What's new

I've seen it!! a REAL cure for cancer!

MrNobody

Who needs merits?
You know there will never be a double blind study done on Apricot seeds because there will be no "ToxiCo" profit from doing so.

Uhm, if I may chime in here, "there will never be a double blind study done on Apricot seeds" sounds true to me, but for a different reason: It's just that they can't be "standardized". So every Apricot seed will have it's own "dose (amount? darn language barrier) of vit. B17 or whatever one wants to call it. As far as I know, there's no way to standardize apricot seeds - they all grow naturally and they're all different.

Where's your double blind study into the efficacy of Baking Powder? Mrs McKenzie could get really rich here!

Well, baking powder is or at least can be standardized, so a double blind study would make much more sense here.

Yes. This time I am trolling, because if it's good for Baking Powder, it's good for Apricot.

Nope -You're comparing a standardizable industrial product with a not-standardizable natural product.

* Why do you think people who have been discarded by medicine as "incurable" leap at the promise of something so simple and natural?

Of course the evidence is anecdotal. Those who die aren't exactly able to run around and tell people that it didn't work, or that they started the "therapy" too late for it to be successful.
 

knn

Patron Meritorious
Uhm, if I may chime in here, "there will never be a double blind study done on Apricot seeds" sounds true to me, but for a different reason: It's just that they can't be "standardized". So every Apricot seed will have it's own "dose (amount? darn language barrier) of vit. B17 or whatever one wants to call it. As far as I know, there's no way to standardize apricot seeds - they all grow naturally and they're all different.
Nah, come on, that's no reason. Otherwise you couldn't have standard dishwasher tests because all plates are differently dirty.
 

MrNobody

Who needs merits?
Nah, come on, that's no reason. Otherwise you couldn't have standard dishwasher tests because all plates are differently dirty.

1000 mg of dishwasher will/should always have the same number of mg's "working matter" - anionic tensides and what not. Same goes for baking powder, but not for Apricot seeds. You'll never be able to predict how much of Vit. B17 or whatever a certain Apricot seed contains. I think your "plate" example just tries to distract. Or are you able to predict nature? I'm not.
 

knn

Patron Meritorious
1000 mg of dishwasher will/should always have the same number of mg's "working matter" - anionic tensides and what not. Same goes for baking powder, but not for Apricot seeds. You'll never be able to predict how much of Vit. B17 or whatever a certain Apricot seed contains..
But some guy painting spinach patterns on a plate is also "nature".

I agree that there is no unit "kernel", but nevertheless feed them say 100g of apricot kernels of the same apricot batch and you will have pretty similar amounts.

I think your "plate" example just tries to distract.
I think you are a Nobody.
 

Rmack

Van Allen Belt Sunbather
I'm sure I have a set which includes the fourth Court card.

What I meant was, the fourth court card was left out of standard playing cards, as well as most of the Greater Arcana, except key zero, made into the 'Joker'. All Tarot decks, at least most all, have the fourth court card.

As for anyone who thinks this is a 'pile of crap' let me remind you that I'm not endorsing any of the doctrine or philosophy represented, I'm just saying that this is the history of where playing cards came from. That's not crap.



.
 

RolandRB

Rest in Peace
What I meant was, the fourth court card was left out of standard playing cards, as well as most of the Greater Arcana, except key zero, made into the 'Joker'. All Tarot decks, at least most all, have the fourth court card.

As for anyone who thinks this is a 'pile of crap' let me remind you that I'm not endorsing any of the doctrine or philosophy represented, I'm just saying that this is the history of where playing cards came from. That's not crap.

If anyone wants to read up on the history of playing cards then here is a link.
http://i-p-c-s.org/history.html
 

Rmack

Van Allen Belt Sunbather
I'll leave it. Thanks for the tip.

You're no fun!

Well, how would you like to really get your mental knickers in a twist?

Google 'Cube of Space' and check out that aspect of Tarot. Hehe.

God, I'm such a devil.
 

RolandRB

Rest in Peace
You're no fun!

Well, how would you like to really get your mental knickers in a twist?

Google 'Cube of Space' and check out that aspect of Tarot. Hehe.

God, I'm such a devil.

I've watched French people play Tarot in cheap cafes. They play it all day if they can. They get quite excited about it. They are just playing cards. Nothing more.
 

Rmack

Van Allen Belt Sunbather
I've watched French people play Tarot in cheap cafes. They play it all day if they can. They get quite excited about it. They are just playing cards. Nothing more.

