Re: One way to treat cancer???

[Guest guest]

I am always amazed by the folks who come around saying there is only one

way to treat cancer and only one cause.

If anything, my studying of the disease shows that is truly not the

case.

I used to believe it, until I developed cancer and learned more about

the truth. Everything changes when you are diagnosed. Before being

diagnosed, I was playing around with toys, none of it was real. It was

easy for me to sit on my high horse and proclaim that I knew the truth

about disease and I would never develop cancer because I was doing this

and that - which means the cancer could never grow.

What I learned after diagnosis is that we don't know diddly.

Treating cancer as one disease is wrong. Treating everyone with cancer

the same way is wrong. When I see these ideas running around in the

alternative community, it reminds me that there are just as many wrong

ways in the alternative field as there is in the " traditional " medical

field.

The only way to cure anything is to open your eyes and truly SEE.

Before then, it is all a bunch of hooey and people blowing hot air.

ar

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

[Guest guest]

Arlyn

Do you see any progress of modern medicine in the direction (really

with any disease ) ? I am not.

sure if you like to " buy " your health - that newer works.

But for you, as for representee of consumers nation, hard to believe

that. Doctors, insurance companies, TV ads did their job very good.

Nobody but you can help.

Gravity is working even if you do not trust Newton.

Take care!

Andriy

>

> I am always amazed by the folks who come around saying there is only one

> way to treat cancer and only one cause.

>

> If anything, my studying of the disease shows that is truly not the

> case.

>

> I used to believe it, until I developed cancer and learned more about

> the truth. Everything changes when you are diagnosed. Before being

> diagnosed, I was playing around with toys, none of it was real. It was

> easy for me to sit on my high horse and proclaim that I knew the truth

> about disease and I would never develop cancer because I was doing this

> and that - which means the cancer could never grow.

>

> What I learned after diagnosis is that we don't know diddly.

>

> Treating cancer as one disease is wrong. Treating everyone with cancer

> the same way is wrong. When I see these ideas running around in the

> alternative community, it reminds me that there are just as many wrong

> ways in the alternative field as there is in the " traditional " medical

> field.

>

> The only way to cure anything is to open your eyes and truly SEE.

>

> Before then, it is all a bunch of hooey and people blowing hot air.

>

> ar

> --

> Arlyn Grant

> arlynsg@...

>

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 01 May 2008 16:13:27 -0000, " Andriy " <aponhex@...> said:

> Arlyn

>

> Do you see any progress of modern medicine in the direction (really

> with any disease ) ? I am not.

> sure if you like to " buy " your health - that newer works.

> But for you, as for representee of consumers nation, hard to believe

> that. Doctors, insurance companies, TV ads did their job very good.

> Nobody but you can help.

> Gravity is working even if you do not trust Newton.

>

> Take care!

> Andriy

Andriy,

My post didn't say anything positive about traditional medicine, but

pointed out that alternative mindsets aren't much better sometimes.

And yes, actually, I do see some eye-opening in the traditional medical

field. I see that now there is a test to see if your body will

metabolize tamoxifen. So instead of putting all women with ER positive

breast cancer on tamoxifen - because it helps EVERYONE, they see that it

is useless for some.

See, one size does not fit all.

If you think my post was for traditional medicine, you don't know me

very well. I'm on an alternative board for a reason.

ar

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

[Guest guest]

