 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / March 2006Have We Finally Discovered The Food Components Causing Most Disease?
At age 65, my wife and I are back to good health after a nightmare journey through my four serious cancers and her heart disease and breast cancer. A Few Vital Diet Improvements (a free 40-page pdf) at http://www.curemycancer.org tells our story - including actual medical records history. Download your FREE copy and read our findings. Based on our experience, we suspect that at least 90% of age-onset disease is caused by excessive animal protein and trans fats in the American diet. We observe that hundreds of drugs are now commonly used to cure the symptoms of just a few foods eaten to excess. Why not correct the mix of foods eaten rather than suffer the ever worsening symptoms some foods in excess cause? My booklet is our guide to rebalancing the diet toward great health as we age. NOTE: We are not vegetarians or vegans or animal rights advocates; we are survivors!! We believe that as we humans age, we greatly benefit by an ever decreasing amount of animal protein in our diets. We offer our own hard medical evidence in our book which proves this contention to our satisfaction. With a 5% chance of survival documented, I'm still alive and well after 3 years; within the last 30 days, I have had a full skin exam and colonoscopy which yielded a cancer-free, disease-free result - - this after eliminating 98% of my previous animal protein intake 14 months ago. - - Cheers, Bill In other words, just take your word for it and buy your book. Riiiiiight. Why is it that spammers always post twice? Hi Max C. You are wrong on both counts. 1) Being new at this I hit the post before edit button by mistake. 2) My book is my gift to the world, I am selling nothing; I have merely told our true experience in hopes it will help others. If you check my link, you will find valuable new insites into the possibilities of cancer cure. - - Cheers, Bill > Hi Max C. > You are wrong on both counts. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > possibilities of cancer cure. > - - Cheers, Bill Yeah, and if you check Medline, you'll find that starches and sugars have far more association with promotion of cancers. No association between animal protein and cancer holds up under scrutiny. Just look at the links between hyperinsulinemia and cancer, for example. Susan > Yeah, and if you check Medline, you'll find that starches and sugars > have far more association with promotion of cancers. No association > between animal protein and cancer holds up under scrutiny. Not to mention that Dr. Otto Warburg was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1931 for his discovery that cancer cells thrived in an anaerobic environment. The cancer cells had learned to live without oxygen, and instead fuled themselves with the exact kind of foods you just mentioned (starches and sugars.) I've already helped people cure their cancer (including an 87 year old with advanced prostate cancer) and I didn't do it by telling them to avoid animal foods. To the contrary, I told them to *increase* their animal food consumption. Most likely the difference in their cases and yours was the quality of the animal foods. You should only eat animal foods raised the way nature intended. Cows eating nothing but grains and who-knows-what should not be used for food. The similarities in your cases are probably that you learned to avoid refined foods and eat a diet as natural and nutritionally dense as possible. Nothing more. I see that you were using "organic" raw cow's milk. I have to say that any time I hear the word "organic" in terms of milk, I cringe. To most people (and companies) as long as the cow is eating plant foods, they think it's a healthy cow. Cows are NOT designed to eat grains, which is what many dairies feed their cows. Grains cause the cow's rumen to become acidic, which affects the cow's health, and thus the quality of the milk. It also creates an unnatural imbalance in the omega fatty acids in the beef. That, in itself, has been shown to be cancer-causing. You move on to quote some work from T. Collin Campbell. The man is a fraud. He willfully twisted the data in the China Study to support his vegan agenda. I am probably more qualified to give an opinion on the China Study than most others on this board. I've already done a ton of work using T. Collin Campbell's own data to disprove his position. You're welcome to read it here: http://tinyurl.com/ecoqs At this point I can't really tell if you're just a well-intentioned, misguided person who lived through cancer and want to share his experiences or another quack with an agenda (this group gets plenty of those.) I hope it's the former, but either way I'll rest assured knowing that my personal experiences and the experiences of those I've helped have already disproved your "book." Max. Max, It must be amazing to be so knowledgeable. You start by being offensive, then backing off just enough to seem credible. Are you a stealth Dairy Council person ? They continue to actively discredit the good work of Dr. Campbell, as the $$$$ stakes are so very high. If I weren't concerned for my life and triggering other cancers now in remission, I am sure enough about my assertions that I would wager you $10,000 cash that given 4 quarts of the best cows milk you can find for me and 1/2 pound of the best cows milk cheese (per week), I will be diagnosed with basal cell skin cancer within 12 months. I have carefully experimented with my own food intake to find the foods which triggered cancers within me. I have gone through one complete cycle of turning off my skin cancers (and all other cancers) for 15 months being off milk, dairy and meats. When I went back on 3 quarts/wk of the highest quality raw milk Whole Foods sells, 9 months later I had full blown prostate cancer and 12 sites of basal cell cancer. My diet otherwise was the same as it is now, with ample starches and sugars from various sources, none of which is or has caused me any cancer this past year !!! I guess, in short, I question your credentials and your motives to blast me before you look a lot closer at the facts in my experience. My only hope is that a few misguided individuals out there can benefit from my $1/2 million trip through a minefield of cancers. As I made the trip the misinformation which bombarded me and the drug-focused medical establishment would have left me for dead, had I not acted on my own to discover that indeed, it was a few unsuspected foods causing my cancer. Hope that clarifies your question about me being a charlitan or just misguided !!! --- Bill Heh, I love how vegans go right for the throat when someone doesn't agree with every little thing they say. You even try making up stories about organizations I might belong to in order to try to discredit my position. I don't care what you say, you're a vegan with an agenda. I've debated too many vegans in my time to be duped by the old "I'm not a vegan, I just know this works for me" line. Well, what can I say except "Good for you." I'm glad you found what works for you. While there is substantial debate on the notion that everyone is different, I personally believe that it is true. However, *if* you're are who you say you are, the experiences you've had are not the norm and have been disproven not only by scientific data, but also historical data. If animal foods caused cancer, humans wouldn't be around today. It's as plain as that. To comment on your assretions that the dairy councel has been trying to discredit T. Collin Campbell, that shouldn't take much work. All you have to do is look at his comments on the data in the China study and then look at the data itself. While most of what he says about the China study is true, it's what he DOESN'T say about the data in the study that can easily be used to discredit him. He willfully omitted data showing protective aspects of animal foods with regards to many diseases, including the MOST important aspect of the study, "ALL CAUSE DEATH." I clicked on your link, why don't you click on mine? Max. Max, Here goes - - paragraph by paragraph: You state above: >Heh, I love how vegans go right for the throat when someone doesn't >agree with every little thing they say. You even try making up stories >about organizations I might belong to in order to try to discredit my >position. I don't care what you say, you're a vegan with an agenda. >I've debated too many vegans in my time to be duped by the old "I'm not >a vegan, I just know this works for me" line. Again, you fingers typed before your brain engaged and before you did some homework !!! In my no-cost booklet "A Few Vital Diet Improvement Ideas" at www.curemycancer.org , on page 3 I ask you to read the chart of "Our Optimal Eating Frequency Goals" for a large list of foods. Can you continue to insist I am a Vegan IF: - I eat butter twice a week - I eat animal protein once a week, (including eggs, fish, shellfish yogurt) - I eat any/all meat once a month I'm an Electrical Engineer, not a Vegan!!! Electrical Engineers are trained to consider inputs as well as responses into/out of a system. Medical doctors, in general, consider one or the other, but never care to relate inputs and outputs as is done in control system design, for example. In my Table I lay out a scheme for cutting back on animal protein intake, not cutting it out !!! The goal here is to reduce statistically the cumulative amount of animal protein we eat, not to cut it out completely. I have repeatedly observed with my own body the "light switch" phenomenon where with 1/2 qt milk/day I can turn on latent cancers; with a few milk products in my diet once a month the cancers stay in remission - - just as Campbell charts out on Page 57 in his book, "The China Study". SO, I don't see on