Colorectal cancer risk reduced by a whopping 40%?

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Anth, Feb 18, 2004.

  1. Anth

    Anth Guest

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=571&ncid=751&e=4>&u=/nm/20040216/hl_nm/cancer_vegetarian_dc

    Small study but.. 'Along with a decreased risk of cancer from eating vegetarian, the investigators
    found that frequent fruit eaters - consuming more than 5 servings of fruit per week--were over 40
    percent less likely to develop colorectal cancer. '

    Anth
     
    Tags:


  2. Drceephd

    Drceephd Guest

    >Subject: Colorectal cancer risk reduced by a whopping 40%?
    >From: "Anth" [email protected]
    >Date: 2/18/04 6:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>

    >Small study but.. 'Along with a decreased risk of cancer from eating vegetarian, the investigators
    >found that frequent fruit eaters - consuming more than 5 servings of fruit per week--were over 40
    >percent less likely to develop colorectal cancer. '

    Interestingly enough, the orthopaths's ( medical MDs, but drugless doctors ) were saying that and
    counseling their patients about that by 1900.

    However, there were many fewer cancer patients back then. It has been the rise of modern allopathic
    medicine that has fueled the rise in cancers of all types over the past 100 years.

    DrC PhD The doctor of the future will give no poisonous medicine in the vain attempt to poison the
    sick into getting well.

    The doctor of the future will interest the patient in the care of the human frame, in diet, and in
    the cause and prevention of disease, and a medical theory which will not include bacteria, viruses,
    retro-viruses, prions. or auto-immunine excuses as the cause of any disease.

    That would at least bring allopathic medicine, Western medicine, up to the level of scientific
    medical data available in 1870.
     
  3. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    DRCEEPHD <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>Subject: Colorectal cancer risk reduced by a whopping 40%? From: "Anth" [email protected]
    >>Date: 2/18/04 6:36 PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id:
    >><[email protected]>
    >
    >>Small study but.. 'Along with a decreased risk of cancer from eating vegetarian, the investigators
    >>found that frequent fruit eaters - consuming more than 5 servings of fruit per week--were over 40
    >>percent less likely to develop colorectal cancer. '
    >
    >Interestingly enough, the orthopaths's ( medical MDs, but drugless doctors ) were saying that and
    >counseling their patients about that by 1900.

    Why would they have bothered to say so if there were "many fewer cancer patients back then?" How
    would they even have known?

    >However, there were many fewer cancer patients back then. It has been the rise of modern allopathic
    >medicine that has fueled the rise in cancers of all types over the past 100 years.

    No, it's been the increase in longevity. Childhood cancers notwithstanding, cancer is primarily a
    disease of old age. When more people died young (life expectancy in the US in 1900 was 47 years),
    cancer was much less of a factor.

    -- 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)
     
  4. Orac

    Orac Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] (David Wright) wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>, DRCEEPHD <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>Subject: Colorectal cancer risk reduced by a whopping 40%? From: "Anth"
    > >>[email protected] Date: 2/18/04 6:36 PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id:
    > >><[email protected]>
    > >
    > >>Small study but.. 'Along with a decreased risk of cancer from eating vegetarian, the
    > >>investigators found that frequent fruit eaters - consuming more than 5 servings of fruit per week--
    > >>were over 40 percent less likely to develop colorectal cancer. '
    > >
    > >Interestingly enough, the orthopaths's ( medical MDs, but drugless doctors ) were saying that and
    > >counseling their patients about that by 1900.
    >
    > Why would they have bothered to say so if there were "many fewer cancer patients back then?" How
    > would they even have known?
    >
    > >However, there were many fewer cancer patients back then. It has been the rise of modern
    > >allopathic medicine that has fueled the rise in cancers of all types over the past 100 years.
    >
    > No, it's been the increase in longevity. Childhood cancers notwithstanding, cancer is primarily a
    > disease of old age. When more people died young (life expectancy in the US in 1900 was 47 years),
    > cancer was much less of a factor.