My understanding is that cancer is a metabolic disorder. I know

that many don't agree with this but thats OK. I have collected a

large assortment of antique medical books, many on cancer, and I

discovered that these doctors were indeed curing cancer. They also

knew the cause. Modern times has introduced many toxic chemicals that

did not exist when these physicians were curing this disease and I am

sure that their methods wouldn't be as effective today as they were

way back then, none the less, these people clearly understood the

etiology of cancer. The pathway to wellness is the elimination of the

internal environmental factors that cause good cells to go bad. It

isn't heredity or a lack of chemotherapy or radiation. All of those

methods don't work. The survival rates they pontificate are

meaningless as the poor patient still has cancer. Proper diet and the

elimination of metabolic wastes is the solution to the problem. Of

that I have no doubt. I know a girl who beat pancreatic cancer. I

know how she did it and I also know that the methods she applied will

work for most if not all cancers. The old docs followed that pathway

and they did indeed cure their patients of cancer. Cured, not just a

number in 5 years. This isn't rocket science, just plain old common

sense. I don't fear this disease and no, I don't have it, nor do I

intend to get it. I know how to avoid it and unless I am unknowingly

exposed to some triggering chemical agent, I plan to remain healthy

and that is my responsibility to myself. Looking for a magic pill is

like looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I stood

there once where it contacted the ground. I stood within 5 feet of it

and there was no treasure.

[Guest guest]

You made some good points, Comdyne.

When I became a raw food vegetarian, I also never expected to develop

cancer. But it happened anyway.

I believe what is missing is the understanding that there ARE genetic

components. I live in Florida, and even though I have a nice tan, I

still may be Vitamin D deficient because my body can not assimilate it

well due to a gene mutation.

My point in bringing this up is that no treatment will work on everyone

because of mutations in the body -- or numerous other factors. There

are numerous diets out there that are anticancer - raw foods, Budwig,

etc. Yet, they won't cure EVERYone.

The reason is because they cannot take into account all things that may

be inside the body, or even outside the body. I cannot fix a gene

mutation that does not allow me to process Vitamin D. Instead, I have

to figure out how to work around it.

A health practitioner must look at each client/patient as an individual.

This is essential in getting better. My estrogen positive cancer is

not the same as another type of cancer. It reflects a problem inside

the body, but perhaps not the same problem as another type of cancer

would indicate.

Though all the problems may be classified as metabolic problems, they

are each different. I must fix the hormonal problem inside my body

which I believe was caused by adrenal fatigue. This is not the same

cause as a man with colon cancer. And by saying that all I have to do

is eat right and exercise (or whatever program is proclaimed to be THE

program), is ignorant to the fact that this just won't cure everyone.

Raw food vegetarian diet didn't fix my adrenal fatigue and hormone

imbalance. It did, however, fix a lot of other medical problems.

So, one way to treat cancer doesn't work. People are individuals and

each body contains a different set of problems.

ar

On Thu, 01 May 2008 18:38:58 -0000, " comdyne2002 " <comdyne@...>

said:

> My understanding is that cancer is a metabolic disorder. I know

> that many don't agree with this but thats OK. I have collected a

> large assortment of antique medical books, many on cancer, and I

> discovered that these doctors were indeed curing cancer. They also

> knew the cause. Modern times has introduced many toxic chemicals that

> did not exist when these physicians were curing this disease and I am

> sure that their methods wouldn't be as effective today as they were

> way back then, none the less, these people clearly understood the

> etiology of cancer. The pathway to wellness is the elimination of the

> internal environmental factors that cause good cells to go bad. It

> isn't heredity or a lack of chemotherapy or radiation. All of those

> methods don't work. The survival rates they pontificate are

> meaningless as the poor patient still has cancer. Proper diet and the

> elimination of metabolic wastes is the solution to the problem. Of

> that I have no doubt. I know a girl who beat pancreatic cancer. I

> know how she did it and I also know that the methods she applied will

> work for most if not all cancers. The old docs followed that pathway

> and they did indeed cure their patients of cancer. Cured, not just a

> number in 5 years. This isn't rocket science, just plain old common

> sense. I don't fear this disease and no, I don't have it, nor do I

> intend to get it. I know how to avoid it and unless I am unknowingly

> exposed to some triggering chemical agent, I plan to remain healthy

> and that is my responsibility to myself. Looking for a magic pill is

> like looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I stood

> there once where it contacted the ground. I stood within 5 feet of it

> and there was no treasure.