God's green earth how you can call me a Vegan ?!?!? I'm waiting for your erudite reply - maybe some more Latin we all have to look up, Max. Or are you ready to start working with me, and others who may join us as a result this conversation. And YES I have an AGENDA!!!!, My goal, before I shuffle off, is to help eliminate cancer as a significant health problem through discovery of the few food components which fuel terminal cancer. Is that such a bad agenda? - - Bill >I'm an Electrical Engineer, not a Vegan!!! Electrical Engineers are >trained to consider inputs as well as responses into/out of a system. Hm. Interesting So, if you have a main power cable and some heaters controlled by a controller using the wires for sending control signals, do you just meter if power voltage is correct? (It's an analogy to you just looking at proteins. Except for a few essential amino acids mostly lacking in vegetables, they are mostly identical, but, proteins are a major component together with starch and the big lump of fat.) Why not rather look at the composition of the fats you get. Not the white fat, but the fats that muscle cells are build up of. When feeding animals with grains, and no greens, only different kinds of derivatives of linoleic acid are incorporated in meat as PUFA, but, in cow, rumen is desaturating them and/or conjugating them, forming long chain saturated fats and CLA which enter muscles and milk. The more grain in diet, the more C18:0 and C20:0 you will get in milk, while giving them green hay will probably provide more omega-3 in diet plus much more short-chain saturated fats like C12:0, C14:0, C15:0, C16:0 which has been shown to rather prevent several diseases. In sheep, the difference btw. Norwegian sheep and Icelandic sheep is stunning. The difference occure due to feeding practices. In Iceland, sheep are grazing in the free all year around, while in Norway, they are grain fed most of the year due to too much snow covering the fields. And, if fed hay in winter, the hay is conserved using formic acid which probably is not so good for the animals health in the long run, and most probably not for us neither. > >I'm an Electrical Engineer, not a Vegan!!! Electrical Engineers are > >trained to consider inputs as well as responses into/out of a system. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > acid which probably is not so good for the animals health in the long > run, and most probably not for us neither. Icelandic sheep are fed indoors for most of the winter, they are allowed to feed outside in the winter if the weather is good but most of their feed in winter is hay. >Icelandic sheep are fed indoors for most of the winter, they are >allowed to feed outside in the winter if the weather is good but most >of their feed in winter is hay. Is this correct also in southern Iceland? We are mostly told that sheep graze outdoor all year round, as opposed to ours, and that this is why there is so much more MUFA in those animals. (In some part of Western and Northern Norway, sheep is outdoor almost all year) > >Icelandic sheep are fed indoors for most of the winter, they are > >allowed to feed outside in the winter if the weather is good but most [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is why there is so much more MUFA in those animals. (In some part of > Western and Northern Norway, sheep is outdoor almost all year) The lamb that we eat are usually slaughtered in the autumn so they have never eaten indoors but the older sheep are fed indoors if the weather is bad. >The lamb that we eat are usually slaughtered in the autumn so they have >never eaten indoors but the older sheep are fed indoors if the weather >is bad. the same, but in spring, the elder ones are quite filled up with lots of omega-6s and little omega-3 and MUFA :-( And maybe also metabolites of formic acid used to conserve the hay and gras. If not mainly fed cereals and corn. Max, You said above: >>If animal foods caused cancer, humans wouldn't be >>around today. It's as plain as that. Nothing I have said here in these many message posts states that I believe animal protein initiates cancer or any other disease in young, even middle-aged people. What I have said is that animal protein or possibly more correctly, animal food sources "facilitate" cancers already initiated by what I called a Type A Carcinogen such as cigarette smoke or sun. My example was that sun, a Type A carcinogen, started my dozens of basal cell cancers; hi quality raw milk, 3qts/week for 9 months (I call a Type B carcinogen), grew 12 of those cancers on my face in 2004 and full blown prostate cancer (Gleason 3,3) at the same time. I know the milk alone facilitated these cancers because I tightly controlled my diet that year. Also, I received most of the intense sun on my upper torso between age 6 and 21; I also know that my milk (and other animal foods intake) remained quite steady from age 23 to age 59. My first skin cancer appeared on my arm at age 36. Another theory (or as you may prefer, hypothesis) I stated elsewhere says that I believe the human body has a limit of animal food sources it can consume over a lifetime - - due to accumulation of a toxin of some sort in these animal foods, but absent in plant foods. As one approaches that limit, disease such as cancer begins to appear - - signaling declining body condition. Once we establish repeatable, statistically significant experimental proof of my hypothesis, and do tests on key foods in the diet, we can publish rankings as to the long-term toxicity of various common foods, and people will then be able to make an informed choice about what they eat, and how frequently they eat it. Then, too, the pharmaceutical folks can start looking for "animal-food-toxin-remover drugs" for those who are willing to pay big bucks to keep drinking their milk after they've hit their lifetime limit (typically between 55 and 80 years of age for most people, depending on individual rates of animal food ingestion). Working through my hypothesis, and history above, and if I had lived 1000 years ago and had no modern medical care nor other lethal disease, I would have lived until age 65 when toxins from milk and other animal food sources took me out with prostate cancer (as did happen to my 67 year-old uncle in 1992 and my 74 year old grandfather in 1942). Specifically, I don't want your ridiculous statement above to stay unchallenged in this thread; thus my response and clarification here. - - Bill > Working through my hypothesis, and history above, and if I had lived > 1000 years ago and had no modern medical care nor other lethal disease, > I would have lived until age 65 when toxins from milk and other animal > food sources took me out with prostate cancer (as did happen to my 67 > year-old uncle in 1992 and my 74 year old grandfather in 1942). The only thing ridiculous in this thread is your assumption of animal foods. Let's say you HAD lived 1000 years ago. I feel quite safe saying that you wouldn't have gotten the cancer to begin with. You would have been getting unadulterated animal foods. The animals would have been raised in a clean and natural environment, free from pesticides, growth hormone injections and constant antibiotics. Your assumption that sun causes cancer is also completely wrong. The only way sunlight can cause skin cancer is if your diet isn't right. For example, sodium fluoride in your drinking water can be used in place of thyroxin inside the body because they're both halogen molecules. However, sodium fluoride cannot provide you the protective properties from the sun that thyroxin does. There are many recent alterations in the human food supply that advance many cancers. Animal protein is not one of them. Polyunsaturated fat ratios *in* those animal foods, yes. Environmental carcinogens *in* those animals foods, yes. Diseases contracted by those animals because of abhorred living conditions, possibly. Refinement of animal foods to make them able to sit on a store shelf for months before "going bad," absolutely! Animal food proteins, absolutely not. If, in fact, you are not a vegan with a made up story and an agenda, I'm sorry for your suffering. I've debated dozens of vegans over the years and you wouldn't be the first to make up such a story to try to get a point across. However, your theory does not stand up to historical or scientific data... even data provided by your beloved T. Colin Campbell. To further my suspicion of your agenda, you have systematically ignored data and suggestions that I've posted to counter your theory. We are now into the 3rd, 4th and maybe even the 5th generations of people who consume large quantities of refined foods. There has been speculation that such diets may make offspring more susceptible to disease, including cancer. It is possible that you are able to contract cancer more readily than others. It is also possible that you were ingesting large quantities of carcinogens, such as the oxidized cholesterol I mentioned, that aided in the formation of cancer. I'm glad you found something that works for you, but I won't sit by and let you tell the world that a vegan diet will cure cancer, because more often than not, it won't AND it will cause other diseases in the process. Max. > If, in fact, you are not a vegan with a made up story and an agenda, > I'm sorry for your suffering. I've debated dozens of vegans over the > years and you wouldn't be the first to make up such a story to try to > get a point across. However, your theory does not stand up to > historical or scientific data. At least he has a theory. You have absolutely nothing, but your buddy the goat farmer and Weston Price. Hs, ... Hah, Ha! You are full of crap. And, I do NOT mind saying so. :) And Max, In your diatribe above, you write as would a professional obfuscator, handsomely paid by one of the