Re: Digest Number 334

[Guest guest]

I> I can't explain why it's happening, but your posts ARE coming through as

an

> attachment to an email, and from 's post, I gather it's mucking up

> the list. If you go to onelist.com and look at your posts in the archived

> digests, you will be able to see what is talking about.

I can't verify this but I've heard that this can happen when the e-mail is

sent in HTML format instead of regular text format. If that's the problem,

it can probably be fixed by changing some kind of option related to your

(Janet's) e-mail program.

Rick

[Guest guest]

>

>Note to KRW. You mention colonic equipment. What type do you have, and

>how do you use it? Are you a professional colon therapist, or is this

>for personal use. Since I have to do colonics so often, I am considering

>purchasing my own equipment. Would appreciate any comments, or

>recommendations anyone out there would care to make. Thanks

I have a colema board and the various tubes, bucket and nozzels that come

with it. The bleach solution works well for those. By the way, I use 1 part

household liquid bleach to 10-11 parts water. I spray it on the board and

soak the other parts. I am not a professional, merely a devotee of inner

cleanliness. The colema board was not expensive. I got it on the WEB. On

thing I find is that it takes me 1.5 to 2 hours to do a through colonic. I

tend to get a stiff back on the board. Padding it with towels helps. Make

sure you are in a warm room or well covered when you use the colema board.

I am going to try the Irons, liquid bentonite/psyillium cleanse next week.

That might bring better results with the board.

______________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

To KRW thanks for the info. Will check itout as I look for other

equipment. Corky

[Guest guest]

>

> Message: 18

> Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:56:46 -0700

> From: " VGammill " <ygammil1@...>

> Subject: Re: Conspiracy

>

> , I can't just let your comments slide past as if you are telling the

> unvarnished truth.

>

> sez:

> > It [the debate] began in relation to falsehoods appearing here about

> conventional

> > medicine such as " surgery can spread cancer " , and " conventional

> treatments

> > hardly ever work " , and that they can be " worse than the disease " . Only

> the

> > last of these suggestions may approach truth in some very extreme

> > circumstances.

>

> First, " surgery can spread cancer " is a falsehood?! You have never

> heard of incisional metastases?

(Patiently) Yes, if you cut into cancer it will recur, and if there are

cancer cells floating everywhere as there sometimes are in advanced cancer

they can settle in and grow in a surgical wound. But I have explained how

in a properly planned and conducted surgical operation with the OBJECTIVE OF

CURE the surgeon keeps well clear of cancer cells to avoid any of this. If

cancerous tissue, or a body cavity contaminated with cancer cells had to

be entered in an attempt to remove a cancer, this would be regarded as an

" inoperable " cancer and any surgery would be for purely palliative

purposes, eg to relieve a bowel obstruction. Sometimes however small

amounts of residual cancer or " seeding " of a wound can be cured by adding

radiotherapy.

Vince, I am disappointed that you did not attempt to address the point I

made about AM trying to sort out which of its treatments work best. I think

I made a good case, but you ignore it and go off on diversions that I have

already dealt with several times.

>I guess these are just new primaries!

>As

> to " conventional treatments hardly ever work " what is your point,

> that they

> do hardly ever work, or they don't hardly ever work?

Don 't bait me, Vince, (I was quoting an Alt site) or I will go back over

your old posts to show how you support scum cancer clinics in Mexico

refusing to divulge their supposed " cancer secrets " . I have given figures

to show how medicine produces long term cancer- free survival in about 50%

of cancers overall and in excess of 90% in many early cancers, whereas it is

quite common to hear alternative sources quote figures like 5% or worse, and

I was sadly never able to convince poor Mike that they work at all.

I love the

> way you pad

> your stats: with every little actinic keratosis treatment it's

> chalk one up

> for conventional medicine.

( still trying to be patient)---- and, moreover, I stated that these

figures do NOT include millions of easily treated skin cancers. They DO

include all comers, ie many who present in the last stages of cancer for

whom almost nothing can be done. Speaking of stats, I note you produce none

whatsoever to support any of your assertions.

That conventional medicine is " worse than the

> disease " does not make much sense as stated. What one can say is that

> virtually all conventional therapies are far more miserable than any

> alternative treatment, with the single exception of the use of

> escharotics.