>

>

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

>

>

[Guest guest]

I agree with that, however, genetic pre dispositions are not the

primary cause. Some of the old books were on the anthropogical

research on cancer starting around 1850. Several knowledgeable people

including one very well-educated ship captain examined the health and

diets of primitive people in various parts of the World. The most

extensively covered were the north-western Eskimos who had never been

found to have cancer until modern foods were introduced to them by

the traders of the Hudson Bay Company, The first native to develop

cancer in 1932 was a live-in servant that was eating the western

style diet and was the first case discovered in 82 years of

meticulous study!

The researcher who authored the work linked the disease to processed

flour and sugar. We all know that simple carbohydrates and refined

sugar is fuel for cancer. How interesting that this early research

led to the same conclusion. Dr. Weston Price also observed pockets

around the World where cancer and other chronic diseases were not

found until the native people began adopting western life-styles.

A book I am reading now is by a doctor that was using high power

diathermy machines to treat cancer. Rather than iradiating the tumors

with the heat generated from the machines, he was stimulating the

pituitary gland,thyroid and genitalia depending upon levels he

measured between the Thyrotropic and Gonadotropic hormones he

measured prior to and after treatment. If his results were truthful,

his technique holds great promise. In present times, Dr. Holt of

Australia was successfully treating the disease using a similar

approach. There was quite a rukus in Australia with torch waving

angry citizens sourounding the AMA's

(Australian Medical Association)building demanding answers as to why

this treatment was covered up and the good doctor being harassed.

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/08/10/the_doctor_many_belie

ve_can_cure_cancer.htm

Raw vegies is only part of the solution and, in fact, unless the

vegies are truly organically grown, they likely have no nutritional

value as most of the minerals have been depleted from the soils

rendering foods grown in them nutritionally inert. See the Senate

Document #264 of 1936:

SNIP

Everyone is unique to be sure but I am convinced that the only way to

beat this disease is through nutrition and improved personag hygiene

habits. Several early doctors stated this and claimed to have great

success with the disease. I saw no reason why they would lie as in

the early days of modern civilization people were far more ethical

than the masked macrocephalic doctors of modern times.

[Guest guest]

Comdyne,

I am not saying that genetic predispositions are a cause of cancer.

They are just one factor that leads to cancer. There are many things

that must go wrong inside the body before cancer grows.

I am an anthropologist, so I am already quite familar with diets of

primitive people. And as a raw foodist, I have also studied the Eskimo

equation, etc. I also know that cancer is rising in Asia due to the

introduction of western food.

But you can not compare primitive people to today's people because those

conditions no longer exist in most of the world. Ideas and theories

must grow and adapt as the world changes.

Treating a person of Today as if they were a person of Yesterday will

not help the modern person that much.

I went three years without sugar and very little flour. Bully for me.

Good nutrition and improved hygiene will take you a long way. But it

won't take everyone to a cure for cancer. Those two items - though

encompasing a large number of things, cannot take into consideration all

factors involved.

And even if the veggies I ate were 100% chock-full of minerals and

vitamins and completely organic, genetic mutations inside my body may

not have allowed me to assimilate the nutrients needed to keep cancer at

bay.

There are cancers that can be cured by diet. And there are cancers that

cannot. Even Ms. Budwig did not have a 100% cure rate.

I do not believe the scientist of old would be making stuff up or lying

about their results. But their results are outdated now. If some of

these leaders were still around today, I'm sure their ideas and

philosphies would have evolved. For instance, Ms. Budwig says no

supplements. She did not have access to the science we have today. She

also did not have access to the supplements we have today. If she did,

she may have found that adding certain supplements would enhance her

diet and maybe even bring her to a 100% cure rate.

ar

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

[Guest guest]

All very good points. No doubt modern cancers are far more prolific

than 100 years ago. Our World is chock full of toxins. They pump

halogens into the water supply and say that it is safe when it is

known to trigger arterial plaques and they tell people that fluoride

is good for their teeth, none of which is true. Dental amalgams,

mercury in Tuna fish, automobile emissions, nuclear power, high

tension lines, etc., all very much different than in the near distant

past. But the results of the past say something loud and clear.