large companies which would loose $ billions if I am right. So as you accuse me of being a Vegan, I accuse you of being a PAID Professional Obfuscator! You have succeeded in barrage wordsmithing to discourage most readers from continuing - - perhaps pleasing the people you work for. You have said a few things I would agree with, but which change nothing I've said. Your insistence in seeing every source of possible age-onset disease as an equally potent health threat (as you throw many weak possibilities around in your text to obscure my points) shows that you have no appreciation for the potential value of identifying the few Type B carcinogens in our foods which are an order of magnitude more lethal than all the others !!! This is my goal as an Engineer. By the way you might want to begin accusing me of being an Engineer, because it is highly likely Engineers working together will find the lowest cost approach to eliminating cancer as a major health risk. If you look at Vegans as a threat to your status quo, I suggest you consider Engineers working on the cancer problem as a huge threat to your status quo. May I point out that neither the Medial Establishment nor the marketing organizations for dairy and meat conglomerates have any incentive to study food causes of disease. I suspect you work for one of these organizations, and you are well paid for your efforts here. When will you understand that whether the animal food toxin is oxidized cholesterol, or animal protein or a third element in milk, it matters not to my hypotheses, nor the results one would get by eliminating milk in a diet to reduce risk of dying of cancer, once one has been diagnosed with cancer! - - As I have successfully done twice with the same result: putting all my existing cancers in remission. --Bill > When will you understand that whether the animal food toxin is > oxidized cholesterol, or animal protein or a third element in milk, it > matters not to my hypotheses, nor the results one would get by > eliminating milk in a diet to reduce risk of dying of cancer, once one > has been diagnosed with cancer! - - As I have successfully done twice > with the same result: putting all my existing cancers in remission. Once again, I wholeheartedly disagree. Identifying the true cause of the cancer is of the utmost importance. I fully believe that in your case, it was not the milk, but rather the added powdered milk that was the carcinogen. It wasn't the elimination of the milk that helped, it was the elimination of the refined milk product. I am not at all surpised at your latest twist to try to discredit me. Most of my debates with vegans usually take a turn towards personal attacks on me after the facts are all laid out. I am not concerned, though. Anyone who has read my many posts on this news group already knows that your accusations are false. Exactly what billion dollar companies would I be working for? The local organic co-ops? The family owned farms? The multi-billion dollar grass-fed beef industry? Your accusations are laughable. Max. Max, You're losing it. - - - In desperation you wrote: >>I fully believe that in your >>case, it was not the milk, but rather the added powdered milk that was >>the carcinogen. It wasn't the elimination of the milk that helped, it >>was the elimination of the refined milk product. I explicitly stated in a previous message the following: >>But the conclusion I have drawn from my experience is that I >>successfully delayed my prostate and 12 basal cell cancers by about 14 >>months by going off animal food sources for 14 months prior to these >>cancers. Please look at the graph of my PSA Medical record on page 6 >>of my book. The lower (2.8) PSA for the year 2003 was uniquely driven >>lower by my elimination of animal food sources (except white fish). >>>>>As soon as I went back on whole raw organic milk, <<<<<< >>my PSA and both cancers >>went wild, and I had to take medical treatment. Multiple family [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>This evidence is a strong basis to proceed with controlled studies, the >>results of which are highly likely to help all mankind. The "whole raw organic milk" I drank WAS NOT REFINED, HAD NO POWDERED MILK ADDED, AND WAS PURE AS THE DRIVEN SNOW. The milk you describe is standard California LoFat Milk, which I did not consume to bring on these 2004 cancers. Drinking no milk for 14 months, I had complete remission of all cancers for the first time in 10 years. This period was Dec 2002 through Jan 2004. Then I selected the purest raw, organic, unmodified milk I could buy and drank 3qts per week for 8 months and brought on 12 basal cell and Gleason 3,3 Prostate cancer into full bloom. So Max, you are wrong again, and there is nothing more you can say that will warrant my reply. I have said it all; my important message is scattered, but all here in this message thread for anyone who cares to read through it. Your last few replies indicate you must be a desperate man (or woman), as you have failed to discredit my experience, my hypotheses and my plans to take this energy to the next level Thanks for asking AN OCCASIONAL good question that helped me to clarify my ideas and get them in print. I will reorganize and sharpen my writings here and use this work to establish a new non-profit corporation dedicated to groundbreaking research based on my hypotheses stated herein. Good by, and good luck. - - Bill > You're losing it. - - - > In desperation you wrote: ... > So Max, you are wrong again, and there is nothing more you can say > that will warrant my reply. I have said it all; my important message > is scattered, but all here in this message thread for anyone who cares > to read through it. I've always loved the fact that when vegans have been totally discredited they start attacking the messenger rather than using real facts and data to support their position. > The "whole raw organic milk" I drank WAS NOT REFINED, HAD NO POWDERED > MILK ADDED, AND WAS PURE AS THE DRIVEN SNOW. The milk you describe is > standard California LoFat Milk, which I did not consume to bring on > these 2004 cancers. I think you'll find, upon review of our discussion, that I have not changed my position at all. That would also be obvious to anyone else reading this debate. May I remind *YOU* of one of *YOUR* preivious posts? > The state of California has for many years required all retailers of > milk products to sell a "Fortified" milk in dairy products having under [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > California's unique fortified milk is the most significant cause of > higher cancer rates in California. So, by your own admission, if the raw milk did not contain at least 4% butterfat, it could not be legally sold without the added powdered milk. You said yourself that it's the law in California. Some cows *DO* provide 4% butterfat, but some do not. It's entirely possible that the milk you were buying would not have 4% butterfat on its own. It would seem to me that by law, it would have to have been "fortified." But nevermind the fortification process. Let me say this one more time for all to read... IF YOU CAN'T GET RAW MILK FROM COWS FEEDING ON GREEN GRASS, DON'T DRINK MILK AT ALL. Did you go to the farm that produces your milk to see the diet of the cows producing your milk? You said you bought it from Whole Foods. Organic does not equal grass fed. With regards to milk, there is a HUGE difference. It is much more likely that you were getting raw milk from grain fed cows. The nutritional profile of grain fed milk is very different from grass fed. So, feel free to continue to attack me personally rather than use actual data to support your position. You're only discrediting yourself. Max. By the way, I completely forgot to address the last 2 paragraphs in your latest reply. You said: > Your last few replies indicate you must be a desperate man (or > woman), as you have failed to discredit my experience, my hypotheses > and my plans to take this energy to the next level First, I'm not exactly sure what I'd be desperate about... except being desperate to make sure false information isn't spread across a scientific news group as though it were fact. This news group is here for the science, not for opinions. Second, I truly hope you move forward with your "next level" plans. It would be refreshing to see someone doing the science all on their own. I just have 2 words of advice for you... 1 - don't think you're going to get anything worth while published in a popular peer-reviewed journal. Those journals make the bulk of their money off of adds and direct / indirect support from the very companies for which you accuse me of working. Obviously publishing any information that would take money away from such companies would be bad for the journal. It's the sad reality in which we live. 2 - be open minded enough in your tests to admit when your hypothesis is wrong... because I can tell you from a great deal of study you're going to find that your animal protein hypothesis will not hold up to scrutiny... at least not when the animal proteins come from animals raised and fed the way nature intended them to be. > Thanks for asking AN OCCASIONAL good question that helped me to > clarify my ideas and get them in print. I will reorganize and sharpen > my writings here and use this work to establish a new non-profit > corporation dedicated to groundbreaking research based on my hypotheses > stated herein. I look forward to it. Make sure to come back once you have it more organized. Just remember that many wealthy vegans have been trying to prove the very same thing for decades with no success. If you're really not a vegan and you actually intend to make these things happen, it would be in your best interest to have other people (like me and others in this group) point out potential