Re: One way to treat cancer???

[Guest guest]

Arlyn

I only get dental X rays every few times I get my teeth cleaned.

Every dentist I go to does not demand I get X rays. I have been to

quite a few so I do not understand your statement. It is up to the

patient to determine when to have X rays.

GB

>

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

> dental X-ray.

>

> ar

[Guest guest]

May depend on your insurance. My insurance pays for Xrays every year or

every 2 years... don't recall..

Dave

Arlyn Grant wrote:

> On Sat, 03 May 2008 19:58:01 -0000, " Guru K " <greatyoga@...> said:

>

>> Arlyn

>>

>> I only get dental X rays every few times I get my teeth cleaned.

>> Every dentist I go to does not demand I get X rays. I have been to

>> quite a few so I do not understand your statement. It is up to the

>> patient to determine when to have X rays.

>>

>> GB

>>

>

> I have been told by dentists in both Vermont and Florida that I must

> have dental X-rays once a year. I have never had a cavity and my teeth

> are perfectly straight. Last visit, I flat out refused the X-rays and

> the dentist, who I have been seeing for a few years, was very upset. I

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

> X-rays.

>

> I'm thrilled that everyone else does not have this problem. But it is a

> real problem for me.

>

> ar

>

[Guest guest]

I'm not going to prolong this discussion except to say the following

because some things do require correction:

Comdyne, you are the only person who talks about 'rebuffing' others.

To rebuff means " to refuse bluntly; to snub. " Its usually used in the

context of rejection of an unwanted offer or advance. I don't think

anyone has rebuffed you here.

People are allowed to have differing opinions. I think we all want to

stay away from prolonged arguments, but when a member states something

categorically as fact that is not factual it is fair to allow others

to correct that misinformation. That is not rebuffing.

If we let misinformation stand uncorrected it may be harmful to

someone who makes some decisions based on the incorrect facts.

No one on this list as far as I know talked about binding feet. I made

some comments about binding of bodies, in correction of your erroneous

comments that 100 years ago people only wore 'bras' for social events

and that is how you support your statement that bras cause breast

cancer and why there is so much of it today vs earlier in history.

My point-and if you're a researcher, do some research on fashions

through the history of mankind- is that simply isn't true. People have

been wearing far more confining things than bras, made of far less

forgiving materials for centuries on a regular basis and they did NOT

get breast cancer the same way people are getting it today.

A person who's credentials are all tied up in being a researcher is

only going to have credibility as long as the facts presented by

him/her are correct and as long as he/she is willing to be corrected

when appropriate.

>

> 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...

>

[Guest guest]

I presented the information to the group. If some elect not to

believe what I say that is their prerogative. All that I have said herein over

the last few weeks is information written by doctors. Many of them had great

success with some of the things I have mentioned here. I also have pointed out

influiences today that didn't exist way back when, but that isn't to say thats

all there is to it. I keep it brief because I have found the concept of Ockham's

Razor to often prove true.

I presented the info about the relationship to the wearing of bras

and the stats researchers gathered in breast cancer. If you choose to

ignore it, so be it, but that doesn't change the outcome of the

research.

The bottom line is that when one obstructs any form of circulation of

the body humors, trouble often follows. Caveat Emptor!

....when a member states something categorically as fact that is not factual it

is fair to allow others to correct that misinformation. That is not rebuffing.

If we let misinformation stand uncorrected it may be harmful to someone who

makes some decisions based on the incorrect facts.

....People have been wearing far more confining things than bras, made of far

less forgiving materials for centuries on a regular basis and they did NOT get

breast cancer the same way people are getting it today.

> A person who's credentials are all tied up in being a researcher is

> only going to have credibility as long as the facts presented by

> him/her are correct and as long as he/she is willing to be corrected

> when appropriate.