Cancer is a disease of civilization. Sure there may be some genetic

pre dispositions, even this doctor whose book I'm reading now states

that endocrine disfunction is largely genetic. The point is that

cancer is now epidemic and wasn't 100 years ago. That is a strong

case for environmental causes and not much from a genetic standpoint.

Most breast cancer is due to poor drainage due to the wearing of

bras. 100 years ago women didn't wear such stuff and didn't suffer

from BC. One fellow rebuffed me the last time I made this statement

in that women trussed themselves up way back then. Of course they did

for social events but said garments were not a part of daily apparel.

People also got a lot of sunshine before sunscreens were invented and

they weren't keeling over from cancer.

The farther we get from Nature, the sicker we become. The levels of

cancer increases as the populations get farther away from the equator

so it isn't due to exposure to sunlight, its the lack of it that

induces the disease. This is a complex problem for sure, but IMO,

much of it is under our control and not a part of fate.

" Our faults lie not in the stars, but in ourselves, for we are our

own underlings... " You know who...

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/150704-The-vitamin-D-miracle-Is-it-

for-real-

[Guest guest]

Hi Comdyne,

I don't agree with the bra thing 100%. Wearing a bra did not give me

adrenal fatigue and did not mess up my hormones. So again, there is

more than one " cause " for breast cancer. If bras caused cancer, all

women would have breast cancer. But obviously, they do not. Therefore,

bra wearing is not the only cause of breast cancer.

Remember that 100 years ago, the genetic mutations did not come into

play because there were not the kind of toxins we have today. So, you

cannot compare. If we tested people 100 years ago for these mutations,

they would probably be there. The cause of cancer is multiple.

Cancer is definitely a disease of civilization. But not all people

living in civilization are sick. So again, there are other factors that

come into play.

ar

On Thu, 01 May 2008 22:21:50 -0000, " comdyne2002 " <comdyne@...>

said:

> All very good points. No doubt modern cancers are far more prolific

> than 100 years ago. Our World is chock full of toxins. They pump

> halogens into the water supply and say that it is safe when it is

> known to trigger arterial plaques and they tell people that fluoride

> is good for their teeth, none of which is true. Dental amalgams,

> mercury in Tuna fish, automobile emissions, nuclear power, high

> tension lines, etc., all very much different than in the near distant

> past. But the results of the past say something loud and clear.

> Cancer is a disease of civilization. Sure there may be some genetic

> pre dispositions, even this doctor whose book I'm reading now states

> that endocrine disfunction is largely genetic. The point is that

> cancer is now epidemic and wasn't 100 years ago. That is a strong

> case for environmental causes and not much from a genetic standpoint.

>

> Most breast cancer is due to poor drainage due to the wearing of

> bras. 100 years ago women didn't wear such stuff and didn't suffer

> from BC. One fellow rebuffed me the last time I made this statement

> in that women trussed themselves up way back then. Of course they did

> for social events but said garments were not a part of daily apparel.

> People also got a lot of sunshine before sunscreens were invented and

> they weren't keeling over from cancer.

>

> The farther we get from Nature, the sicker we become. The levels of

> cancer increases as the populations get farther away from the equator

> so it isn't due to exposure to sunlight, its the lack of it that

> induces the disease. This is a complex problem for sure, but IMO,

> much of it is under our control and not a part of fate.

>

> " Our faults lie not in the stars, but in ourselves, for we are our

> own underlings... " You know who...