flaws in your theory before you spend money on testing them. Max. Max, Thanks for taking a constructive approach in this message. Your points are well advised and understood. We are proceeding accordingly with excellent advice and council from several sources. - - Bill > Max, > Thanks for taking a constructive approach in this message. Your > points are well advised and understood. We are proceeding accordingly > with excellent advice and council from several sources. - - Bill Well Bill, You as a typical Arse, must be either filtering out or ignoring my posts. Well, good for you idiot. You obviously wont be seeing this post. What you obviously got in your little pdf file is a case-study. All you have to do is re-write it in the stand case-study medical research format and submit it for publication. Being that you are claiming to be a little self-appointed genius / engineer you should not have any problems doing this. Of course, since bigotry among these research journals obviously is alive and well you probably will get published faster ghostwriting the case-study for some research MD, such as our resident Steve Harris who hangs out on news:sci.med. Then there is always, the Medical Hypothesis research journal who for a fee will certainly publish it. Our resident Montygram 'The Idiot/Moron' is too stupid / cheap / and/or Chichken sh.t to publish his PUFAs crap. Posting on any NON-moderated science group idientifies you as a rank amateur conversing with the mentall ill nobodies, such as Mad Max who is the biggest idiot that I have seen in a long time. As for you, who cares. I too had problems with sun burns in my youth but have NOT come down with skin cancer or any other cancer for that matter. I can read. I can think for myself, and have managed to do my research without any help from any body. And, as your little letter from your little MD who said that you have only a 5 to 10 percent chance of surviving 5 years wrote, YOUR 5 period is NOT over yet. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! So, you are bragging prematurely. Treating cancer, by diet is somewhat novel but the Japanese macrobiotic diet has been around for a long time ... Jack. So, you hardly did something novel. The results of one person is meaningless, but if the same approach would be tested on 10 to 20 different persons and they all got favorable results, then you might have something to write a book on. Of course, you wont be seeing the above, ... Mr. Nobody. Cheers ... Just thought that you might want to know, how much of an Arse you really are. > > Max, > > Thanks for taking a constructive approach in this message. Your [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > Just thought that you might want to know, how much of an Arse you > really are. Also, I forgot to mention that you really are posting on the wrong ng to begin with. You should have posted on the SCI / CANCER or the Cancer support groups, such as: sci.med.diseases.cancer, sci.med.prostate.cancer, alt.support.cancer.prostate, alt.support.cancer And, of course, you would have started target in ngs covering skin cancer and the other cancers which you allegedly recovered from. -- John Gohde, Achieving good health is an Art, NOT a Science! The http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com website is a Multilingual, cross-browser, cross-platform friendly site which offers no Web Accessibility barriers. >scientific news group as though it were fact. This news group is here >for the science, not for opinions. Sorry to say, but for scientific use, it is useless. Most researchers avoid this group by all means, at least to provide scientific proofs. But as an entertaining channel, it is of course of use. Heather Mills McCartney: wants cancer causing dairy banned Posted Mar 25th 2006 8:35PM by Dalene Entenmann Filed under: Breast Cancer, Prostate Cancer, Prevention In London, on May 24, 2006, The Vegetarian and Vegan Foundation will be launching White Lies, a campaign to raise awareness of the health risks of consuming dairy products. Why You Don't Need Dairy, an event to mark the beginning of the campaign, will feature Heather Mills McCartney, wife of former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney, as a speaker who will call for milk to be dropped from the nation's diet. Other speakers include Professor Jane Plant CBE, a geochemist, who fought breast cancer three times and went into remission after giving up dairy products. Plant is the author of the best selling books 'Your Life in Your Hands - Understanding, Preventing and Overcoming Breast Cancer' and 'Prostate Cancer.' On March 1, the foundation called for a total ban on all imports of milk that contain raised levels of a growth hormone linked to cancer. Tests confirmed that milk from the US is being imported into the EU, dosed with the synthetic growth hormone, rBST, recombinant bovine somatotrophin. According to The Vegetarian and Vegan Foundation, one of the effects of this hormone in milk is to increase its levels of the naturally-occurring growth hormone IGF-1 as much as fivefold. IGF-1 has been strongly linked to certain cancers. In a related post, drinking milk can lead to ovarian cancer, we shared news on a Harvard School of Public Health report which indicated a 19 percent higher risk of ovarian cancer for some women who drink milk. Included in the post is the Nutrition Resource Centre of the Ontario Public Health Association, Non-Dairy Sources of Calcium, available as a PDF document online, with non-dairy food suggestions that offer plenty of calcium. In 1956, Paul McCartney lost his mother, Mary, to breast cancer. His first wife, Linda McCartney, died on April 17, 1998 from breast cancer. > So as you accuse me of being a Vegan, I accuse you of being a PAID > Professional Obfuscator! Mad Max ain't no professional obfuscator! He is just a Christian, whose obfuscation comes as second nature. Ask him what the Bible says, and he obfuscates! Ask him if he can raise the dead and Mad Max obfuscates! Ask him if he can heal the sick and he obfuscates! Ask him what his Christianity is good for and he obfuscates! Ask him if he has such great faith in the Lord, why does he cling so to all things physical, and Mad Mad obfuscates! Mad Max ain't no Christian because he has no faith in his faith. :( Who says so? I do! Just thought that Mad Max might want to know that his shallowness isn't fooling anybody. By the way, in what state do you live? (Odd question, I know, but it certainly ties in to the topic of this discussion.) Max, You asked: >By the way, in what state do you live? (Odd question, I know, but it >certainly ties in to the topic of this discussion.) I like this question; we might be able to accomplish something as a team together yet. You may be beginning to see more in my postings than appears typically. I've lived in California for 30 years - - SF Bay area. Why? I'm a retired computer design engineer; the current owner of my patent (#4,085,439)being Northrup-Grumman. My mission-control-optimized instruction set design flew on the Galileo Space Craft (NASA) to Jupiter and flies on virtually every currently operational jet fighter in the world. After you reply, I will come back with my theory why I believe living in California increases the odds of cancer hitting many Californians sooner, harder. TTYL, Bill > I like this question; we might be able to accomplish something as a > team together yet. You may be beginning to see more in my postings > than appears typically. I asked for 2 reasons. 1 - if your answer had been anything other than California, I would have known you were lying about buying raw milk from Whole Foods and would have dismissed you as a spammer or someone trying to push an agenda. In the time frame you mention in your article, there would have been no other states that would have allowed the legal sale of raw milk in a Whole Foods market. 2 - if your answer WAS California (as it is) I would certainly look to other environmental factors as the cause of your cancers. The only dairy I'd trust raw milk from in California would be Organic Pastures Dairy. Their cows are on green pasture 24 hours a day. They are even milked on green pasture. Most other raw milk dairies, including one of the largest, Alta Dena, feed their cows nothing but grains. As I've said many times, if you can't get raw milk from animals eating a natural diet, don't drink milk at all. Cows living in most areas of California would be exposed to several environmental pollutants that could potentially cause cancer. I recall reading articles about "rocket fuel" in iceberg lettuce grown in California. Apparently there were pollutants in the water used to irrigate the fields where the lettuce was grown. I have no reason to doubt your claims as a scientist (or mathematician if that title is more appropriate) but that in itself does not make a person a nutritional expert. To the contrary, one would expect that a medical doctor, as educated on the human body as they are supposed to be, would know all their is to know about nutrition, but I find that most medical doctors I talk to (especially my own) know next to nothing about the science of nutrition. I do not claim to be a nutritional expert myself. I only claim to have helped many people who were willing to listen to me and learn from the knowledge I've accumulated over the years. Of those people, many, MANY of them were former vegans who had lost their good health from a diet devoid of animal foods. Some were even so far gone that they were losing their hair. I am curious to hear your theories, but as you should be able to tell from the link I've already provided, there's not much that can be said to prove that a vegan diet is what's right for humans. There's too much evidence against the notion. Max. Max, You wrote (above) >I am curious to hear