    Quite true. 100 years ago, most people didn't live long enough to get cancer. They died of other
    causes. However, another factor that should be mentioned is smoking. Before the advent of industrial
    rolling machines and the mass production of cheap cigarettes in the late 1800's, few people could
    smoke very much. At that time, lung cancer was very uncommon, even rare. Indeed, it was so uncommon
    that there were descriptions of how medical school professors in the early 1900's would make very
    sure that all their students saw lung cancer patients when they had them, telling their students
    that they might never see another case again in their careers. By thirty years into the 20th
    century, however, twenty to thirty years after the popularization of smoking through the
    availability of cheap smokes that almost anyone could afford, lung cancer rates skyrocketed and lung
    cancer became a common disease. These rates have remained high since then.

    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
     
  5. Anth

    Anth Guest

    Any idea where I can get a reliable source for the incidence of cancer per 100,000 by age from 1900-
    present? Anth

    [snips]
     
  6. Carole

    Carole Guest

    [email protected] (DRCEEPHD) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > >Subject: Colorectal cancer risk reduced by a whopping 40%? From: "Anth" [email protected]
    > >Date: 2/18/04 6:36 PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id:
    > ><[email protected]>
    >
    > >Small study but.. 'Along with a decreased risk of cancer from eating vegetarian, the
    > >investigators found that frequent fruit eaters - consuming more than 5 servings of fruit per week--
    > >were over 40 percent less likely to develop colorectal cancer. '
    >
    > Interestingly enough, the orthopaths's ( medical MDs, but drugless doctors ) were saying that and
    > counseling their patients about that by 1900.
    >
    > However, there were many fewer cancer patients back then. It has been the rise of modern
    > allopathic medicine that has fueled the rise in cancers of all types over the past 100 years.
    >
    > DrC PhD

    That is because they don't acknowledge -
    * The detrimental effects of acidosis. Fruit and veg is a desirable diet in that it doesn't lead to
    acidosis, whereas meat, sugar, dairy, eggs etc. leave an acid residue. It is the resulting
    acidosis which leads to toxemia.
    * The beneficial effects of proper nutrition (when is the last time they recommended wholemeal over
    white flour products);
    * Pharmaceutical remedies suppress disease, driving it back into the body to be expressed in another
    form. But like all the corrupt cartels on the planet - the bottom line is money, and not regard
    for the truth or the welfare of people.

    > That would at least bring allopathic medicine, Western medicine, up to the level of scientific
    > medical data available in 1870.

    There has been a lot of misinformation since the mid 19th century. You could say science has
    been let up the garden path since 1850 to around 1900 and it needs to go back to that point and
    start again.

    Do you agree?

    Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/
     
  7. Happy Dog

    Happy Dog Guest

    "Carole" <[email protected]> wrote in message

    > * The detrimental effects of acidosis. Fruit and veg is a desirable diet in that it doesn't lead
    > to acidosis, whereas meat, sugar, dairy, eggs etc. leave an acid residue. It is the resulting
    > acidosis which leads to toxemia.

    Let's assume that this isn't crazy. (Which it is.) You must explain the precipitous drops in
    caancer rates.

    > when is the last time they recommended wholemeal over white flour products);

    Today.

    le moo
     
  8. Drceephd

    Drceephd Guest

    "Anth" <[email protected]spam.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Any idea where I can get a reliable source for the incidence of cancer per 100,000 by age from 1900-
    > present? Anth
    >
    > [snips]

    I have difficulty accepting most NCI data. If the patient's death can be attributed to anything
    other than his cancer or his treatment for cancer, that is how it will be listed and statistically
    counted. This does made the cancer morbidity data more acceptable to those in power.

    The only data I can recall, a curve actually, came out of a book by
    Dr. C. Samuel West titled "The Golden Seven plus One." His graph showed that the cancer incidence
    rate was very low circa 1900. However, the graph showed an exponential increase up to about the
    1980s, a doubling nearly every 10 years. In fact, the data indicated that cancer would become
    killer disease no. 1, surpassing even heart disease after the year 2000.

    If you find a sourse, let us know. Again, however, most of the data will be bogus due to the docs
    claiming death from any disease rather than cancer. Additionally, if you had cancer and heart
    disease, which do you think would have been listed as the cause of death?

