Re: Re: Flax Seed and Cottage Cheese

[Guest guest]

[ ] Re: Flax Seed and Cottage Cheese

> Does anyone know of ANY reason why the Flax Seed/ Cottage Cheese diet

might

> be a BAD thing to do? Can anyone see any harm in trying it??

> Thanks

> B. from Maine

,

The flax seed oil seems fine. The cottage cheese and the various milk

whey products can be good if it is part of a consistant strategy. The

sulfur-containing amino acids in cottage cheese are needed to make

glutathione. Cancer cells use both vitamin C and glutathione to protect

themselves from immune attack. Both vitamin C and glutathione are two-edged

swords. Both products undermine many if not most other cancer therapies.

Put it this way -- in most instances you can kill a cancer much faster by

depriving the body of glutathione.

It is true we need a certain amount of methionine for glutathione. We

get plenty from egg yolk, meats (all types), and milk. Cysteine and

cystine are essential but replaceable by methionine. Methionine is a methyl

donor. Among other things it detoxifies pyridines, but by undergoing

demethylation it becomes homocysteine which is associated with heart

disease. Adequate choline can remethylate. The choline is from egg yolks,

organ meats, lecithin.

Again, cancer cells use glutathione to protect themselves from attack.

Glutathione undermines most chemotherapy. One of the best ways to increase

the potency of chemotherapy is the use of buthionine sulfoximine (BSO) to

hammer down glutathione (Merck XII). Its not just the conventional

therapies that glutathione undermines, the cancer killing properties of

vitamin K3 are sabotaged by glutathione (Clin Immunol 1999 Oct.

93(1):65-74). Another trick of the trade is to use methioninase with

choline restriction to better limit glutathione production and homocysteine

remethylation.

I first started looking into the possibility of restriction of sulfur

containing compounds when I noticed how low the cancer rates and how high

the AIDS rates are in parts of Africa that have methionine-deficient diets.

Additionally, certain cancer strategies that called for additional

methionine were not producing results as reported by those who were

attempting them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nutr Cancer 1997;29(3):195-204

Effect of long-term depletion of plasma methionine on the growth and

survival of human brain tumor xenografts in athymic mice.

Kokkinakis DM, Schold SC Jr, Hori H, Nobori T

Department of Neurology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at

Dallas 75235-9036, USA.

Depletion of plasma methionine is expected to inhibit or reverse growth of

methionine-dependent tumors; however, modulation of methionine and other

sulfur amino acids is not a trivial task in experimental animals.

L-Methioninase from Pseudomonas putida at 1,000 U/kg causes acute reduction

of plasma methionine by 80% in mice, but recovery occurs within 14 hours.

Restriction of dietary choline and replacement of dietary methionine with

homocystine results in 50% chronic reduction of plasma methionine. A > 70%

reduction can be accomplished with a diet deficient in methionine,

homocystine, and choline, but ultimately this diet is lethal. Plasma

methionine can be lowered to a steady state of < 5 microM in mice with a

combination of dietary restriction of methionine, homocysteine, and choline

and synchronous treatments with intraperitoneal injections of 1,000 U/kg

L-methioninase and 25-50 mg/kg homocystine, each administered at 12-hour

intervals. Modulation of plasma methionine by this means causes no weight

loss or pathologies in liver or pancreas, and it does not markedly alter

levels of cysteine, homocysteine, or glutathione in plasma or in hepatic

tissue. When this procedure is applied to athymic mice bearing human

medulloblastoma (Daoy) tumors subcutaneously, tumor growth is inhibited.

Methionine deprivation arrests mitosis by blocking the cell cycle in G2 and

induces apoptosis. Tumor stasis was achieved in 100% of treated animals

within 4 days of treatment, and regression was seen in one-third of animals

after a 10-day period. These data strongly support the use of

methionine-depleting regimens for tumor treatments.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am answering this because you asked. I usually stay out of these

discussions as I don't care to argue science with those who would pervert it

(wittingly or not) for personal economic interest.