your theories, but . . . . . . < My theory is simply that the "unusually high" (a phrase I often see in the papers) cancer rates in California are caused by the "Fortified" milk and milk products sold only (I believe) in the State of California The state of California has for many years required all retailers of milk products to sell a "Fortified" milk in dairy products having under 4% butterfat. Apparently the California Milk Advisory Board (or a similar marketing entity) pursuaded the State of CA to require all under 4% milk products to be mixed with a goodly percentage of non-fat powdered milk - - and, in turn, the State in turn sanctioned higher prices for the milk products, because they were "Fortified" at exta expense. I contend that the extra casein (milk protein) in California's unique fortified milk is the most significant cause of higher cancer rates in California. Now I need to get valid stats to back my theory, and if stats show higher cancer rates in CA, initiate a properly designed study to prove or disprove my theory. I could really use some help from you or someone out there who can get me accurate California breast, prostate, and skin cancer statistics as well as those for other states. If CA cancer stats are statistically significantly higher than other states (especially neighboring states), then I contend this alone is grounds to do a full study comparing cancer rates among fortified milk consumers versus unfortified milk product consumers. My agenda here is to prove or disprove my theory. And if the stats and subsequent study results support my theory, I will work with other interested parties to require by law the State of California to warn milk consumers of the potential risks. For now, the jury is still out on this theory, but I want to log this issue here, as I believe not one in a million Californians knows he/she is drinking "fortified" milk, nor do they understand the possible (frrom my experience) increased cancer risk. I'm sure you will throw a barage of barbs at this theory, but I assure you, if I had the money at my disposal, I would privately fund this study before looking for some new, highly profitable drug (with a dozen side effects) to "cure" cancer. My interest here is to discover the simplist way, not the most profitable way to end cancer as a significant health problem. - Bill > I'm sure you will throw a barage of barbs at this theory, but I assure > you, if I had the money at my disposal, I would privately fund this > study before looking for some new, highly profitable drug (with a dozen > side effects) to "cure" cancer. My interest here is to discover the > simplist way, not the most profitable way to end cancer as a > significant health problem. Actually, your theory is not too far off. I didn't know about the law in California you mentioned, but knowing that now, I fully understand your experience. I certainly hope other states don't adopt such idiocy. While I can't comment on what happens to casein during the drying process to make powdered milk, my guess would be that it's simply denatured as any other protein would be. What you should REALLY turn your attention to is the cholesterol in that powdered milk. The drying process normally uses high heat and lots of air, which tends to oxidize the cholesterol. Natural cholesterol is very beneficial to our health. Oxidized cholesterol is a killer. It is oxidized cholesterol that can cause serum cholesterol levels to increase. That's because the oxidized cholesterol causes damage that our own cholesterol must repair. The body sees the damage and triggers the liver to produce more cholesterol. If you haven't already, I highly recommend reading the info at www.realmilk.com. You'll see both sides of the issue there, and might find the answers to some of your questions. For your research, a good place to start might be the California Cancer Registry: http://www.ccrcal.org Click on the "Publications" link at the top to get stats on various types of cancer. Of course this info will probably be difficult to compare with other states' info since the formats will more than likely be dissimilar. Another site that *may* be of some help to you is the National Cancer Institute. http://www.cancer.gov I've never used the site, so I can't really comment on its usefulness. I know it has some data in it, but I don't know how applicable that data will be to your search. Sorry for the misunderstanding at the start of the thread. Your post *did* look just like one of the dozens of spam posts we see here all the time. I'm happy we got the misunderstanding worked out. Max. > Max, > You wrote (above) [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > - Bill My theory, regarding the elevated incidences of cancer, is generally poor nutrition combined with somewhat higher exposure to carcinogens. Of key interest, nutritionally, are Vitamin C, collagen, L-Lysine and L-Proline. Cancers occur when cells fail to function normally and begin uncontrolled growth. The cells functional integrity is directly linked to its nutritional health. A well fed cell can maintain its functional integrity against exposure to carcinogens. A poorly fed cell becomes susceptible to multivariate failure scenarios. When we eat, we are feeding our cells. Feed them crap they can't use and withhold from them the nutrition they need, and they will fail to function to their potential, and if the nutrition is poor enough they will fail to function normally at all and will, in fact, function abnornally. Hence the cancers. TC Bill, along the lines of what TC just said, you may want to research the work of Dr. Otto Warburg, whom I previously mentioned. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1931 for his discovery that cancer cells stopped using oxygen to convert glucose to energy, and instead started using a fermentation process. This produces a very acidic environment which tends to kill surrounding healthy cells, allowing the cancer cells to multiply. Dr. Warburg's discovery SHOULD be required reading for every medical student on the planet, but most doctors have never even heard of him. Max. Max, I've been focussed (but not yet written about it) on pH, body acidity, food acidity, for two years, and have been fully aware of the probable relationship between cancer and acidity. I have quite a story to tell, infact. I left it out of my book, as the book will be used by many who don't understand body pH, but yet, if not side-tracked by details will become healthier by simply following the top level diet changes I have said so helped my wife and me. Briefly, I was shocked to find in fall 2003 that my salva was pH 6.0 and urine, 5.0 (I felt this was low, but blood tests say this is "in range"). I was also shocked to get specs from leading springwater companies that indicated the low end of their "Spring" water was pH 5.0. So I checked around and stumbled on water ionizer products which promised to separate and cast out the acid ions and give me a water at pH 8.0. I began drinking/cooking with this water, and noticed in days my saliva had gone up to pH 6.5; urine 5.5. So in absolute terms, I had increased my body fluids alkalinity by half an order of magnitude. A month later Jan, 2004, I added 3 qts/wk raw, whole,organic milk to my diet and my PSA, which had been steady at 2.6 (See page 6 of my book, www.curemycancer.org) shot in 10 months period to 5.8, bringing with it full blown prostate cancer and 12 basal cell skin sites. The point being: Significantly increased body fluid pH followed by moderate high quality dietary milk yielded ferocious cancer growth. PS: Wife and I have continued using the ionized water, exclusively, and after getting off milk and most other dairy/meat, have had no disease at all ! Because increasing my body pH didn't seem to be a factor in my beating back cancer, I have written nothing about adjusting my body fluid pH until now. - - Bill For TC and Max - - one last theory regarding my Type B carcinogens - Animal Protein Toxins, - - one which answers the question, "Why didn't my copious milk consumption since age 1 trigger the first skin cancer at age 30 or 25? Here goes. All my experience observing my family back to my great grandparents to my grandchildren and friends through the years, and finally myself, I advance the theory that animal protein or its negative component(s) (I call it AP Toxins) are cumulative in our bodies and that we each have a lifetime limit of these toxins. Because we all eat different amounts of animal protein at each meal, there is a wide range of ages at which different people reach their limit. By age 60, we have eaten 65,700 meals. Just one extra ounce of animal protein per meal would have you accumulate 65,700 units of AP Toxins. We need to assess each animal protein source to determine how much AP Toxin there is in one ounce of each source. This would answer the question, "Is yogurt lower in this toxin than 2% milk?" - - as some of us suspect. "Does steak contain more AP Toxin than chicken," etc.? At this point, anyone can see why small differences in animal protein intake per meal can explain why I got my first skin cancer at age 36, while my father was in his 60s before his first skin cancer. Of course, there are other factors, like time in the sun, etc., but a primary factor is accumulated AP Toxin. Now, consider that at my present AP Toxin accumulation level at age 65, it takes only a few quarts of milk per week in me to spawn multiple cancers. Back when I was age 36, it took meat main courses two meals per day, every day, lots of ice cream, 3-egg omelets with sausages - - you get the picture - - to slowly bring out my first skin cancer over 5 years before it was diagnosed and removed. So the name of the game for all of us is to plan to continuously decrease animal protein intake as we age - - to be safe, the