Any rational comparison MUST include cure rates, and I think you well know

this. Why do you try and defend the indefensible? This isn't a popularity

contest. Cancer treatment is always a balancing act in which the dominant

need is for the patient to end up free of cancer. Who wants a nice

treatment that may or may not work very often, or may not even be " the one

that works for you " ? I contend also that AM typically grossly exaggerates

the side effects of standard treatments, especially when compared to the

depredation of uncontrolled cancer.

>

> sez:

> > I know for a fact that these ideas cause a lot of unnecessary anxiety to

> > cancer sufferers and induce some to take serious risks with

> potentially or

> > readily curable cancers. I don't believe my challenging such seriously

> > mistaken statements " helps no one " (as you state later). It

> could save a

> > life. I have shown why they are falsehoods. I have not attempted to

> > discourage people from using alternatives when they wish, and I have

> > admitted the weaknesses that conventional medicine has with

> most kinds of

> > metastatic (having spread), as opposed to locallised, cancer.

>

> " If in doubt, cut it out. " Does that sound familiar? Conventional

> practitioner and researcher Judah Folkman proved beyond doubt

> that malignant

> tumors produce angiogenesis inhibitors that thwart the growth of

> metastases.

> When the tumor is excised, the metastases grow unrestrained. The surgeon

> cannot know if he/she is removing all the cancer. A transformed cell can

> double 20 times to contain more than a million cells and it is still

> microscopic. Do you think its another cure whenever you get " clean

> margins " ?

Animal experiments regularly produce odd results with cancer that are not

reproducible in humans. If primary tumours produced truly effective

angiogenesis inhibitors they would be treating themselves, and would be

unable to grow and metastasise in the first place.

Have you tried the thought experiment that I gave Mike? You have a

malignant melanoma growing on your arm etc -- would you leave it there in

case it was suppressing metastases, even though excision is known to provide

a likely 90% cure rate? The same principle applies in the conventional

treatment of all potentially locallised cancer. You have little hope of

cure unless you get rid of the primary, and AM has very few well-documented

accounts of cure of biopsy-proven primary tumours.

> If there is anything that conventional medicine should learn from

> alternative it is that all cancer is systemic.

Utter nonsense. Conventional medicine produced this theory to explain

observations regarding some cancers, and it has been shown to have only

limited application. AM has borrowed it as its own, to justify an

unnecessarily pessimistic viewpoint regarding the treatment of cancer. The

theory arose from conventional experience that some cancers seem to spread

at an extraordinarily early stage, as shown by carefully collected

follow-up data for thousands of patients over many decades.

This is the reason that a brief course of adjuvant (added) chemotherapy is

used more often these days in the treatment of primary cancer, when staging

and/or unfavourable pathological features make the possibility of occult

(hidden) distant metastases more likely (eg breast). The logic is to use

surgery +/- radiotherapy to eliminate the primary and regional disease, and

add the chemotherapy to deal with possible " micrometastases " . The use of

chemotherapy in this fashion has been shown to clearly improve long term

cure rates for breast cancer and others, but we need to do better.

In many cancers it does not apply, because they tend not to metastasise

(spread) until more advanced.

This is why we lean so

> heavily on protecting the general health of the body and enhancing the

> immune system.

Which is to the good, I agree. But I have pointed out before that the

presence of cancer almost certainly indicates a failure of the immune system

to respond effectively to those particular abnormal cells. Conventional

medicine has tried and continues to try a lot of tricks to induce the immune

system to attack cancer and successes are rare. This is why the most

reliable way of getting rid of cancer remains to get it early and to remove

or destroy it. Inelegant, maybe, but the only supportable view on present

information.

What kind of systemic treatment is chemo? It generally

> sickens the whole body, risks major organs, depresses immune function and

> opens the door to opportunistic pathogens, and undermines the

> will to live.

I would agree that chemotherapy is often used in circumstances where it is

not likely to do much good-- as a desperation measure. But in most cases

it is recommended where there is clear data that survival rates are IMPROVED

by its use. If this is the case, how can you argue that the immune system

is being permanently depressed? You yourself in a recent post said it

recovers quickly. Do you want me to send you more figures proving that

chemotherapy improves survival in many cancer situations?

