Mark, thanks for all the help making this a quality thread.

I think you missed the point in the discussion where we were talking
about a PLANT. That's right, gosh Mr. Troll, you sure caught me on
something here. There I am, with my car trunk full of 50? Garlic
cloves, hoping to sell them to sick people and make a ton of money,
without human decency.

Actually, while I am laughing at the thought, perhaps lacking in human
decency is a person who won't let anyone have a usenet conversation
about garlic. Nice job Mark, you sabotaged another thread. Mark
another notch on your tube of lipstick.

Dave

All kinds of things can be "good against cancer," but not good for
long-term health.  And then there is the point about just preventing
it in the first place.  Polyunsaturated fatty acids have been shown to
be a sort-of cancer fuel, particularly some of the AA metabolites, for
example.  It's important not to ingest substances that are "anti-
cancer" with no thought about what they do at the molecular-level,
especially if you don't have cancer.  If you are "up" on the evidence,
you'll know about how dangerous LOX and COX-2 activity can be, which
is why I chose to eliminate AA from my body, and now these molecules
cannot be produces.  My approach is mostly based on what I now see as
"obvious:" give the body what is truly essential and avoid "foods"
that are dangerous (especially cooked meat and fat sources rich in
unsaturated fatty acids).

If you don't like being attacked, and want to discuss these kinds of
topics in an scholarly way, you can join my site and post your
thoughts there.  No personal attacks, obscenities, etc., are tolerated
- such posts get deleted or edited.  Otherwise, we have no problem
"agreeing to disagree," so long as you are willing to discuss the
evidence.  For example, I have asked many "HIV/AIDS" apologists to
explain why "HIV" (the particles themselves) can't be found in
abundance in people said to have "high viral loads," but I have yet to
get a coherent response - that sort of thing is not tolerated.
However, I have no problem allowing people to demonstrate that they
don't understand science, so I'll let people have their say, but at
some point, one must insist on a scientific discussion, and not accept
responses like, "it's more complicated than that, and I don't have
time to explain it to you."  My response would be, "the whole point of
this site is to explain scientific notions, so you should find another
site that deals in scientific claims without any explanation."  If the
evidence is "still out," that is one thing, but to insist on a very
specific claim and yet not explain the evidence demonstrates what
might be called a "disordered mind," and is not acceptable.  My site
is at:

http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-