatments for looking after horses on the http://www.ranvet.com.au/acidosis.htm website, is
practically identical to the cellsalt theory. They have the treatment for calcium deficiency,
potassium deficiency and the acidisos remedy. The only thing they don't mention is silica which
maybe horses get plenty of because it is found mostly in cellulose or vegetable roughage.

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

MattLB <mattlb@FAKEBITangelfire.com> wrote in message news:<4006A932.A2B5018E@FAKEBITangelfire.com>...
> 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).

Thanks for that info.

> > 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.

You sure about that?

From 'You are alkaline' -*
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

"Protein creates uric, sulfuric and phosphoric acids. Carbohydrates and fats, while burning mostly
to carbon dioxide and water, also create acetic and lactic acids. "... To keep you alkaline, your
body uses minerals to combine with acids, creating harmless salts that can be eliminated.* "...It is
not so important to remember all you can about each mineral or what part of the body uses each
mineral ... just remember the names of the 5 alkalizing minerals. "These minerals are used keep you
alkaline*- Calcium*Potassium Sodium Magnesium*Iron*

> > 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.

Yes, but you need to have an understanding of how homeopathy works. Unfortunately, our materialistic
science doesn't explain it and this deception is intentional. The process of making homeopathic
remedies separates the physical elements from the etheric, and it is the etheric element that is the
more powerful and does the healing. http://www.mrbean.net.au/~wlast/Homeopathy.html

However, homeopathy cannot be understood as a substance based method, such as drug medicine or
herbalism where any healing effect is due to chemical reactions. A simple calculation shows that in
the higher potencies not a single molecule of the original substance will be present. But these high
potencies are often more effective than low potencies. Therefore, homeopathy can only be understood
as working with energy remedies.

The explanation is that every natural substance has an etheric field around its molecular structure.
The special shaking action or potentizing used in homeopathy separates the etheric fields from their
material substance. The latter is then discarded and the former concentrated. These concentrated
etheric fields are much more potent in this way than when they were combined with matter. Similar
etheric concentrates can be produced with radionics instruments. The healing effect of such
concentrates depends on their vibrational frequency. Because of this the name vibrational medicine
has been coined for these methods.

> > 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.

You need to have a basic appreciation of the cellsalt theory to understand what I am going to
explain - a brief explanation is from the Biochemic Handbook by JB Chapman MD and Edward L Perry MD.

"The cellsalt theory says SYMPTOMS ARE NATURE'S*WARNING SIGNS* "Every disease which afflicts the
human race is due to lack of one or more of these inorganic workers [MINERAL CELL SALTS].*Should a
deficiency occur in one or more of these [MINERAL CELL SALTS], of whom there are twelve, some
abnormal condition arises.*These abnormal conditions are known by the general term disease and
according as they manifest themselves in different part of the body, they have been designated by
various names. But these names totally fail to express the real trouble.*Every pain or unpleasant
sensation indicates a lack of some inorganic constituent of the body. Health and strength can be
maintained only so long as the system is properly supplied with these cell salts. "

Three of these essential cellsalts are potassium (phosphate, sulphate and chloride), a defiency of
any one can cause associated deficiency symptoms peculiar to just the one cellsalt, not potassium
generally. Taking chelated potassium alleviates all deficiency symptoms related to any one of the
three potassium cellsalts.

> > 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.

Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/blood_acidity.htm I believe in conspiracies - the real
nutters are those who believe in al-Qa’eda and weapons of mass destruction. John Laughland
http://www.antiwar.com/spectator/spec30.html****

Carole wrote:

> > > 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.
>
> You sure about that?
>
> From 'You are alkaline' -
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain
>
> "Protein creates uric, sulfuric and phosphoric acids. Carbohydrates and fats, while burning mostly
> to carbon dioxide and water, also create acetic and lactic acids.

What's missing here is that where it says acetic and lactic acid there's no increase in the acidity,
because these are the acid salts (acetate and lactate) not the acids themselves. Under normal
conditions the hydrogen ions are converted to water. It's only when oxygen levels are low that they
act as acids.

> "... To keep you alkaline, your body uses minerals to combine with acids, creating harmless salts
> that can be eliminated. "...It is not so important to remember all you can about each mineral or
> what part of the body uses each mineral ... just remember the names of the 5 alkalizing minerals.
> "These minerals are used keep you alkaline - Calcium Potassium Sodium Magnesium Iron

From the same page :"To keep you alkaline, your body uses minerals to combine with acids, creating
harmless salts that can be eliminated."

The acidic part of an acid is the hydrogen ions (H+ cations). These can be removed by reacting with
basic/alkaline anions e.g. phosphate PO4(3-). The reaction is: H+ + PO4(3-) >>> HPO4(2-). Another H+
can then react to form H2PO4(-). This is how phosphate can neutralize acids. You can't form a salt
of sodium with H+ as they both have a positive charge of 1. You can however form NaH2PO4 salt, which
could be excreted by the kidneys, removing those two hydrogens from the body. Incidentally this is
the mechanism that's claimed for why a high protein diet should weaken bones - phosphate is removed
from the bones to combine with acids from the protein.