The bottom line: if you are trying to " kill " cancer by getting yourself

very healthy in every way, making sure that glutathione is at normal levels

can arguably be justified. If another strategy is used or needed, the issue

become much more complex.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 04/02/2000 2:03:06 PM Central Daylight Time,

ygammil1@... writes:

<< When the chemo docs put together a cocktail, they at least realize that

some things work better together, others don't. There is always reasoning

behind their considerations. >>

Poison and toxins + poison and toxins + poison and toxins = POISON AND TOXIN

<<Most people who practice herbal medicine are

blithely unaware of interactions or cross purposes.>>

Maybe true. All the more reason to find a doctor who is a ND or a MD who

went the two additional years of school to get " holistic " degreed.

>>There are many, many different kinds of conventional medicine and many

types of alternative and herbal medicines. What is the difference? That

God put one of them here? That one is synthetic? That one is natural?

This is mindless thinking.>>

If we are talking about " meds " or things taken orally to heal the body, I

guess that God put them here maybe a factor, if we look at it this way.

Another reason, would be that the body responses best to that which it can

recognize, what comes natural to it. One form of medicine " conventional "

attacks the body and the disease much like you said. It is the type of

thinking that says (and you said it well) - " honey, I've got a headache,

better get me the gun! " I am not saying conventional medicine is worthless,

it has brought a lot of knowledge both pro and con. It is extremely useful

for emergency situations. But for diseases and chronic conditions it is

pretty much useless. There are SO many differences between alternative

medicine (natural medicine) and conventional that we could write a book on

it. One branch of medicine looks at it as attacking the body, one branch of

medicine looks at it as supplying the body with what it needs to correct

itself. Natural medicine is also much more concerned with prevention whereas

conventional medicine thinks of it not. I think it is only mindless thinking

when you don't think about it.

>>The difference is that the conventional treatments can be protected in

such a way as to make money for the big pharmaceutical companies. They

don't work very well because they are not supposed to -- the companies would

be putting themselves out of business.

When a natural treatment looks particularly interesting, the big

companies find a way to take it over or suppress it. So the natural

treatments that you know about or have access to tend to be the dregs.>>

I see this as true, that doesn't make it right. It is not right to hold

people's health hostage so that some sectors of people can " profit " off of

their misery. I don't doubt that the pharmaceutical companies and FDA etc.

probably have much more knowledge that they let out but I do think that a few

may have leaked out beyond their control. I also believe that they would

love to find something patentable to cure cancer, so they don't continue to

look so incompent after all this time, esp. after so many people are

disgusted with their pitiful approach and are finding safer non-toxic ways to

eliminate their bodies of cancer. But they can't seem to find anything that

isn't natural to cure it, isn't that interesting. A growing distrust they

must see and realize and as this is bad for their " image " , I think they would

probably be more inclined to finally " release " that info. as their

reputation is laying on the line. After all they now have AIDS to be their

up-coming money maker, and I wouldn't doubt it one bit if this disease was

not " planted " just for that reason. I do not choose to put my life into the

hands of these types of people, personally. Please do not misunderstand, I

do not think all doctors are " evil " , I know may are very compassionate,

decent human beings who sincerely care about their patients. I did work at a

charity hospital that trained all the new incoming doctors and I can tell you

you could hand pick and count on one hand, which ones truly cared about

people and which ones were in it for the money and prestige. Needless to

say, the ones that were in it for the money and prestige way outnumbered

those who were to truly make a good doctor.

I have two rules when it comes to cancer, which is why I so strongly

oppose the conventional approach to cancer treatments. 1) Toxins do not

cure anything, they only spread poisons to other organs and tissues that were

not previously involved. 2) You don't cure anything by wiping out the

body's natural defense system. You must work with nature and not against it,

if your objective is to cure. I worked the oncology floor and saw the

conventional approach repeated again and again. We were also known as the

death ward. And we were. At first they start patients out on out-patient

chemo, which sometimes bought a little time, but definetaly at a cost to the

patient. I think probably the body was just in shock for a while. And while

it may have temporaly abated the progress of the cancer in some instances, it

created a host of new problems in the process. They eventually ended up on

our floor, where basically we poured more chemo in them, and shot them up

with the strongest narcotics to deal with the pain, and even it was not very

effective. My experience with the conventional approach with cancer is so

that, in my opinion, this approach is ineffective and costly in many ways.