> What does an alternative practitioner do? He/she is blessed with the

> experience of scores of cultures in observing and harnessing the many ways

> nature heals herself.

But ignores the 99% of knowledge about cancer that science has provided.

The alternative practioner usually spends real time

> getting to know the whole person. Healing becomes a shared struggle.

If treatments are effective it shouldn't need to be a struggle.

The

> best healers usually have a strong contemplative/spiritual component to

> their being and their work.

Ok, so what are THEIR results like? They don't let on, do they?

> Over the past 150 years, conventional medicine has turned

> to the dark

> side. It has become a perversion of the very concept of healing. It has

> become a profession dominated by economics,

No. Anyway you defend this when Mexican cancer clinics do it.

by status, by an unholy

> relationship of patent medicine cartels and governing bodies, by

> distortions

> of science, and by self-propagandizing.

Nonsensical rhetoric.

To the high-tech physician,

> " nature " is the filthiest word in any language. It is something that we

> must be forceably innoculated against.

> , at least consider those cancers that on diagnosis

> you know that

> the patient's chances are near zilch. How could you possibly have any

> complaint when he/she opts to forgo a multimodal torture for what

> you would

> consider an " unproven " therapy?

I have many times indicated that I am not referring to this kind of

situation. The problem is that alternative medicine likes to portray ALL

cancers like this. AM ideology fosters a defeatist attitude that

discourages people from seeking treatments of proven effectiveness for even

curable cancers. It does not make clear to these people the risks they are

running, clouding their minds with the quite warped notion that conventional

treatments do more harm than good, and generally shirking the

responsibilities of informed consent.

Isn't it significant to you that

> oncologists refuse chemo for themselves?

Is this a sweeping generalisation? I have heard one instance quoted where

some oncologists were asked about this in relation to one kind of

chemotherapy for NSCLC. This doesn't mean that chemotherapy won't help

some sufferers from even this very nasty cancer, even when stage 1V.

Untreated stage 1V NSCLC patients have a less than 10% one year survival,

while those who receive taxane-based chemo have a 20% 2 year survival. Not

great, but it is up to the individual as to whether they regard this as

worthwhile.

Cancers differ greatly in their responsiveness to chemotherapy. I have many

patients with breast cancer who have been kept going for years with

intermittent courses of chemotherapy for metastatic disease, with minimal

ill effects. Chemotherapy is improving all the time, even this less than

enthusiastic surgeon admits.

>Isn't it significant to you that

> those who choose alternative therapies or integrative therapies tend to be

> much better educated than those who completely trust their conventional

> physician?

No. It's not. The better educated will read more and have more access to

the Internet. So a percentage of them will become influenced by the type

of totally unfounded and inventive rhetoric you are spouting here. They

don't know how little evidence you have for what you are saying, or how

little you really know about conventional treatments. I do.

> For over 30 years I've had many conversations with many scores of

> chemists. We constantly come in contact with carcinogens. Always in the

> back of our minds we wonder what we would do if we got cancer.

> We all keep

> track of the laboratory scuttlebutt that we know will never get funded or

> published. I have never heard another chemist say he/she'd go for chemo.

>

Again the obsession with chemotherapy. Probably at least 90% of the cures

with conventional medicine arise from the surgical component. Some head and

neck cancers, anal cancers and a few others can be cured by radiotherapy

alone. Chemotherapy can cure even metastatic testicular and many childhood

cancers, and can, as mentioned above, improve cure rates when used as an

adjuvant in some cancers, eg breast and colon. In other instances it

prolongs life and relieves symptoms. No one is forced to have chemotherapy

and a thorough process of informed consent is required before it is given.

In conclusion I would like to say once again that attacking conventional

medicine does not help one more cancer sufferer know which alternative

treatments work well enough or often enough to be worth trying. I don't

care to have to keep on rehashing the above. I would like some within AM

to reconsider whether the present situation regarding the information

available about alternatives is satisfactory or not. If it is not so good,

what can be done about it? I have offered suggestions.

I am sick of my cancer patients saying what do you think of this alternative

treatment? and having to say " I don't know- there is no good evidence as to

whether this works better than any other " . I also get very upset when they

are distressed by false, ignorant and mean-spirited propaganda against what

we do.

