The Puffer Forum

This has nothing to do with what's being discussed here but I was born at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Just thought I'd throw that in there!

SammyDee wrote: The truth behind dairy is very bad the dairy companys paid millions in lobbist to kill the truth about dairy frequently... It does cause cancer and many other things. Including skyrocketing cholesterol....which will lead to many other things.

Its control and depopulation. Same thing with how flouride is in our tap water. It literally does nothing to stop cavities, instead its a slow but sure way to cause issues within the human body...

Sammy, with each generation we live longer and healthier lives than the generation before us. I know that the we do bad things to ourselves and some of that is by choice and some by ignorance but such is life. Flouride in the water is a good example of a good intention with little results. History is plagued with such scenarios. BBQ is a good example of how we consume carcinogens into our bodies.. yet I'll be damned if I give that up
I am not sure if the dairy world is as much a cover up as the tobacco industry but as adults we have little or no need for dairy products with the exception of the calcium it provides us. I feel confident that industry has its best interests in the consumer while knowing full well that they will take short cuts as much as possible to retain profitability.

Heck take a deep breath, you just got cancer lol. If you listen to what everyone says you wouldnt eat or drink anything

In all honosty who is to say that there wasnt just as many cancer related deaths in the past, percentage wise, and it was never diagnosed. Advances in medicine has found new types of cancers that would have never been known then and with the rise in population of course there are going to be more cases of it. Not to say that there maybe an increase to some degree but nowadays everything causes cancer. I dont beleive in any cover-up or anything like that because with todays technologies even the military has a hard time keeping things secret.

Bcummings8521 wrote:In all honosty who is to say that there wasnt just as many cancer related deaths in the past, percentage wise, and it was never diagnosed.

because our forefathers lived to the ripe old age of 40 and were 4' and a bit tall? Those who founded North America as we know it would now almost be considered dwarfs by todays standards and lived only 2/3 our life span and that was only 200 years ago.

Thats what im trying to say though; cancer itself is rather new when it comes to finding it, treating it, and even categorizeing it. IMO 40-50 years from now maybe a little longer it will be something to where only the most extreme cases are terminal. The advances in micro-technology will be extreme and there are already studies going on trying to genetically create cells that will attack and kill cancer cell (not to mention the micro-robotics studies to create tiney robots that will go in and irradicate cancer cells) I beleive its something that has allways been around to some degree and maybe its mother natures way of saying hey there are to many of you on my planet its time for some to go (not trying be offensive or rude about it.) Its the way this planets works were just lucky enough to be able to combat most of the things mother nature throws at us.

The pseudo-therapies such as Gerson are quackery - they have no legal therapeutic standing in the USA. They have little or no scientific basis - they are not just unscientific, they are anti-science, the pseudo-medical version of creationism.

Repeating nonsense does not make it correct. Repeating a lie does make it any more correct. Trying to present it by falsely applying a respected name such as Johns Hopkins is legally actionable. as it should be.

Pseudo-science is pernicious - it robs the unsophisticated of their best chances to preserve or save themselves.

Glad to see you're feeling better, Robert!

LOL at PP! My lack of tolerance for anti-science is never ill, and never rests easily. It may not be good for my blood pressure, though.

Bcummings8521 wrote:Thats what im trying to say though; cancer itself is rather new when it comes to finding it, treating it, and even categorizeing it. IMO 40-50 years from now maybe a little longer it will be something to where only the most extreme cases are terminal. The advances in micro-technology will be extreme and there are already studies going on trying to genetically create cells that will attack and kill cancer cell (not to mention the micro-robotics studies to create tiney robots that will go in and irradicate cancer cells) I beleive its something that has allways been around to some degree and maybe its mother natures way of saying hey there are to many of you on my planet its time for some to go (not trying be offensive or rude about it.) Its the way this planets works were just lucky enough to be able to combat most of the things mother nature throws at us.

There are some HUGELY interesting researches being done out there. Yes, nano technology is one of them and got a HUGE boost from the Clinton administration. Another interesting one is with Alligators. How they can live in such putrid bacteria infested areas, sustain damage and not become infected? Their immune system is in complete overdrive and some will swear that once we crack that nut we'll be much better for it.
Another interesting find was that Eskimo's have a very low cancer rate and yet smoke more per capita than any other culture in the Americas. They think it has to do with the seal meat... similar to the Japanese and fish, but I don't trust their (the Japanese) studies too much. As smart as they are, I am sure they have a higher cancer rate than they let on.