sooner the better, so there'll be room for some animal protein in your diet as long as you live. I believe there is value in small amounts of mild animal protein in the diet each week to supply key nutrients (e.g., B12, etc.) not effectively obtained from plant foods. I have included our current "Food Eating Frequency Goals on page 1 of my book at www.curemycancer.org . Beyond this animal protein-cancer association theory, I believe, based on a lot of good evidence, that 95% of all age-onset disease is caused by AP Toxin as we each approach to our limit of it. I watched my mother hit her limit at age 80 when she began to literally disintegrate from, blood cancer, osteoporosis, Parkinson's, colon cancer, among other diseases. The doctors had her on 12 or more pills a day to keep her going in her wretched state for her 5 "extra" years. All her adult life she knew something she was eating was ailing her; the one food group she never thought to try removing from her diet was dairy and meat (animal protein). I discovered what foods had ailed her 3 years after her death. Eating the same foods my mother ate for his last 65 years, my father died with Alzheimer's, melanoma, mental depression as known ailments. I have many other examples, but they all tell the same story. Thus I postulate it is not our genes that are sickness or wellness prone; it is the rate we eat animal protein during our lives. Why, you ask, does disease seem to come early in families ?? Because parents teach their kids to like and eat certain foods and establish eating habits, some of which tend to be passed down for generations. A family line that has for generations encouraged extra helpings of animal protein foods tends toward disease at an earlier age than a family that stresses a higher ratio of plant to animal food consumption. Yes, refined foods, sugars in excess will have an impact on all this but my experience says that these items are 1/3 to 1/5 as detrimental to health as animal protein is. I'd love to see these Simple Carbohydrate Toxin factors as well as AP Toxin factors quantified as soon as possible. After I had developed this theory based on my experience, I read Dr. Campbell who observed ("The China Study", Pg 85) that study results led him to conclude that genes have only a 2% to 3% impact on one's health. I rest my case. - - Bill Just when I was starting to have a little respect for you, you blow it. I handed your answer to you on a silver platter and you completely ignored it and went on about animal proteins. You didn't mention even a possibility that cholesterol may have been the culprit. Had you even mentioned *something* about cholesterol in your reply in any way, you would have kept your credibility. Your unwillingness to talk about other aspects tells me your here with an agenda. And again about T. Colin Campbell? Let's look at some of the numbers from the China Study, shall we? Let's look at how all-cause death was correlated with various foods in the study: Corr Coeff. Item Item Description -29 D005%FATKCAL Percent of fat that makes up the diet 30 D009%CARBKCAL Percent of carbs that make up the diet 31 D028PLNTFOOD plant food intake -24 D034ANIMPROT animal protein intake 28 D035%PLNTPROT percent of dietary protein from plant foods -28 D036%ANIMPROT percent of dietary protein from animal foods -29 D048EGGS egg intake -27 D409MEAT meat intake -25 D050REDMEAT read meat intake -30 D052FISH fish intake -31 D082MUFA monounsaturated fatty acid intake -25 D084SATFA saturated fatty acid intake -34 D085CHOL dietary cholesterol intake 31 Q158dWHEAT wheat intake (questionnaire) -35 P001TOTCHOL Total serum cholesterol level -29 P002HDLCHOL serum HDL cholesterol level -26 P003NONHDL Non-HDL cholesterol level Honestly, I don't care nearly as much about cancer as I do all-cause death. I'm not going to avoid foods that may or may not cause cancer if it means I'm going to die from some other cause sooner. As you can clearly see, animal foods were NEGATIVELY associated with all causes of death. That's the bottom line of the China study that the "great T. Colin Campbell" failed to tell everyone. I'm now back to the opinion that you're just a vegan with an agenda. You haven't presented anything here but your opinion and you refuse to look at more plausible alternatives to it. I'm sorry. That kind of attitude is of no value to me. Max. >Just when I was starting to have a little respect for you, you blow it. > I handed your answer to you on a silver platter and you completely [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >would have kept your credibility. Your unwillingness to talk about >other aspects tells me your here with an agenda. Are you talking about cancer or something else? There are very little proof about connection btw. oxidised cholesterol and cancer, except when the diet is very high in PUFA's. Look rather to other prooxidants and also to deposits of radioactive materials in your neighbourhood. Over here, radon exposure is a real threat, not coming from nuclear tests, but from naturally exposures of radium and uranium in soil being there for million of years. Like, Oslo is build on deposits with alum shale (alunskifer) which is leaking radon which again give rise to polonium exponentiation. About 10% of homes in Norway has more than 200 Bq/m(3) of radon in air. >range"). I was also shocked to get specs from leading springwater >companies that indicated the low end of their "Spring" water was pH >5.0. So I checked around and stumbled on water ionizer products which In Northern Europe, due to sulphur oxide downfall from pollutions from coalfueled power plants in Germany and England, water pH was down in 3.5-4 range. Very few places had as high as 5. And still they are low. But not anymore cancers than most other places in Western hemisphere. On the other hand, places in US with lot of Se (which is far more toxic than fluorine by the way) has far lower cancer rates than area with low Se content. I do not know average California levels, but would believe them quite lower than in central areas of US (where they may even be in chronic to even acute lethal ranges) TC, Let me add the following, perhaps surprising theory - - based on living with and examining my own cancers as they swelled and ebbed. Remember, as you read this I am an Engineer, trained to solve problems, and I have defined my own terms, rather than read through medical or nutrition journals to get their jargon. I have dyslexia, and reading is not a walk in the park. My theory is that my cancer is initiated by "Type A" carcinogens that I ingested/absorbed from my environment over a period of 59 years. I define a Type A carcinogen as one that yields occasional, scattered, but dormant cancer cells. For example, I spent most days shirt off in the sun from age 9 to 21, no cover, light skin. Ergo, skin cancer cells scattered over the top half of my body. But no skin cancer lesions were visible on me until age 36, left arm. My theory further has identified that for the cancer to grow, a "Type B" carcinogen must be present to facilitate the basal cell skin cancer (or any other cancer cells in the body) to grow and spread. My intuition told me to look for the type B carcinogen(s) in my diet, whereas, I knew the Type A carcinogens would be in radiation and in the air, as well as my food. So from 2000 to 2005, I went back to a pure plant-based diet, and added one item at a time slowly until I saw the spectacular eruption of cancers when I went back on the best quality whole raw milk I could buy and a few other minor sources of animal protein. Voila! My stealth Type B carcinogen discovered! And confirmed by my PSA history chart, p 6 of my book at www.curemycancer.org . I had a history of about 4 spots of basal skin cancer per year since 1980. So I could count on them showing up each year, and I had each removed as they appeared. When my PSA dropped the first time in 2003, I also had no skin cancer at all for one full year that I was off all animal protein but white fish once a week. Then the Milk enabled or "fed and watered" my 12 new skin cancers, and my PSA, which went way up in fall, 2004 ending in discovery of serious prostate cancer. So at the beginning of 2004, I was able to "turn on" my cancers with 3 qts milk, 1/2 lb cheese per week and a meat main course about once a week. My oncologist used hormones and radiation to put the prostate cancer in remission, and I had the skin cancers removed with surgery; BUT my elimination of all dairy and most animal protein (again) has kept all my cancers in remission ("Turned them off") through the present (a period of one year at this writing, and I am betting for many years to come. Two months after I made my discovery of the Milk/animal protein Type B carcinogen on my own, I read in Dr. Campbell's book, "The China Study" on page 57 that he had discovered the same carcinogenic nature of milk protein. Your comments ?? - - Bill To TC 'The Complainer' and Mad 'Max' I should really join in this thread and write about how I survived the cancers known as TC and Mad 'Max.' Just a hint guys. Bill is the one who survived cancer, NOT you buffoons. Just thought that you might want to know. > Cows living in most areas of California would be exposed to several > environmental pollutants that could potentially cause cancer. I recall > reading articles about "rocket fuel" in iceberg lettuce grown in > California. Apparently there were pollutants in the water used to > irrigate the fields where the lettuce was grown. Great, if you want to spend your life looking for safe sources of milk. But, for anybody normal ... How about a normal diet designed for normal people to eat who actually want a life, rather than just live in order to eat some kooky diet! http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/whole-grains.html -- John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science! The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages, the Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before. http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/ >Cows living in most areas of California would be exposed to several >environmental pollutants that could potentially cause cancer. I recall >reading articles about "rocket fuel" in iceberg lettuce grown in >California. Apparently there were pollutants in the water used to >irrigate the fields where the lettuce was grown. I would rather suspect polonium and other long-lived deposits coming from nuclear bomb tests in Nevada desert falling down on the west side of mountains far more than any other reasons in California. But, I would suspect that level of Po-pollution is a high secret in US. > Max, > It must be amazing to be so knowledgeable. You start by being > offensive, then backing off just enough to seem credible. Are you a > stealth Dairy Council person ? They continue to actively discredit the > good work of Dr. Campbell, as the $$$$ stakes are so very high. No, he is just a Christain. Being a good Christian gives him the god given right to be as stupid and obnoxious as he wants to be. > Being a good Christian gives him the god given right to be as stupid > and obnoxious as he wants to be. Yup. What's *YOUR* excuse? > In other words, just take your word for it and buy your book. > Riiiiiight. > > Why is it that spammers always post twice? If it was okay for Weston A. Price, DDS, why not for Bill? On 9 Mar 2006 10:34:35 -0800, Bill wrote in <news:1141929275.870117.172570@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> on sci.med.nutrition : > At age 65, my wife and I are back to good health after a nightmare > journey through my four serious cancers and her heart disease and > breast cancer. A Few Vital Diet Improvements (a free 40-page pdf) at > http://www.curemycancer.org tells our story - including actual medical > records history. Download your FREE copy and read our findings. "Findings" is a big word to me. I would call them hypotheses based on your personal experience. > Based on our experience, we suspect that at least 90% of age-onset > disease is caused by excessive animal protein and trans fats in the > American diet. I gather your experience was about cancer. How do you know that other age-onset diseases are caused by excessive animal protein intake? What do you mean by "excessive"? How many grams per kg of body weight per day? > We observe that hundreds of drugs are now commonly used > to cure the symptoms of just a few foods eaten to excess. Why not > correct the mix of foods eaten rather than suffer the ever worsening > symptoms some foods in excess cause? My booklet is our guide to > rebalancing the diet toward great health as we age. > NOTE: We are not vegetarians or vegans or animal rights advocates; we > are survivors!! Indeed, a vegan would never write "excessive animal protein". A vegan would just recommend "no" animal protein at all! But then, you also write "eliminating 98% of my previous animal protein intake"...! 98% is nearly all. Maybe you *are* a vegan? ;) > We believe that as we humans age, we greatly benefit > by an ever decreasing amount of animal protein in our diets. Do you mean that animal protein is okay for young people but not so okay for the old? > We offer > our own hard medical evidence in our book which proves this contention > to our satisfaction. With a 5% chance of survival documented, I'm > still alive and well after 3 years; I am glad for you. But... have you ever considered that doctors *can* be wrong, sometimes? They think you are going to die, nevertheless you survive, or vice versa. Or, that you might be the lucky 5%? > within the last 30 days, I have had > a full skin exam and colonoscopy which yielded a cancer-free, > disease-free result - - this after eliminating 98% of my previous > animal protein intake 14 months ago. - - Cheers, Bill In fact, you gave up all animal protein except for a morsel now and then, is that so? Enrico, I'm glad to see what I have written has interested you. Welcome to the party. At this point in my thinking, my goal has been to document publicly what I have observed about diet's impact on cancer as I battled 4 cancers over 5 years. I agree from hindsight that some of my word choices in this thread could have been better, but these flaws should not mask the message here that animal food sources stood out (by perhaps by an order of magnitude) over all other food intake as a facilitator of cancer in my body. I would like to see research investigations established to prove or disprove my theories about Animal Food Sources. I want to see this research done as we in Engineering would do it: Monitor food intake versus human health resultant response. We need to document and evaluate (assign weights to) the qualities of foods we eat according to how human health responds over time to each food. This effort I want to see done independent from other efforts investigating WHY the foods react in the body as they do. If we learn that certain foods are ten times more likely than others to harm our health, then it becomes our choice not to eat them, rather than spend a fortune on cures for their symptoms - - or die prematurely. You asked: >How do you know that other age-onset diseases are caused >by excessive animal protein intake? Answer: 1) I watched my wife's cholesterol drop from 314 to 165 between 11/27/02 and 5/12/03 eating the much the same modified diet I was consuming to successfully keep all my cancers in remission. We can produce the medical records to establish proof of her body's response to an estimated 90% reduction in our rate of consumption of animal food sources. 2) I watched my mother, once a school dietician, battle for 10 years 2 major cancers, osteoporosis and Parkinson's. I know for a fact that her diet included significant amounts of animal food sources and hydrogenated oils - - the only two food components she never removed from her diet - - as she never suspected they were a problem. These are two of several observations that lead me to suspect that more diseases than cancer are likely caused by years of excessive animal foods consumption. I will grant you that we have also removed all hydrogenated oils from our diet, so a more accurate statement for the record is: "I believe most age-onset diseases are caused by a combination of excessive animal food sources and hydrogenated oil dietary intake." Which indicted food does what in causing other diseases should be sorted out in the study which I have proposed herein. What I do know is that animal food sources alone triggered my 2004/5 prostate & basal cell cancers to flourish (come out of remission and require professional treatment by oncologists). I believe excessive simple carbohydrates in our foods (especially, high fructose corn syrup - HFCS) are factors in disease, but as I virtually never consumed HFCS in my life, nor did the people I observed closely, it plays no role in my experience, and I thus leave it for another thread to deal with. You asked: >In fact, you gave up all animal protein except for a morsel now and >then, is that so? Yes. I have butter every other day or so on toast, an ounce of sheep milk feta cheese every other day in salad, fish about every 10 days, a few ounces of beef about once per month. Hopefully, my honest response to this question will help you assess what I have said above. By the way, as Max has pointed out elsewhere in his blunt style, perhaps I/we should be using the term "animal food sources" instead of the term "animal protein". Max is correct in pointing out we really don't know what the specific toxin is in the animal food sources - - it could as Max says be the cholesterol or anything else in the animal food sources. THE POINT IS - - my message here does not sink or swim on which toxin in the animal food sources had so effectively nourished my cancers out of remission, causing my 2004/2005 flare-up of prostate and basal cell cancers. Thanks for some good questions. - - Bill I have read Bills book, and find his theories worth studying. Most of the people posting here have expressed their opinion based on what they have read our there, while 'Bill bases his in facts related to his own experience with cancer. I think the problem in this whole theme is the lack of respect that Max, TC and others have for opinions which do not agree with their own agenda. I think Bill has the right to tell people about his own experience with cancer and how in his case reducing substantially animal protein intake has prevented cancer from coming back, There are millions and millions of vegetarians out there and they lead total normal lives, the have chosen to substitute animal protein with vegetable protein. The same right that max and TC have to eat steak, fish or chicken every day these people have of eating whatever they wish. So I think than instead of bashing somebody like Bill who has chosen to share his experiences, and to assume like max did in his first posting that Bill was a spammer and was trying to sell his book, which both were only assumptions proven to be wrong, people should b more respectful and op-en about different points of view. It is really sad to see a group of know-it-all posters not only in this group but other related groups bashing and offending people, just because they present information they do not like. Bill has the right to be heard. I think that a study related to what he proposes makes all the sense in the world, specially in US where almost 600,000 people die every year from cancer. I will gladly accept opinions that are different from mine, but lets keep them in respectful and adult tone. Finally, after reading Bill's book, I can see that his own reason is to let