Moran

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Oh my gosh! I was just noticing again this summer that my knees don't tan

either! They don't really look like scars, they just stay white from all

those falls! I just shake my head, and think how far I've come despite all

those falls!

One day at a time...

----- Original Message -----

From: <egroups>

<egroups>

Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 5:51 AM

Subject: [] Digest Number 334

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> STEALS AND DEALS! Cheapest prices on airfare, new cars, insurance, maids,

> contractors, collectibles, more. Get exactly what you want at the lowest

> price. New FREE service!

> 1/5746/13/_/616793/_/961753902/

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

>I was wondering if anyone has a natural rememdy for

acne.

When i was a kid, tea tree, tons of water, vitamin D (sunlight or a tanning

booth) plus NOT touching it, worked

> in Golden,

BC....

with the GM...first freeze the milk...then fill your sink with a few inches

of cold COLD water with ice cubes...place your bowl with GM in the

sink...LITTLE BY LITTLE add your Lye, and stir, keeping the temp at no

higher then 100 - 110 degrees...then add a little more, then a little more

NEVER ADD ALL THE LYE IN AT ONCE...when your milk curdles..chuck it...its

garbage now.

Ps...I used to holiday in Golden in the HOT HOT summers...very cool place

(im in Vancouver)

>I recently purchased some eucalyptus eo and would like to make a soap with

it.

I smelt some eucalyptus eo soap the other day...smells wonderful..try it. My

personal preference is .5oz to a pound...(not saying everyone has to do

this..)

[Guest guest]

,

Here is what I have done when makeing lip balm and it works for me.

I used an old pot we had, (my god we have three sets, one good, two old, you

can get really cheap ones from walmart.target,etc.)

Anyway, I didn't make a makeshift double broiler, I just put the pot on the

open flame, added my ingredients, when everything melted and all flavor

added, I used a dropper, I guess that is what it is called, I got it in the

kitchen gadgets aisle in walmart, probably a turkey baster. Anyway, I used

that to suck up the solution, then put it in lip balm tubes. I did keep my

pot over an open flame the whole time.

Kris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/9/00 2:44:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

Dregroups writes:

<< Sherry >>

I can cartainly understand your frustration with the sig files, et al. My

solution to this problem was to sign up on a digest version of the egroup. I

recieve one, sometimes two messages per day, containing all of the messages.

Each message has a line between where it ends and the next begins. I read the

beginning, which is the message, then scroll down below the line for the

next, without reading all the attachments. I recieve ALL of my egroup

messages this way and it takes very little time to get through them. Hope

this helps.

Penny

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/9/00 2:44:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

Dregroups writes:

<< And I built the synchronizer and it was bullshit!! The plates are

connected via a SINGLE WIRE-no circuit and I couldnt get a reading of

any kind--but I guess thats OLD NEWS....I know that sometimes to

avoid hassles or for whatever reason an author will deliberately omit

a certain piece of information that would be obvious to a tru >>

RWB:

My huisband is a cerified electronics technician. He built one and it works

great. I suppose you may have a hitch in your giddy-up, is all. I'd suggest

you refer to the page someone listed, or find someone electronically trained

to give you a few pointers. And keep trying, no one ever won who first --

quit.

As for the zapper, I don't care WHAT it's origin is, I'm so glad Dr.

shared it with us! I'm glad you were excited about the books, They're a great

read and have something to offer everyone!

Welcome!

Penny

[Guest guest]

I know two people who built their own syncrometers, and report

fabulous results. I know another who bought one, and reports positive

results. But it takes MUCH practice to learn how to get the results.

As for a synchronizer, what's that?

Leo.

--------------------------

> In a message dated 10/9/00 2:44:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Dregroups writes:

>

> << And I built the synchronizer and it was bullshit!! The plates

are

> connected via a SINGLE WIRE-no circuit and I couldnt get a reading

of

> any kind--but I guess thats OLD NEWS....I know that sometimes to

> avoid hassles or for whatever reason an author will deliberately

omit

> a certain piece of information that would be obvious to a tru >>

>

>

> RWB:

>

> My huisband is a cerified electronics technician. He built one and

it works

> great. I suppose you may have a hitch in your giddy-up, is all. I'd

suggest

> you refer to the page someone listed, or find someone

electronically

trained

> to give you a few pointers. And keep trying, no one ever won who

first --

> quit.