    Cancer data and statistics is like looking at data generated by the fox that guarded the hen house.

    DrC PhD

    The doctor of the future will give no poisonous medicine in the vain attempt to poison the sick into
    getting well.

    The doctor of the future will interest the patient in the care of the human frame, in diet, and in
    the cause and prevention of disease, and a medical theory which will not include bacteria, viruses,
    retro-viruses, prions. or auto-immune excuses as the cause of any disease.

    That would at least bring today's allopathic medicine, Western medicine, up to the level of
    scientific medical data available in 1870.
     
  9. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Carole <[email protected]> wrote:

    >There has been a lot of misinformation since the mid 19th century. You could say science has
    >been let up the garden path since 1850 to around 1900 and it needs to go back to that point and
    >start again.

    How would you know, Carole? You know less about science than most intelligent 14-year-olds.

    -- 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)
     
  10. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    drceephd <[email protected]> wrote:
    >"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:<[email protected]>...
    >> Any idea where I can get a reliable source for the incidence of cancer per 100,000 by age from
    >> 1900- present? Anth
    >>
    >> [snips]
    >
    >I have difficulty accepting most NCI data.

    I can well imagine. Much if it doesn't support your delusions.

    >The only data I can recall, a curve actually, came out of a book by
    >Dr. C. Samuel West titled "The Golden Seven plus One." His graph showed that the cancer incidence
    > rate was very low circa 1900. However, the graph showed an exponential increase up to about the
    > 1980s, a doubling nearly every 10 years. In fact, the data indicated that cancer would become
    > killer disease no. 1, surpassing even heart disease after the year 2000.

    Well, it's after the year 2000 and so far, heart disease is still in the lead.

    -- 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)
     
  11. Carole

    Carole Guest

    [email protected] (DRCEEPHD) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > >Subject: Re: Colorectal cancer risk reduced by a whopping 40%? From: [email protected]
    > >(Carole) Date: 2/19/04 2:25 AM Eastern Standard Time Message-id:
    > ><[email protected]>
    >
    > >That is because they don't acknowledge -
    > >* The detrimental effects of acidosis. Fruit and veg is a desirable diet in that it doesn't lead
    > > to acidosis, whereas meat, sugar, dairy, eggs etc. leave an acid residue. It is the resulting
    > > acidosis which leads to toxemia.
    >
    > You are correct. The human body, in health, is alkaline. The human body, in disease, is acidic.
    > The acidosis is easily measured. You must realize, however, that MDs reading this post have no
    > concept of what "toxemia" is. I do, you do, the Orthopathic MDs did, but not our modern docs.

    And how do you think I worked this out? Only by reading different viewpoints and from my own
    experience, that is the answer. And also from working all this out I have come to the realisation
    that the current system is defective and not to be trusted.

    > >* The beneficial effects of proper nutrition (when is the last time they recommended wholemeal
    > > over white flour products);
    >
    > The medical monopoly has stated for years that there is no "scientific" conncection between diet
    > and disease except for starvation and vitamin deficiencies. This is why modern housewives and
    > mothers know more about nutrition than any modern MD.

    It doesn't take much experience to work this out. And you're right, there is a lot to be said for
    the thinking housewife to trust her own experiences rather than listening to "experts".

    > >* Pharmaceutical remedies suppress disease,
    >
    > It is termed "palliation" while they claim that it is a cure. Yuk, yuk, yuk.

    I watch a lot of TV - a lot more than the average person, and they say TV dulls the brain. But if
    the TV show doesn't present me with something I like, I switch channels. There is information on the
    TV to get the mind working, some interesting ideas. There are little snippets of info imbedded into
    a lot of TV shows to get the mind working.

    > >, driving it back into the body to be expressed in anoher form.
    >
    > True. And that form of disease will be worse, more severe, and more life threatening that the
    > former disease.

    Exactly. I have learnt to pay attention to the little conditions which present themselves for
    treatment, for it is in learning how to treat them that I believe my greater health is assured. Mind
    you, it is a bit of a lonely existence because I've got to work it all out for myself, but I do get
    the rewards here and there with improvements in health. And another thing is that nobody really
    knows what real health is these days.