> > > 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.
>
> Yes, but you need to have an understanding of how homeopathy works. Unfortunately, our
> materialistic science doesn't explain it and this deception is intentional. The process of making
> homeopathic remedies separates the physical elements from the etheric, and it is the etheric
> element that is the more powerful and does the healing.
> http://www.mrbean.net.au/~wlast/Homeopathy.html
>
> However, homeopathy cannot be understood as a substance based method, such as drug medicine or
> herbalism where any healing effect is due to chemical reactions. A simple calculation shows that
> in the higher potencies not a single molecule of the original substance will be present. But these
> high potencies are often more effective than low potencies.

I realise this, but my point was that you shouldn't expect straight table salt to do the same job as
homeopathically diluted sodium chloride because it's not down purely to chemical composition.

> "The cellsalt theory says SYMPTOMS ARE NATURE'S WARNING SIGNS "Every disease which afflicts the
> human race is due to lack of one or more of these inorganic workers [MINERAL CELL SALTS]. Should a
> deficiency occur in one or more of these [MINERAL CELL SALTS], of whom there are twelve, some
> abnormal condition arises. These abnormal conditions are known by the general term disease and
> according as they manifest themselves in different part of the body, they have been designated by
> various names. But these names totally fail to express the real trouble. Every pain or unpleasant
> sensation indicates a lack of some inorganic constituent of the body. Health and strength can be
> maintained only so long as the system is properly supplied with these cell salts. "

Chelation is useful for some minerals e.g. magnesium and calcium because their salts aren't as
soluble as those of sodium and potassium.

> Three of these essential cellsalts are potassium (phosphate, sulphate and chloride), a defiency of
> any one can cause associated deficiency symptoms peculiar to just the one cellsalt, not potassium
> generally. Taking chelated potassium alleviates all deficiency symptoms related to any one of the
> three potassium cellsalts.

That would still be because it provides potassium, not because it provides potassium phosphate,
sulphate and chloride simultaneously. It's almost impossible to eat food and not get plenty of
phosphate ,and chloride ions are plentiful as normal salt. A potassium imbalance is far more likely.

MattLB

wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote in message news:<btpLb.54952$zx3.28942@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>...
> In article <aEgLb.54816$wX1.3032@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, Say not the Struggle nought Availeth
> <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
> >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.
> >
> >j.
>
> Bear in mind, J, that Carole knows as much about chemistry as a pig knows about patty-cake, so
> your explanation will simply cause her eyes to glaze over. It won't shut her up, though.

An interesting polite discussion going on, then someone has to come in and insult one of the
particiants for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON at all! Note the choices of words and phrases.

"soft-eng" <softeng3456@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:9fa75d42.0401230906.665668fe@posting.google.com...
> wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<btpLb.54952$zx3.28942@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>...
> > In article <aEgLb.54816$wX1.3032@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, Say not the Struggle nought
> > Availeth <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
> > >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.
> > >
> > >j.
> >
> > Bear in mind, J, that Carole knows as much about chemistry as a pig knows about patty-cake, so
> > your explanation will simply cause her eyes to glaze over. It won't shut her up, though.
>
> An interesting polite discussion going on, then someone has to come in and insult one of the
> particiants for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON at all! Note the choices of words and phrases.

When yo criticize an altie for the same behavior,you wil gain credibility. I was thinking
of Jan Drew.

In article <9fa75d42.0401230906.665668fe@posting.google.com>,
soft-eng <softeng3456@netscape.net> wrote:
>wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote in message
>news:<btpLb.54952$zx3.28942@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>...
>> In article <aEgLb.54816$wX1.3032@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, Say not the Struggle nought
>> Availeth <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>> >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.
>> >
>> >j.
>>
>> Bear in mind, J, that Carole knows as much about chemistry as a pig knows about patty-cake, so
>> your explanation will simply cause her eyes to glaze over. It won't shut her up, though.
>
>An interesting polite discussion going on, then someone has to come in and insult one of the
>particiants for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON at all! Note the choices of words and phrases.

Hey, newbie, before you start making a fool of yourself by claiming "no reason at all," try to
remember that there's a lot of history here that you don't know about.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:8VkOb.25618$BG5.7593@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <89bbc1e0.0401170848.71d69f06@posting.google.com>, Hurt Beyond Repair
> <hurt_beyond_repair@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Can you imagine all the unemployed people if Sartori's results were ever validated? Better to
> >> crucify him than lose all that money.
> >
> >Why doesn't anybody understand money? Why, oh why, oh why.
>
> Much more money to be made by curing cancer. Then the patient lives to pay another day. Why oh why
> do these conpsiracy theorist never understand how stupid they sound?

Sure Dave, there are always two ways to look at a thing. There are wacky conspiracy theories and
common everyday rationales.

The trouble the average person has is, not which one is correct, but rather that conspiracies
theories exist at all.

Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/media.htm No matter where you go, you will find rules
to be followed. These sets of rules for any given situation are called "Paradigms". It doesn't
matter if the rules are based in fact, assumptions, or lies. They are the rules to follow, or you
will find yourself an outcast, a heretic. http://www.veritastruth.com/.