Most doctors surprisingly agree. Many are very distant to their patients,

and I think this is one of the reasons why.. They know it doesn't work, but

to maintain their " position " they must use it.

I went into the healthfield to " help heal. " No one was more disappointed

that I was when I discovered the " truth " about medicine. Granted, I was

extremely naive and trusting. But experience and research on my own, has

answered alot of questions for

me...................................................................Belinda

[Guest guest]

B. Wrote:

>>Does anyone know of ANY reason why the Flax Seed/ Cottage Cheese diet

might be a BAD thing to do? Can anyone see any harm in trying it??

Thanks<<

I can. For one thing, cottage cheese is a dairy product and dairy

products come from animals which have been given hormones and

antibiotics. If you do decide to try it, I think it would at least be

a good idea to get organic cottage cheese... if they make it.

Another reason I would think it was a bad thing to do is because of

something Lyman (ex cattle rancher who now is a vegan, who was

sued with Oprah Winfrey after being on her show and discussing Mad Cow

Disease) said. He said that dairy contains a product called casein

(milk protein). From what I remember, he said that there was an

experiment done with rats. They were given a diet of 20% dairy, which

had casein in it. The rats developed tumors. They took the casein out

of their diet, the tumors shrunk, put it back in, the tumors grew back,

took it out, the tumors shrunk again.

I believe this study may be published in a book by T. Colin .

Lyman is associated with Earthsave

http://www.earthsave.com

There are some links on this page to some other sites of his. He may

have his email address listed on one of them and you could write to him

personally for the info. Or maybe do a search on casein and tumors at

Alta Vista and see if anything comes up. There is an email address

listed for Earthsave and you could probably write there and get through

to there. There is also an article on this page about why dairy

is bad, but there is nothing mentioned about the casein and the tumors,

so maybe this is fairly new information. I heard speak in

Toronto in Sept and I don't remember him mentioning it back then.

Hope this helps.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 04/03/2000 10:26:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

betboys@... writes:

<< n a message dated 04/02/2000 2:03:06 PM Central Daylight Time,

ygammil1@... writes:

<< When the chemo docs put together a cocktail, they at least realize that

some things work better together, others don't. There is always reasoning

behind their considerations. >>

Poison and toxins + poison and toxins + poison and toxins = POISON AND TOXIN

<<Most people who practice herbal medicine are

blithely unaware of interactions or cross purposes.>>

>>

Thank you So much Belinda for your opinion, as your right on the many things

Mike B

[Guest guest]

Belinda,

" Chemo " has become a catchall term for anything an oncologist

prescribes. Because the vast majority of these things are toxic and

ultimately counterproductive, are you saying that we should automatically

dismiss anything that an oncologist would use? That is not unlike an

oncologist refusing to use anything that has not been specifically approved

by the FDA. There are people like this to be sure. They are narrow-minded

idiots who do not care about their patients. Don't lose sight of the fact

that the conventional guys do cure people from time to time.

My point: forget the politics and the philosophies. Look a whole lot

deeper. Look at what works and why. I've seen alternative cancer clinics

that practice standard and accepted alternative care get only a 5% cure rate

with serious cancer. This is about what the conventional guys get. On the

other hand, there are a few people with the money and the connections, and

with a combination of luck and smart decisions are going to come out winners

no matter what they have. I've seen this routinely.

What do the smart rich guys do? They scout around for people like me

(maybe Joe does this too -- I don't know), lay a million bucks on the table,

and say, " OK guys, duke it out. If I die, I'm taking my money with me. "

Those people always seem to come out winners. I take that back. I've seen

one fail like that. He would not cooperate. We are talking about 4 packs

of cigarettes and a liter of J & B every day on top of a lot of fried food.