    What is real health? There is a psychological aspect to real healh. According to the macrobiotic
    diet psychology follows psychiology. That is once a person gains really good physical health, their
    mental health follows.

    > >There has been a lot of misinformation since the mid 19th century. You could say science has
    > >been let up the garden path since 1850 to around 1900 and it needs to go back to that point and
    > >start again.
    > >
    > >Do you agree?
    >
    > I sure do.
    >
    > However, expect the medical monopoly to fight like hell to keep its profit. Expect the brainwashed
    > docs to fight like hell to keep their reputations and money intact. Going back, repeating the data
    > with modern equipment and chemicals, is possible.
    >
    > However, it isn't going to happen in our lifetime.

    I wouldn't know when it will happen. Maybe in out lifetime, maybe not. The truth has to come out
    eventually. Why do you say it won't happen in our lifetime?

    It is obvious that modern conventional medicine doesn't recognise -
    * The importance of nutrients in maintain health.
    * Doesn't acknowledge the importance of blood pH.
    * Doesn't understand the relationship between physical wellbeing and mental wellbeing.

    Society has been totally hoodwinked and scammed. The truth has to come out and I am only a user who
    has dwelled on matters, challenged them in my own mind and found them lacking. What has happened
    that our scientific and medical profession has been so controlled? It is a disaster of gigantous
    proportions.

    Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/conspiracy.htm You have paradigms for religion,
    education, social gatherings, transportation etc. 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/

    > DrC PhD.
     
  12. Carole

    Carole Guest

    "Happy Dog" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<60%[email protected]>...
    > "Carole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    > > * The detrimental effects of acidosis. Fruit and veg is a desirable diet in that it doesn't lead
    > > to acidosis, whereas meat, sugar, dairy, eggs etc. leave an acid residue. It is the resulting
    > > acidosis which leads to toxemia.
    >
    > Let's assume that this isn't crazy. (Which it is.) You must explain the precipitous drops in
    > caancer rates.

    What is a "precipitious drop" when it is at home? Don't presume that because you have a degree in
    some scientific field you are an authority. From what I can gather education is designed to dumb
    people down and lead them away from the real situation i.e., you may be just that little bit more
    resistant to free thinking than an uneducated person.

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

    Carole Guest

    [email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > In article <[email protected]>, Carole
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >There has been a lot of misinformation since the mid 19th century. You could say science has
    > >been let up the garden path since 1850 to around 1900 and it needs to go back to that point and
    > >start again.
    >
    > How would you know, Carole? You know less about science than most intelligent 14-year-olds.

    So? Do you think I would want to go to all the effort of getting a qualification to be kept under
    the thumb?

    Corruption of scientific principles
    http://depalma.pair.com/Absurdity/Absurdity07/ProblemOfFreeEnergy.html One of my first discoveries,
    after having graduated from university, was that science and scientists in general were controlled
    in their activities by managers and political influences originating from individuals with no
    intrinsic knowledge of science.  The feeling was that if there was a job to be done, a specification
    could be generated, money could be offered and technical people would step forward. If there were
    first rate scientists who felt the job was immoral or impossible, then there were legions of second
    and third-raters who would step forward and take the money.  This ensured the control of science and
    scientists could be maintained by money. In this world nothing was impossible and all things could
    be done. As soon as a scientist would step forward and challenge the rationality, viability, or
    morality of a given program, he could be stopped through ex-communication.

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

    Orac Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] (Carole) wrote:

    > "Happy Dog" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<60%[email protected]>...
    > > "Carole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >
    > > > * The detrimental effects of acidosis. Fruit and veg is a desirable diet in that it doesn't
    > > > lead to acidosis, whereas meat, sugar, dairy, eggs etc. leave an acid residue. It is the
    > > > resulting acidosis which leads to toxemia.
    > >
    > > Let's assume that this isn't crazy. (Which it is.) You must explain the precipitous drops in
    > > caancer rates.
    >
    > What is a "precipitious drop" when it is at home? Don't presume that because you have a degree in
    > some scientific field you are an authority. From what I can gather education is designed to dumb
    > people down and lead them away from the real situation i.e., you may be just that little bit more
    > resistant to free thinking than an uneducated person.