other people know about what happened with him and his wife (who lost 50 Lbs, and lowered her Cholesterol from 307 to 170). Even Max would have to accept that this outcome was very successful. Personally, for a start, I will be rucing substantially my consumption of Milk, Cheese and red meat, and by doing this I hope my Cholesterol level drops also. Studies have shown a big correlation between animal fat consumption and prostate cancer. Please see this paper published in PUBMED the leading index for scientific publications in the USA: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=16435998&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum A low fat diet rich in fruits and vegetables may reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Sunny L. Bombay Population Based Cancer Registry, Indian Cancer Society, Parel Mumbai 400 012, India. lizzy_sunny@yahoo.com BACKGROUND: Diet has been implicated in prostate cancer risk and there is evidence of risk reduction with a healthy diet. The objective of this population-based case control study was to examine whether a low fat diet rich in fruits and vegetables can reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer in Mumbai, India. METHODS: Included in this study were microscopically proved cases of prostate cancer diagnosed during 1998 to 2000 and registered by Bombay Population Based Cancer Registry (n=594). The controls were healthy men belonging to the resident general population of Mumbai, India. Two controls for each case matched by age and place of residence were selected as the comparison group. Data on oil/fat consumption, fruits and vegetable consumption and other probable confounding factors were obtained by structured face-to-face interview. After exclusions, 390 cases and 780 controls were available for final analysis and confounding was controlled by multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: 58.7% of the control group consumed more than 3 kg of fruits and vegetables per week compared to 52.1% of the case group. Controlling for age and probable confounding factors, a statistically significant protective effect for prostate cancer was observed for those who consumed fruits and vegetables 2 to 3 kg (OR 0.5, 95%CI 0.3-0.8) and more than 3 kg (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.6) per week compared to those who consumed less than 2 kg per week. The linear trend for the protective effect was highly significant with increase in the consumption of fruits and vegetables (p = 0.001). Even though not statistically significant, oil/fat consumption showed an elevated risk (OR 1.7, 95%CI 0.9-3.3) for those who consumed more than 2 kg of oil/fat per month compared to those who consumed less than 1 kg. CONCLUSION: The findings from this study support the hypothesis that a low fat diet rich in fruits and vegetables may reduce the risk of prostate cancer. Nothing on my web site http://naturalhealthperspective.com is about treating cancer. It is strictly 100% about preventing cancer, and other lifestyle diseases. I think it best to leave the treatment of cancer to the professionals. Therefore, I have nothing to say on this subject. Treating versus preventing are two totally different topics, IMHO. However, I have in fact downloaded Bill's e-book. Bill has a much a right to express his opinion as anyone else does. If Weston Price could do it, so can Bill. He at least has set up his own web site, which is certainly a step in the right direction. Bill has certainly accomplished a lot more than what TC, Mad Max, or Montygram has done. I challenge TC, Mad Max, or Montygram to put whatever they are yacking about constantly into an e-book and/or a web site. After all, you have to have something to say before you can write a book. Any fool can complain on these ngs like these 3 fools do all the time. One day, I plan on converting my web site into an e-book. Just my opinion, but I am NEVER wrong. On 11 Mar 2006 15:22:50 -0800, dakikos wrote in <news:1142119370.568920.12090@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> on sci.med.nutrition : > I have read Bills book, and find his theories worth studying. Most of > the people posting here have expressed their opinion based on what they > have read our there, while 'Bill bases his in facts related to his own > experience with cancer. What do you think medical research is based on? > I think the problem in this whole theme is the > lack of respect that Max, TC and others have for opinions which do not > agree with their own agenda. I think Bill has the right to tell people > about his own experience with cancer and how in his case reducing > substantially animal protein intake has prevented cancer from coming > back, As long as he makes clear that that is guesswork, not scientific "findings". > There are millions and millions of vegetarians out there and they > lead total normal lives, the have chosen to substitute animal protein > with vegetable protein. So what? Lots of vegeterians, by the way, drink milk, eat eggs, and so on, let alone "vegetarians" who even eat fish! :) > The same right that max and TC have to eat > steak, fish or chicken every day these people have of eating whatever > they wish. Tell Bill. Lots of vegetarians do eat and drink animal protein. Bill argues that animal protein, such as in milk, can be bad for you. Who is right? > So I think than instead of bashing somebody like Bill who > has chosen to share his experiences, and to assume like max did in his [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > other related groups bashing and offending people, just because they > present information they do not like. Bill has the right to be heard. Bill has the right to be heard, and other posters have the right to ask questions and discuss or even criticize his hypotheses. > I > think that a study related to what he proposes makes all the sense in > the world, specially in US where almost 600,000 people die every year > from cancer. I will gladly accept opinions that are different from > mine, but lets keep them in respectful and adult tone. [...] Agreed. But, until a peer-reviewed study provides some scientific evidence that confirms Bill's hypothesis, also tell cancer patients to stick with their prescribed medical treatment. Enrico, You said: >> Agreed. But, until a peer-reviewed study provides some scientific >>evidence that confirms Bill's hypothesis, also tell cancer patients to >>stick with their prescribed medical treatment. I want to make it very clear here that I agree with you: In every case of my cancers over 5 years, I accepted the oncologist's treatment when I had a cancer that warranted immediate action. I have the $300K plus bills to prove this. Fortunately for me, 90% was insured. And on my web page and in my book (www.curemycancer.org,) I make this history and my position clear. But the conclusion I have drawn from my experience is that I successfully delayed my prostate and 12 basal cell cancers by about 14 months by going off animal food sources for 14 months prior ro these cancers. Please look at the graph of my PSA Medical record on page 6 of my book. The lower (2.8) PSA for the year 2003 was uniquely driven lower by elimination of animal food sources (except white fish). As soon as I want back on whole raw organic milk, the PSA and both cancers went wild, and I had to take medical treatment. Multiple family members had died of prostate cancer, so I wasn't taking any chances. The evidence is in the PSA graph straight from my oncologist's medical files as plain as day. This evidence is a strong basis to proceed with controlled studies, the results of which are highly likely to help all mankind. - - Bill Enrico: The tone has changed from agreesive to respectful. That is a good start. Again, this forum is for people to voice opinions. I think everybody is smart enough to perform due dilligence and make their own decisions about their cancer or other treatment. All Bill was doing here was telling his story and showing the evidence in his personal case, and the US constitution gives him the right to say whatever he pleases here and everywhere else. The same way you and the others do. What Bill proposes, and I agree is to tst his theory. there are multiple published paper that suggest that excesive fat in the daily diet may be a trigger for cancers such as prostate. The mainstream of cancer research has a long way to go before they can say they are succesful. There are cancers that are 99% incurable: GBM, Pancreatic and Metatastatic melanoma to name a few. Nutrition should be a factor to consider during treatment. >What Bill proposes, and I agree is to tst his theory. there are >multiple published paper that suggest that excesive fat in the daily >diet may be a trigger for cancers such as prostate. There is almost no doubt about certain fatty acids are dangerous and cancer-cell growing rate (shorten time btw. each cell division because all the signals needed to start a new round of cell divisions are all around, or some receptors has been modified to be giving signals all the time, like in a computer program to forget to set a key boolean variable to false after turning to true). But now it was about animal proteins and not vegetable proteins being the culprit. There is more important information and commentary I didn't have time to include in my previous message above. So I'll add it here. I Quote myself: >>The lower (2.8) PSA for the year 2003 was uniquely driven >>lower by elimination of animal food sources (except white fish). As >>soon as I want back on whole raw organic milk, My basal cell cancer history is of key importance during this same period where I removed most animal food sources, then went back on 3qts raw milk/wk, During my year 2003 of no dietary a |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message