His stage 4 non-small cell lung carcinoma turned around for two years but

then he sank. People like that pay up front.

This may seem cold blooded, but private research is expensive and

someone has to pay for it.

Re: Re: Flax Seed and Cottage Cheese

> In a message dated 04/02/2000 2:03:06 PM Central Daylight Time,

> ygammil1@... writes:

>

> << When the chemo docs put together a cocktail, they at least realize that

> some things work better together, others don't. There is always

reasoning

> behind their considerations. >>

>

> Poison and toxins + poison and toxins + poison and toxins = POISON AND

TOXIN

>

> <<Most people who practice herbal medicine are

> blithely unaware of interactions or cross purposes.>>

>

> Maybe true. All the more reason to find a doctor who is a ND or a MD who

> went the two additional years of school to get " holistic " degreed.

>

>

> >>There are many, many different kinds of conventional medicine and many

> types of alternative and herbal medicines. What is the difference? That

> God put one of them here? That one is synthetic? That one is natural?

> This is mindless thinking.>>

>

> If we are talking about " meds " or things taken orally to heal the body, I

> guess that God put them here maybe a factor, if we look at it this way.

> Another reason, would be that the body responses best to that which it can

> recognize, what comes natural to it. One form of medicine " conventional "

> attacks the body and the disease much like you said. It is the type of

> thinking that says (and you said it well) - " honey, I've got a headache,

> better get me the gun! " I am not saying conventional medicine is

worthless,

> it has brought a lot of knowledge both pro and con. It is extremely

useful

> for emergency situations. But for diseases and chronic conditions it is

> pretty much useless. There are SO many differences between alternative

> medicine (natural medicine) and conventional that we could write a book on

> it. One branch of medicine looks at it as attacking the body, one branch

of

> medicine looks at it as supplying the body with what it needs to correct

> itself. Natural medicine is also much more concerned with prevention

whereas

> conventional medicine thinks of it not. I think it is only mindless

thinking

> when you don't think about it.

>

> >>The difference is that the conventional treatments can be protected in

> such a way as to make money for the big pharmaceutical companies. They

> don't work very well because they are not supposed to -- the companies

would

> be putting themselves out of business.

> When a natural treatment looks particularly interesting, the big

> companies find a way to take it over or suppress it. So the natural

> treatments that you know about or have access to tend to be the dregs.>>

>

> I see this as true, that doesn't make it right. It is not right to

hold

> people's health hostage so that some sectors of people can " profit " off of

> their misery. I don't doubt that the pharmaceutical companies and FDA

etc.

> probably have much more knowledge that they let out but I do think that a

few

> may have leaked out beyond their control. I also believe that they would

> love to find something patentable to cure cancer, so they don't continue

to

> look so incompent after all this time, esp. after so many people are

> disgusted with their pitiful approach and are finding safer non-toxic ways

to

> eliminate their bodies of cancer. But they can't seem to find anything

that

> isn't natural to cure it, isn't that interesting. A growing distrust they

> must see and realize and as this is bad for their " image " , I think they

would

> probably be more inclined to finally " release " that info. as their

> reputation is laying on the line. After all they now have AIDS to be

their

> up-coming money maker, and I wouldn't doubt it one bit if this disease was

> not " planted " just for that reason. I do not choose to put my life into

the

> hands of these types of people, personally. Please do not misunderstand,

I

> do not think all doctors are " evil " , I know may are very compassionate,

> decent human beings who sincerely care about their patients. I did work

at a

> charity hospital that trained all the new incoming doctors and I can tell

you

> you could hand pick and count on one hand, which ones truly cared about

> people and which ones were in it for the money and prestige. Needless to

> say, the ones that were in it for the money and prestige way outnumbered

> those who were to truly make a good doctor.

