Cesium Cures Cancer?

  • Thread starter Hurt Beyond Repair
  • Start date



In article <[email protected]>,
Carole <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Say not the Struggle nought Availeth <[email protected]> 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.
>>
>Very entertaining Dave ...I am suitably amused.

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.

>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.

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

-- 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)
 
>Subject: Re: Cesium Cures Cancer?
>From: [email protected] (Carole)
>Date: 1/13/04 8:10 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>

>You might have a point about organic and inorganic but are you sure
>limestone isn't organic?

Very sure Carol.

CaCO3. Calcium bonded to a carbon with three oxygen atoms. The calcium has an
oxidation state of +2 and the carbonate -2. The compound is therefore
electrically neutral.

You can call it limestone, chalk, dolomite, kiselguhr, oyster shell or coral
calcium, but it is still CaCO3 in various physical forms.
The gluconate and lactate would be organic forms as would the caesinate in
unpasteurized milk ( that is unpasteurized milk.) The Ca in pasteurized milk
has been converted to the inorganic form.

CaCO3 when exposed to the high acidity from the HCL in the stomach would be
converted to CaCl2 and CO2 gas.

CaCl2 is one form of de-icer that works very well.

CO2 gas is,....well, C02 gas. The same gas we breathe out with every breath
and the same gas that makes a cola fizz or even champaigne.


> 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

You got that right.

The worst thing an aspiring MD can do is to ask questions. They can be
dismissed from med school real quick. You cannot brainwash people if you allow
them time to sleep, time to think, or, heaven forbid, to think and ask
questions.

The church of modern medicine has all the money, the power, and every tool
needed to decieve you, me and the whole world. It was prohesized to happen and
it is right now.

Still, I think that truth will win out in the end. I just do not know how long
it will take. The shift of people going to "alternative" medical routes
suggests that the lies and deceit of modern medicine may be nearing the end of
its reign.

DrC PhD.
 
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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 <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Say not the Struggle nought Availeth <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > 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.
 
On 14 Jan 2004 04:51:01 GMT, [email protected] (DRCEEPHD) wrote:

>>You might have a point about organic and inorganic but are you sure
>>limestone isn't organic?
>
>Very sure Carol.
>
>CaCO3. Calcium bonded to a carbon with three oxygen atoms. The calcium has an
>oxidation state of +2 and the carbonate -2. The compound is therefore
>electrically neutral.


It is a carbon compound therefore 'organic' by definition.
--

"I can dance on the head of a pin as well"
-Yoshimo
 
>Subject: Re: Cesium Cures Cancer?
>From: WB [email protected]
>Date: 1/14/04 4:49 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>

>It is a carbon compound therefore 'organic' by definition.
>--
Who's definition, yours? Chemists around the world define carbonate as
"inorganic". If you cannot accept that, look it up in the CRC, assuming you
even know what the CRC is.

Try this one on for size: -CN.

RCN is a nitrile and defined as organic.
NaCN is a cyanide and defined as in-organic.

One form may save your cancer riddled body while the other will kill you deader
than a door nail.

Can you handle it?

DrC PhD
 
On 15 Jan 2004 00:15:39 GMT, [email protected] (DRCEEPHD) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Cesium Cures Cancer?
>>From: WB [email protected]
>>Date: 1/14/04 4:49 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>>It is a carbon compound therefore 'organic' by definition.
>>--
>Who's definition, yours? Chemists around the world define carbonate as
>"inorganic". If you cannot accept that, look it up in the CRC, assuming you
>even know what the CRC is.
>
>Try this one on for size: -CN.
>
>RCN is a nitrile and defined as organic.
>NaCN is a cyanide and defined as in-organic.
>
>One form may save your cancer riddled body while the other will kill you deader
>than a door nail.
>
>Can you handle it?
>
>DrC PhD

Yep I can handle it. Do note the first definition.

From: dict.org, organic

organic
adj 1: relating or belonging to the class of chemical compounds
having a carbon basis; "hydrocarbons are organic
compounds" [ant: inorganic]
2: of or relating to or derived from living organisms; "organic
soil"
3: being or relating to or derived from or having properties
characteristic of living organisms; "organic life";
"organic growth"; "organic remains found in rock" [ant: inorganic]
4: involving or affecting physiology or bodily organs; "an
organic disease" [ant: functional]
5: of or relating to foodstuff grown or raised without
synthetic fertilizers or pesticides or hormones; "organic
eggs"; "organic vegetables"; "organic chicken"
6: simple and healthful and close to nature; "an organic
lifestyle"
7: constitutional in the structure of something (especially
your physical makeup) [syn: constituent(a), constitutional,
constitutive(a)]
n : a fertilizer that is derived from animal or vegetable matter
[syn: organic fertilizer, organic fertiliser]


--

"I can dance on the head of a pin as well"
-Yoshimo
 
On 15 Jan 2004 00:15:39 GMT, [email protected] (DRCEEPHD) wrote:

>assuming you
>even know what the CRC is.


Matter of fact I do.

In your case that'd be Cyclic Redundancy Check.

Which you have apparently failed, again.
--

"I can dance on the head of a pin as well"
-Yoshimo
 
>Subject: Re: Cesium Cures Cancer?
>From: WB [email protected]
>Date: 1/14/04 7:45 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>On 15 Jan 2004 00:15:39 GMT, [email protected] (DRCEEPHD) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Cesium Cures Cancer?
>>>From: WB [email protected]
>>>Date: 1/14/04 4:49 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>>
>>>It is a carbon compound therefore 'organic' by definition.
>>>--
>>Who's definition, yours? Chemists around the world define carbonate as
>>"inorganic". If you cannot accept that, look it up in the CRC, assuming you
>>even know what the CRC is.
>>
>>Try this one on for size: -CN.
>>
>>RCN is a nitrile and defined as organic.
>>NaCN is a cyanide and defined as in-organic.
>>
>>One form may save your cancer riddled body while the other will kill you
>deader
>>than a door nail.
>>
>>Can you handle it?
>>
>>DrC PhD
>
>Yep I can handle it. Do note the first definition.
>

Sorry, you fail.

First, one of my college English profs had me pick a word, one word, and then
write a 30 page paper about it. Your effort was, therefore, puny.

Secondly, you know no chemistry or you would understand what the CRC is and why
carbonate is in-organic.

There is an exception to every rule made by man and that includes carbon and
whether it is organic or inorganic.

DrC PhD
 
[email protected] (Carole) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Hurt Beyond Repair) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

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 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.
 
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chelationreg.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
 
Well A. Adam you are a spammer. A moron spammer
at that.

"Aaries Adam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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 <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > David Wright wrote:
> >
>
 
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>
 
Carole wrote:
>
> Say not the Struggle nought Availeth <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > 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
 
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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 <[email protected]>,
William A. Noyes <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Dear All
 
"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> William A. Noyes <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Dear All
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back