>

> http://www.sott.net/articles/show/150704-The-vitamin-D-miracle-Is-it-

> for-real-

>

>

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

>

>

[Guest guest]

I said most breast cancer. I didn't say all. Inadequate drainage of

any tissue runs the risk of stagnation of the body humors. Blood

oxygen depeletes quickly and the poor flow or stoppage of circulatory

fluids increases cancer risk substantially. Bras, especially

impropper fitted ones, contribute greatly to this proble. Bras are a

major factor, but certainly not the only factor. Women should limit

their wearing of bras to a short of time as possible and should never

sleep in them.

http://www.all-natural.com/bras.html

" Arlyn Grant " <arlynsg@...> wrote:

>Hi Comdyne,

>I don't agree with the bra thing 100%. Wearing a bra did not give

me adrenal fatigue and did not mess up my hormones. So again, there is more

than one " cause " for breast cancer. If bras caused cancer, all women would have

breast cancer. But obviously, they do not.

Therefore, bra wearing is not the only cause of breast cancer.

> Remember that 100 years ago, the genetic mutations did not come into

> play because there were not the kind of toxins we have today. So,

you cannot compare. If we tested people 100 years ago for these

mutations, they would probably be there. The cause of cancer is multiple.

Cancer is definitely a disease of civilization. But not all people living in

civilization are sick. So again, there are other factors that come into play.

>

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 02 May 2008 00:35:00 -0000, " comdyne2002 " <comdyne@...>

said:

> I said most breast cancer. I didn't say all. Inadequate drainage of

> any tissue runs the risk of stagnation of the body humors. Blood

> oxygen depeletes quickly and the poor flow or stoppage of circulatory

> fluids increases cancer risk substantially. Bras, especially

> impropper fitted ones, contribute greatly to this proble. Bras are a

> major factor, but certainly not the only factor. Women should limit

> their wearing of bras to a short of time as possible and should never

> sleep in them.

>

> http://www.all-natural.com/bras.html

Yeah, that's not going to happen.

ar

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

[Guest guest]

> Most breast cancer is due to poor drainage due to the wearing of

> bras. 100 years ago women didn't wear such stuff and didn't suffer

> from BC. One fellow rebuffed me the last time I made this statement

> in that women trussed themselves up way back then. Of course they did

> for social events but said garments were not a part of daily apparel.

For centuries of history and around the world women-and sometimes men-

have been using various things to bind their bodies with. Corsets for

example were extremely popular for a long period of time, some people

still wear them. They were not worn only for social occasions but most

of the periods in which they were used, they were considered a regular

part of daily dress. During some time periods women used them to

change the shape of their figures permanently. Actual physical changes

to the body took place as a result of wearing the corsets over long

periods of time. This was far more confining than bras of today. Some

corsets were made of metal, not even fabric that would breathe. There

are many other examples of binding, including certain Japanese

fashions, nuns dress, and so on.

> " Our faults lie not in the stars, but in ourselves, for we are our

> own underlings... " You know who...

I believe that's Shakespeare-from Julius Caesar.

" The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves that we

are underlings " .

Best, KC

[Guest guest]

Is there another link ,the one you sent is no longer working ?

thanks

From: comdyne2002

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/08/10/the_doctor_many_believe_can_cur\

e_cancer.htm

[Guest guest]

arlynsg@... writes:

> If bras caused cancer, all women would have breast cancer.

They were not pumping estrogen into animals back then either. My mother had

milk delivered to our door twice a week and the grocer had freshly killed

chickens.

[Guest guest]

The link worked 4 me. Try Google and enter 'The Doctor Many Believe Can

Cure Cancer.'

joe p wrote:

> Is there another link ,the one you sent is no longer working ?

>

> From: comdyne2002

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/08/10/the_doctor_many_believe_can_cur\

e_cancer.htm

[Guest guest]

Thanks 4 reminding me to rebuff this comment. 1 in 8 women

develop breast cancer. To me that just about says it all!

Then there was the comment about binding feet. Give me a break...

I didn't do the research, I just reported it. Here it is again:

http://www.all-natural.com/bras.html

BTW: Sorry I didn't mention mammograms, they too cause breast cancer!

http://www.rense.com/general48/mam.htm

I get so disgusted with macrocephalic medical doctors who do not

realize that they are nothing but mental Lilliputians.