    It depends on what you mean by "free thinking." If you mean thinking that has no basis in what is
    presently known and often doesn't even accept what is presently known as a starting point (as
    many alties appear not to), then being more resistant to such "free" thinking is not necessarily
    a bad thing.

    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
     
  15. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Carole <[email protected]> wrote:
    >[email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message
    >news:<[email protected]>...
    >> In article <[email protected]>, Carole
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >There has been a lot of misinformation since the mid 19th century. You could say science has
    >> >been let up the garden path since 1850 to around 1900 and it needs to go back to that point and
    >> >start again.
    >>
    >> How would you know, Carole? You know less about science than most intelligent 14-year-olds.
    >
    >So? Do you think I would want to go to all the effort of getting a qualification to be kept under
    >the thumb?

    That's a nice dodge, Carole, but it boils down to you being either too stupid or too lazy to be
    bothered to learn anything. Since you don't know anything about science, you can post all the
    screeds you like about free energy or anything else. You have no idea what they mean, and you have
    no way of evaluating whether they're valid or not.

    -- 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)
     
  16. Carole

    Carole Guest

    [email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > In article <[email protected]>, Carole
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >[email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message
    > >news:<[email protected]>...
    > >> In article <[email protected]>, Carole <[email protected]>
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >There has been a lot of misinformation since the mid 19th century. You could say science has
    > >> >been let up the garden path since 1850 to around 1900 and it needs to go back to that point
    > >> >and start again.
    > >>
    > >> How would you know, Carole? You know less about science than most intelligent 14-year-olds.
    > >
    > >So? Do you think I would want to go to all the effort of getting a qualification to be kept under
    > >the thumb?
    >
    > That's a nice dodge, Carole, but it boils down to you being either too stupid or too lazy to be
    > bothered to learn anything. Since you don't know anything about science, you can post all the
    > screeds you like about free energy or anything else. You have no idea what they mean, and you have
    > no way of evaluating whether they're valid or not.

    You're right Dave. And you shouldn't be eating processed food because you have no way of knowing
    what exactly goes into it. You shouldn't be driving a car because you have no way of knowing if its
    really safe, and you should be careful about what brand of toilet paper you use because it may give
    you cancer of the rectum through all the chemicals in it (but you wouldn't be able to work it out
    and besides they change the formula every so often).

    I guess it just boils down to common sense and a bit of knowledge about the big picture, and the
    motivations behind the power elite who are pulling the strings. Anybody can look up the patents of
    Nikola Tesla, the man who was ahead of his time, who invented electricity as we know it today, 100
    years ago.

    So what you are saying it I should give up using common sense and just trust the "experts". Sorry
    Dave, I've been dumbed-down quite enough for one life time. I might be dumb but I'm not stupid.

    Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/media.htm
     
  17. Wb

    Wb Guest

    On 21 Feb 2004 15:34:23 -0800, [email protected] (Carole) wrote:

    >Anybody can look up the patents of Nikola Tesla, the man who was ahead of his time, who invented
    >electricity as we know it today, 100 years ago.

    Invented electricity ?

    Now that's rich.
    --

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
    "Pathetic Earthlings...if you had known anything about the true
    nature of the universe, anything at all, you would have hidden
    from it in terror." - Emperor Ming
    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
     
  18. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Carole <[email protected]> wrote:
    >[email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message
    >news:<[email protected]>...
    >> In article <[email protected]>, Carole
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >[email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message
    >> >news:<[email protected]>...
    >> >> In article <[email protected]>, Carole <[email protected]>
    >> >> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> >There has been a lot of misinformation since the mid 19th century. You could say science has
    >> >> >been let up the garden path since 1850 to around 1900 and it needs to go back to that point
    >> >> >and start again.
    >> >>
    >> >> How would you know, Carole? You know less about science than most intelligent 14-year-olds.
    >> >
    >> >So? Do you think I would want to go to all the effort of getting a qualification to be kept
    >> >under the thumb?
    >>
    >> That's a nice dodge, Carole, but it boils down to you being either too stupid or too lazy to be
    >> bothered to learn anything. Since you don't know anything about science, you can post all the
    >> screeds you like about free energy or anything else. You have no idea what they mean, and you
    >> have no way of evaluating whether they're valid or not.
    >
    >You're right Dave. And you shouldn't be eating processed food because you have no way of knowing
    >what exactly goes into it. You shouldn't be driving a car because you have no way of knowing if its
    >really safe, and you should be careful about what brand of toilet paper you use because it may give
    >you cancer of the rectum through all the chemicals in it (but you wouldn't be able to work it out
    >and besides they change the formula every so often).