> As for the zapper, I don't care WHAT it's origin is, I'm so glad

Dr.

> shared it with us! I'm glad you were excited about the books,

They're a great

> read and have something to offer everyone!

>

> Welcome!

>

> Penny

[Guest guest]

Dear Jennie,

I just LOVE to read your posts. Again, I say CONGRATULATIONS to you and your

wonderful Ize! By the way, I agree with you. My daughter, although younger,

sounds exactly like your son.

P.S. We go to Burger King. Haven't heard chicken yet, but have heard a

pretty good fries. And the therapist I wish I could clone gives GREAT,

BIG hugs. Last week she asked if she wanted " another " hug. M. said " I

want un-u-ther " . (Yes, I dropped the dish in my hand.)

[Guest guest]

Tina,

Great job with the mands and intraverbals. We also are trying to get the

manding going on a higher level. I love the clickers because it is so

concrete and you really know the true numbers. It is also fun because I

think everyone on our team wants " their " numbers to go up - and they do -

because they are more conscious of having Jer mand more. Our goal is to have

Jer mand (spontaneous and prompted for now) between 800 and 1,000 times a

day. Last week one day we reached over 700! That's up about 400 in three

weeks! What's really cool is that some of the many new mands, which are

often prompted, are becoming more spontaneous. Jer also seems so much more

independent because we are having him do so much more in order to create the

EO for the mand. I too slip in intraverbals here and there and Jer is also

starting to pick these up. I really do see a difference!

I just want to make sure I am keeping track of mands properly. We are

focusing on one word mands. We have dropped the " I want. " So, If Jer asks

for " Butter " for his waffle, we have him come to the frig and mand " open -

frig - take out - butter " - etc. That would be four mands on the clicker -

correct?

Thanks for any input!

Rosie

[Guest guest]

Dear Suzy:

I must admit your mind is good. I drew my wife's bloods yesterday,

and so far her liver tests, CBC, Thyroid, and all else have returned to

" normal " . Now we have to wait the few weeks until the viral loads come

back. Thanks for asking and remembering. Marty

Message: 5

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:07:33 CDT

From: " Suzy Balone " <suzybalone@...>

Subject: Re: Digest Number 332

Marty,

Isn't it about time for your wife to get her 6 month pcr done or are

you

waiting for the results? have been thinking of both of you and hope

that

she clears the virus, keep us posted.

Suzy

[Guest guest]

Dear All:

My wife wanted to convey the message that she is really grateful for

everyone's thoughts, and we are hoping all is as expected. I hope we

start a trend that everyone else here follows=beat this thing. It is

ironic that her 6 month post therapy coincides with the dates that her

ex tried to kill her, twice, and she got the 52+ units of transfused

blood, and HCV. I hope this is a good Omen. Thanks again. Marty and

Debbie

[Guest guest]

Dear All:

My wife wanted to convey the message that she is really grateful for

everyone's thoughts, and we are hoping all is as expected. I hope we

start a trend that everyone else here follows=beat this thing. It is

ironic that her 6 month post therapy coincides with the dates that her

ex tried to kill her, twice, and she got the 52+ units of transfused

blood, and HCV. I hope this is a good Omen. Thanks again. Marty and

Debbie

[Guest guest]

Marty and Debbie,

Our thoughts and prayers have been with you both since the beginning. You

are obviously both very strong people.

We will be hoping for good PCR results, and hope also that the ironic dates

make Debbie even more powerful.

Stay positive,

Lora

[Guest guest]

Marty and Debbie,

Our thoughts and prayers have been with you both since the beginning. You

are obviously both very strong people.

We will be hoping for good PCR results, and hope also that the ironic dates

make Debbie even more powerful.