>

> arlynsg writes:

> > If bras caused cancer, all women would have breast cancer.

>

SNIP

[Guest guest]

I have yet to meet a woman who can tell me that mammograms caused her

cancer. Comdyne, be careful of broad, sweeping statements. And bras do

not cause cancer. These items may CONTRIBUTE to the conditions that

cause breast cancer.

ar

On Sat, 03 May 2008 01:43:44 -0000, " comdyne2002 " <comdyne@...>

said:

> Thanks 4 reminding me to rebuff this comment. 1 in 8 women

> develop breast cancer. To me that just about says it all!

>

> Then there was the comment about binding feet. Give me a break...

>

> I didn't do the research, I just reported it. Here it is again:

>

> http://www.all-natural.com/bras.html

>

> BTW: Sorry I didn't mention mammograms, they too cause breast cancer!

>

> http://www.rense.com/general48/mam.htm

>

> I get so disgusted with macrocephalic medical doctors who do not

> realize that they are nothing but mental Lilliputians.

>

>

> >

> > arlynsg writes:

> > > If bras caused cancer, all women would have breast cancer.

> >

> SNIP

>

>

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

>

>

[Guest guest]

Its not the only cause but it a major one. We are splitting hairs

here.

Cancer is caused by impaired cellular respiration. Dr. Warburg was

awarded the 1931 Nobel Prize for this discovery. Lots of things

contribute to it. Drs. Rife and Kendall proved that a microbe is

associated with every occurrence of the disease. The presence of the

microbe cannot be determined to be the cause but perhaps the result.

I have said this many times and I believe it strongly, cancer is a

metabolic disorder. Poor tissue drainage causes stagnation and

produces anaerobic environments in the body humors. Hypoxia (oxygen

starvation) causes healthy cells to change their metabolism whereby

they either die or produce an inferior form of ATP. The stasis of the

endocrine system is also a major factor but its failure or imbalance

is probably due to life style and diet like most everything else.

Sure there are other factors, but the ones I identify are the major

culprits. This disease was once rare not too many generations ago and

unheard of in some corners of the World. Today almost 1/2 of us get

it. Why? Are you satisfied with the medical profession's progress? Do

you have faith in them? I don't. I think they are committing the most

gruesome crime against humanity because there were actual cures!

Many, in fact. I got started down this long road by reading

congressman Healy's book 'Politics in Cancer.' The story I

didn't believe was about Dr. Rife. Now I know better. Allopathic

cancer treatment is fraudulent. There were many doctors who wrote

this and a few lost their lives. Did you know that MD was conquered

in 1947? Yep! It was. Dr. Emmanuel M. phson found the problem and

effected a vitamin treatment that totally eliminates all of its

effects. People who followed the simple protocol lived out full lives

without any symptoms of the disease. I see kids in wheelchairs and

there is no need whatsoever for anyone to suffer from that condition.

I gotta tell you...I am mad!

Our friend is alive 27 months after being diagnosed with Pancreatic

cancer. She is alive and well. They can't find any cancer in her! PC! Besides

melanoma, can you think of a more deadly form of cancer? She fixed her low

metabolism and the cancer went away.

Radiation causes cancer, period! This is a proven fact. There is not

dispute. Dr. Gofman did extensive research after WW-II and

clearly made the connection. Mammograms are useless anyway because by

the time it can be detected, it has been in existence for many years.

Thermography is safer, uses no radiation, doesn't break lose DCIS and

detects tumor formations years before they will show up in

mammograms. BTW; Cat scans generate enormous amounts of deadly

radiation. Government officials established long ago that there is no

safe level of ioniozing radiation. NONE! Its all dangerous including

dental X-rays.

" Arlyn Grant wrote:

>I have yet to meet a woman who can tell me that mammograms caused

her cancer. Comdyne, be careful of broad, sweeping statements. And

bras do not cause cancer. These items may CONTRIBUTE to the conditions that

cause breast cancer.