    Sorry, Carole, but there's a big difference between not knowing everything about a subject
    (that's me) and not knowing anything about a subject (that's you). Nobody has complete
    information, but if you have none at all, you have no basis for making any sort of decision. The
    trouble with you is that you suffer from the fallacious idea that your opinion is just as good as
    anyone else's. It isn't.

    >I guess it just boils down to common sense and a bit of knowledge about the big picture, and the
    >motivations behind the power elite who are pulling the strings. Anybody can look up the patents of
    >Nikola Tesla, the man who was ahead of his time, who invented electricity as we know it today, 100
    >years ago.

    See, that sort of howler is what I mean about your level of ignorance. "Invented electricty as we
    know it today." God, you slay me sometimes.

    >So what you are saying it I should give up using common sense and just trust the "experts". Sorry
    >Dave, I've been dumbed-down quite enough for one life time. I might be dumb but I'm not stupid.

    Yes, you are. Because you think you're in a position to pass judgement on topics about which you
    know nothing.

    -- 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)
     
  19. Happy Oyster

    Happy Oyster Guest

    On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:10:12 GMT, WB <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On 21 Feb 2004 15:34:23 -0800, [email protected] (Carole) wrote:
    >
    >>Anybody can look up the patents of Nikola Tesla, the man who was ahead of his time, who invented
    >>electricity as we know it today, 100 years ago.
    >
    >
    >Invented electricity ?
    >
    >Now that's rich.

    Yes, sure ! Please, don't tell me that you didn't know how Tesla made all those little frogs leap
    over the transformers...

    Regards,

    Aribert Deckers
    --
    Der Fälscher

    http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_no12.htm
     
  20. Drceephd

    Drceephd Guest

    [email protected] (Carole) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > [email protected] (DRCEEPHD) wrote in message news:<[email protected]
    > m25.aol.com>...
    > > >Subject: Re: Colorectal cancer risk reduced by a whopping 40%? From: [email protected]
    > > >(Carole) Date: 2/19/04 2:25 AM Eastern Standard Time Message-id:
    > > ><[email protected]>
    >

    > Society has been totally hoodwinked and scammed. The truth has to come out and I am only a user
    > who has dwelled on matters, challenged them in my own mind and found them lacking. What has
    > happened that our scientific and medical profession has been so controlled? It is a disaster of
    > gigantous proportions.
    >
    > Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/conspiracy.htm

    I was educated as a scientist. I never once thought of questioning what I was being taught. It was
    only after I began to question what I was taught that I went back, investigated the matter, and
    found out that where medicine was concerned, I had been lied to.

    For the medical practitioners, they have to believe. Their reputations, their income, their power,
    everything they have, is based upon the lie of the "germ theory of disease."

    For me, I can accept that the lie is occuring for one reason and one reason only. In the Bible, it
    was predicted to happen in Revolations
    18:23 where it states "whole nations will be deceived by your medicines" ( meaning the medicines of
    the dark side, Satan ). It was predictied...therefore it has to happen.

    > You have paradigms for religion, education, social gatherings, transportation etc. 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/
    >
    > > DrC PhD.

    Nice signature.

    DrC PhD The doctor of the future will give no poisonous medicine in the vain attempt to poison the
    sick into getting well.

    The doctor of the future will interest the patient in the care of the human frame, in diet, and in
    the cause and prevention of disease, and a medical theory which will not include bacteria, viruses,
    retro-viruses, prions, or auto-immune excuses as the cause of any disease.

    That would at least bring today’s allopathic medicine, Western medicine, up to the level of
    scientific medical data available in 1870.
     
Loading...