Stay positive,

Lora

[Guest guest]

Marty and Debbie.... My prayers are with you for negative results!

good luck

alley/

ICQ 12631861

alleypat@...

http://www.flash.net/~alleypat

[Guest guest]

Marty and Debbie.... My prayers are with you for negative results!

good luck

alley/

ICQ 12631861

alleypat@...

http://www.flash.net/~alleypat

[Guest guest]

I can't agree that your causes that you list caused my thyroid condition. It tends to definately run in a genetic pattern in my mother's family and I have traced it back with genealogy research as far back as the mid 1800's in my family. We all didn't stay in the same place either and are spread out in several states since then. No, I have to say my problems with the thyroid gland are definately genetic. I have also read that some people's thyroid problems can be caused by radiation exposure or by exposure to way too many x-rays as a child like they did in the 1950's. I have been on the cytomel/synthroid combo for a month now and it is working great for me. I respond to the inert ingredients as well. I feel better much better than even my earlier post. I tried the natural stuff and it didn't work for me. I still had to have surgery. I do think some people do respond to the natural stuff but not all do. My endocronologist that I see here in Houston says he has some people on what I take, some on armour, some on generics that it changes with each person and some who do well just with supplments. He is right though, I refuse to give up the cytomel/synthroid combo. He said everyone he has put on this combo tells him that after they adjust to it. I have adjusted and I refuse to give it up. I am still working on the weight issue. I now feel like exercising and I am am sort of doing a modified diabetic/zone diet. We will see how it goes.

[Guest guest]

CAN YOU HANDLE THE TRUTH????

" Parasites are the missing diagnosis in the genesis of many chronic health

problems, including diseases of the gastrointestinal tract and endocrine

system. " ...(LET'S NOT FORGET CANCER)

- Dr Zoltan P Rona MD,M.Sc

" Parasites are often difficult to completely eradicate and treatment might

take a year or longer for complete clearing. The incidence of parasitic

diseases in North America is skyrocketing because of increased international

travel, contamination of the water supply and the overuse of chemicals,

mercury and prescription antibiotics. "

- Dr Hermann R Bueno MD

" Parasites are more common than people suppose and they can be behind many

illnesses, including colon disorders. They are more common in people with

AIDS, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, candidiasis, and many other disorders.

Unfortunately, physicians often do not check for worm infestation. "

- Third Edition Prescription for Nutritional Healing, Phyllis A. Balch,

CNC/Dr F. Balch, MD

" I was convinced that parasitoligists do not get parasites. I like you, was

certain that parasites were something others had to contend with, not me.

Well if I can have them, then you can too and probaly do, since it is

estimated that up to 85% of the population of North America has atleast one

type of parasite. Whether they are contributing to ill health or not depends

on a number of things: the overalll strength of the immune system, the

severity of the infection, the type of parasite and it's location and a

whole host of other factors. "

- M Hartung, Parasitoligist

Signs of Parasites " include " :

yellowish face

fast heartbeat

chest pain

pain in the navel

loss of desire for food

eating more than normal but still feeling hungry

blurry or unclear vision, especially when bending over or standing up

pain in the back, thighs, shoulders

itchy rectum, nose, ears

unclear thinking, forgetfulness, lethargy, slow reflexes

gas and bloating

numb hands

burning sensation in the stomach

drooling while asleep

damp lips at night, dry during the day

grinding teeth while asleep

bed wetting

---

I realize that this may not be a pleasant topic, but it is a necessary one.

It is up to each and every one of us to take responsibility for our own

health. Doctors are not god, nor do they know " everything. " For myself the

medical field failed me. Their drugs only worsened my health and their tests

revealed very little. Even my naturopath's help was limited. I have spent

the past 3 years doing my own " intensive " research in disease, health and

nutrition, including studies with the Canadian School of Natural

Nutrition...Guess what... " WE ARE WHAT WE EAT " .

Here's To Your Health

Donna

_________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

[Guest guest]

Bruce Fife wrote:

> " He then held the beaker of oil over the flame of a Bunsen burner,

>brought it to a boil, and again exposed it to the UV light. A light pink

>color was projected on the screen. It was obvious something is the

>oil had changed. Dr. Corwin explained that molecules of fatty acids

>in the oil had been polymerized by the heat. Polymerization involves

>changes in chemical bonds.

That would of course show that a change had occurred, but doesn't

necessarily indicate the formation of trans fatty acids. Were there any

tests done on these samples?

In the refining process, perhaps the conditions do exist that would produce

trans fats. I would be interested to know if there have been any studies

analyzing different refined oils for detectable TFAs. Do you know whether

this has been done?

Thanks.

~~ Jocelyne