>

> I have two rules when it comes to cancer, which is why I so strongly

> oppose the conventional approach to cancer treatments. 1) Toxins do not

> cure anything, they only spread poisons to other organs and tissues that

were

> not previously involved. 2) You don't cure anything by wiping out the

> body's natural defense system. You must work with nature and not against

it,

> if your objective is to cure. I worked the oncology floor and saw the

> conventional approach repeated again and again. We were also known as

the

> death ward. And we were. At first they start patients out on out-patient

> chemo, which sometimes bought a little time, but definetaly at a cost to

the

> patient. I think probably the body was just in shock for a while. And

while

> it may have temporaly abated the progress of the cancer in some instances,

it

> created a host of new problems in the process. They eventually ended up

on

> our floor, where basically we poured more chemo in them, and shot them up

> with the strongest narcotics to deal with the pain, and even it was not

very

> effective. My experience with the conventional approach with cancer is so

> that, in my opinion, this approach is ineffective and costly in many ways.

> Most doctors surprisingly agree. Many are very distant to their patients,

> and I think this is one of the reasons why.. They know it doesn't work,

but

> to maintain their " position " they must use it.

> I went into the healthfield to " help heal. " No one was more

disappointed

> that I was when I discovered the " truth " about medicine. Granted, I was

> extremely naive and trusting. But experience and research on my own, has

> answered alot of questions for

>

me...................................................................Belinda

>

>

> Visit http://cures for cancer.evangelist.net for cancer info or to unsubscribe

>

>

[Guest guest]

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

> In a message dated 04/03/2000 10:26:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> betboys@... writes:

>

> << n a message dated 04/02/2000 2:03:06 PM Central Daylight Time,

> ygammil1@... writes:

>

> << When the chemo docs put together a cocktail, they at least realize

that

> some things work better together, others don't. There is always

reasoning

> behind their considerations. >>

>

> Poison and toxins + poison and toxins + poison and toxins = POISON AND

TOXIN

>

> <<Most people who practice herbal medicine are

> blithely unaware of interactions or cross purposes.>>

> >>

> Thank you So much Belinda for your opinion, as your right on the many

things

>

> Mike B

Now wait a minute! You guys are trying to give poisons and toxins an

undeservedly bad name. What do you think homeopaths do when they use their

bag of poisons such as arsenic and mercury?

I don't hesitate to conjugate tetanus toxoid or diphtheria toxoid to

certain tumor markers to make a vaccine. And I've seen the majority of such

patients turn around when they have failed every conventional and every

alternative therapy--and I mean every therapy.

As I said, you have to dump all this tired thinking and simply look at

what works and how it interacts. Totally ignore the prejudices that come

from pidgeonholing.

[Guest guest]

Johanna Budwig has stated that for Flax oil to be most effective it has to be

given with a sulpher protein like cottage cheese, Tofu,. My dog was diagnosed

with Leukemia on March 19, 1999. He was suppose to be dead in April 1999.

Well he is alive and doing great. When I started giving him the flaxoil and

cottage cheese mixture he responded right away. 4 days later he had a CBC

Blood test and they couldn't find any Cancer and he wasn't anemic anymore.

Anybody who makes a statement that Flax oil and cottage is harmful or doesn't

work is ignorrant and should check the facts out. Their are many people who

have had their cancer's put in remission by using flaxoil with cottage cheese

and Johanna Budwig has helped over a 1000 people with cancer . It has been

shown that omega-3 fatty acids [ Flax oil is full of omega 3} reduce the

amount of linoleic acid that tumours withdraw from the bloodstream denying

them a much needed nutrient. Flax oil also makes cancer cells more vulnerable

to free radical attacke by making their membranes less saturated. A cancer

cell will die if it sustains sufficient free radical damage. Flax oil also

helps stop the process of metassis so the Tumour can't spread. From what I

have read, experienced , flax oil should be taken with a sulpher based

protein and the highest one is cottage cheese reccommended by Johanna Budwig

.. Flax oil also builds up the immune system and it has other benefits, Its

good for diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, skin and hair problems. We need

omega 3 in our diets.

[Guest guest]

My father has NHL. He currently takes MSM for arthritis. What are

the effects of this on cancer? Could it make it worse? Thanks so

much in advance.

Susie