>

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 03 May 2008 03:06:04 -0000, " comdyne2002 " <comdyne@...>

said:

> Sure there are other factors, but the ones I identify are the major

> culprits.

I don't feel you are qualified to be the identifier of these things.

>This disease was once rare not too many generations ago and

> unheard of in some corners of the World. Today almost 1/2 of us get

> it. Why? Are you satisfied with the medical profession's progress? Do

> you have faith in them?

Belief in modern medicine has nothing to do with the discussions on this

group as it is a group created to discuss alternative treatments.

>I don't. I think they are committing the most

> gruesome crime against humanity because there were actual cures!

No one is arguing that.

> Radiation causes cancer, period! This is a proven fact.

No one is disputing that, either.

> Mammograms are useless anyway because by

> the time it can be detected, it has been in existence for many years.

That doesn't mean they are useless tools. As I've mentioned before, a

mammogram detected my cancer at the DCIS stage - maybe years before I

would have found it myself with a self exam.

Thermography centers will tell women to use them in conjuction with

mammos because they are not a good diagnostic tool by themselves all the

time. There are still many unknowns. Also, they might not show DCIS.

I'm trying to remember what I read the last time I researched them.

And, not to mention, there are no thermography options for many people

as they are not located in every city.

And it is impossible for me to get my teeth cleaned without having a

dental X-ray.

ar

> Thermography is safer, uses no radiation, doesn't break lose DCIS and

> detects tumor formations years before they will show up in

> mammograms. BTW; Cat scans generate enormous amounts of deadly

> radiation. Government officials established long ago that there is no

> safe level of ioniozing radiation. NONE! Its all dangerous including

> dental X-rays.

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

[Guest guest]

Nobody is qualified including your doctor. I don't profess to be an

expert, I do profess to be knowledgeable due to the extensive

literary research I have performed. All of what I state has come from

doctors who treated this disease in the past. I have taken license,

of course, because I have the advantage of perspective and I can

combine all of their works and draw what I consider to be a logical

conclusion. Could I be wrong? Of course! But I don't think I am. I

leave it to the readers to make that determination.

Extirpated cancer usually returns. 5 year survival stats are just

stats, the people still have cancer. Modern medicine does not address

the cause of this disease. I believe I know far better than anyone I

have met so far about the etiology of this disease. I got my info

from real doctors who wrote extensively about this disease. Am I a

medical expert? NO. But what are the alternatives? Do you really

think that conventional treatment has any true value? I don't. If I

ever develop cancer, I would not take their treatments. Most of them

won't either. Why? Because they know it doesn't work.

Western medical treatment is a crime. The actual survival rates are

about 3% which means its useless. Why be subjected to mutilation when

the outcome is virtually the same?

Anyone can get their teeth cleaned w/o X-rays. Just refuse. If the

dentist balks, find another. They compete for patients, few are

swamped with too much business. Dental X-rays are fine if you have a

tooth in pain. If not, wait for pain, they will drill you regardless.

BTW: The new digital dental X-rays are incredible. Much lower dosages

and a magnificent picture. The detail is breathtaking but none the

less, any exposure is dangerousso they should only be taken when

there is an obvious need.

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 03 May 2008 06:01:35 -0000, " comdyne2002 " <comdyne@...>

said:

> Anyone can get their teeth cleaned w/o X-rays. Just refuse. If the

> dentist balks, find another. They compete for patients, few are

> swamped with too much business. Dental X-rays are fine if you have a

> tooth in pain. If not, wait for pain, they will drill you regardless.

>

> BTW: The new digital dental X-rays are incredible. Much lower dosages

> and a magnificent picture. The detail is breathtaking but none the

> less, any exposure is dangerousso they should only be taken when

> there is an obvious need.

No, I cannot get my teeth cleaned at any dentist these days without

X-rays. I had this problem in both Florida and Vermont. I've been

trying to find a dentist who will not force me to have X-rays -

especially since I've never had a cavity...I don't see the point.

But I will ask for digital X-rays.

ar

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

[Guest guest]

The point is that X-ray exposure, no matter how minute, is dangerous.

It causes damage to cellular DNA and its effects are accumulative.

The late Dr. Gofman in his classic work 'Preventing Breast

Cancer: The Story of a Major, Proven, Preventable Cause of this

Disease.' Dr. Gofman was the World's foremost authority on the

effects of radiation and cancer development. He was instrumental in

stopping government programs that were scanning children for TB using

dangerous chest X-rays mid last century. He belived that the epidemic

of breast cancer today is caused by prior X-ray exposure. The earlier

the exposure in life, the greater the chances of developing cancer

later on.

The risk to reward ratio does not justify prophylactic X-ray for any

reason. I would refuse them and stand my ground. Also these screening

machines at airports are a very bad idea.

>

>

> On Sat, 03 May 2008 06:01:35 -0000, " comdyne2002 " <comdyne@...>

> said:

> > Anyone can get their teeth cleaned w/o X-rays. Just refuse. If

the

> > dentist balks, find another. They compete for patients, few are

> > swamped with too much business. Dental X-rays are fine if you

have a

> > tooth in pain. If not, wait for pain, they will drill you

regardless.

> >

> > BTW: The new digital dental X-rays are incredible. Much lower

dosages

> > and a magnificent picture. The detail is breathtaking but none

the

> > less, any exposure is dangerousso they should only be taken when

> > there is an obvious need.

>

>

> No, I cannot get my teeth cleaned at any dentist these days without

> X-rays. I had this problem in both Florida and Vermont. I've been

> trying to find a dentist who will not force me to have X-rays -

> especially since I've never had a cavity...I don't see the point.

>

> But I will ask for digital X-rays.

>

> ar

> --

> Arlyn Grant

> arlynsg@...

>

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 03 May 2008 11:56:01 -0000, " comdyne2002 " <comdyne@...>

said:

> The point is that X-ray exposure, no matter how minute, is dangerous.

I agree with you.

> It causes damage to cellular DNA and its effects are accumulative.

I think all cancer patients have learned that radiation is accumulative.

> The late Dr. Gofman in his classic work 'Preventing Breast

> Cancer: The Story of a Major, Proven, Preventable Cause of this

> Disease.' Dr. Gofman was the World's foremost authority on the

> effects of radiation and cancer development. He was instrumental in

> stopping government programs that were scanning children for TB using

> dangerous chest X-rays mid last century. He belived that the epidemic

> of breast cancer today is caused by prior X-ray exposure. The earlier

> the exposure in life, the greater the chances of developing cancer

> later on.

Many of the young women in the breast cancer group I frequent have never

had any X-rays except dental. They certainly never had a mammos due to

their age. Only one or two of them had chest X-rays for scoliosis.

> The risk to reward ratio does not justify prophylactic X-ray for any

> reason. I would refuse them and stand my ground. Also these screening

> machines at airports are a very bad idea.

I do not like the scanning machines at airports. And sometimes an X-ray

is necessary. But X-rays are used too readily. And that should be

stopped.

ar

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/3/08 4:04:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

arlynsg writes:

I

am looking for a new dentist, but they all say that I need to have

X-rays.

Find a holistic dentist..there is an organization that can give you a name.

[Guest guest]

Do you know what the vitamin treatment is for MD? Is it still known?

Thanks

GB

Did you know that MD was conquered

> in 1947? Yep! It was. Dr. Emmanuel M. phson found the problem

and

> effected a vitamin treatment that totally eliminates all of its

> effects. People who followed the simple protocol lived out full

lives

> without any symptoms of the disease. I see kids in wheelchairs and

> there is no need whatsoever for anyone to suffer from that

condition.

> I gotta tell you...I am mad!