You are a master of the first part of my sig.
 

MrNobody

Who needs merits?
But some guy painting spinach patterns on a plate is also "nature".

Yes. That's why a given amount of dishwasher may not be enough to clean a certain plate.

I agree that there is no unit "kernel", but nevertheless feed them say 100g of apricot kernels of the same apricot batch and you will have pretty similar amounts.

Possibly - or possibly not. It depends on nature and therefor isn't predictable.

I think you are a Nobody.

I never would have guessed that.:whistling:
 

RogerB

Crusader
OK. Here's Something New You can All Start Arguing Over

Can This Supplement Cure Cancer?

By Al Sears, MD

CoQ10 is the one supplement I take every day, without fail.
New evidence of an even greater benefit is pouring in. And over the next couple of weeks, I’ll tell you about some of the amazing discoveries happening in CoQ10 research.

CoQ10 is a powerful cancer fighter.

Researchers in Tokyo gave rats a carcinogen that promotes colon cancer. The rats were divided into three groups. One group was fed a regular diet. The second group got a low dose of CoQ10. The third got a medium dose.
The results were amazing.

Both of the groups that received CoQ10 had reductions in abnormal crypts (an early sign of colon cancer) of up to 77%. Ultimately, the results of this study suggested that CoQ10 held cancer in check even when exposed to this carcinogen.1

Another study done at the University of Texas at Austin documented 10 cases of cancer patients who unexpectedly survived when treated with CoQ10.2

It works by blocking the free radicals that can ultimately damage the DNA in your cells. It also helps re-energize the immune system cells that get suppressed by cancer. It restores their ability to fight back and attack the cancer cells.

Researchers in Denmark studied a group of breast cancer patients. They gave them CoQ10 plus a combination of other antioxidants and essential fatty acids. The result?

The entire group had a partial remission of the cancer. But here’s where things get very interesting…

Two of the patients received larger doses of CoQ10 (390 mg). Their tumors disappeared. Here’s what the researchers said regarding one of the patients:
“After three months, the patient was in excellent clinical condition and there was no residual tumor tissue.”3

Remarkable isn’t it?

Yet CoQ10 is one of the most overlooked nutrients. The government doesn’t even have a recommended daily intake for it. And in my practice, I’ve found that most of my new patients are deficient.

The only natural source of CoQ10 is red meat, especially organ meat. But today’s commercially-raised, grain-fed beef is a poor source.

Even worse, many popular drugs — especially cholesterol-lowering drugs like statins — cause your levels of CoQ10 to plunge.

I recommend getting 50 mg of the new form of CoQ10 daily. It’s called ubiquinol CoQ10. That’s equivalent to 400 mg of regular CoQ10.

To Your Good Health,

Al Sears, M.D.

References
1. Sakano K, et al. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2006 Oct; 7 (4): 599-603.
2. Folkers K, et al. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1993 Apr 15;192(1): 241-5.
3. Lockwood K, et al. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1994 Mar 30;199 (3):1504-8.

[Ed. Note: Dr. Sears is Chairman of the Board of Total Health Breakthroughs. He has written over 500 articles and 7 books in the fields of alternative medicine, anti-aging, and nutritional supplementation.]

 

RolandRB

Rest in Peace
Can This Supplement Cure Cancer?

By Al Sears, MD

CoQ10 is the one supplement I take every day, without fail.
New evidence of an even greater benefit is pouring in. And over the next couple of weeks, I’ll tell you about some of the amazing discoveries happening in CoQ10 research.

CoQ10 is a powerful cancer fighter.

Researchers in Tokyo gave rats a carcinogen that promotes colon cancer. The rats were divided into three groups. One group was fed a regular diet. The second group got a low dose of CoQ10. The third got a medium dose.
The results were amazing.

Both of the groups that received CoQ10 had reductions in abnormal crypts (an early sign of colon cancer) of up to 77%. Ultimately, the results of this study suggested that CoQ10 held cancer in check even when exposed to this carcinogen.1

Another study done at the University of Texas at Austin documented 10 cases of cancer patients who unexpectedly survived when treated with CoQ10.2

It works by blocking the free radicals that can ultimately damage the DNA in your cells. It also helps re-energize the immune system cells that get suppressed by cancer. It restores their ability to fight back and attack the cancer cells.

Researchers in Denmark studied a group of breast cancer patients. They gave them CoQ10 plus a combination of other antioxidants and essential fatty acids. The result?

The entire group had a partial remission of the cancer. But here’s where things get very interesting…

Two of the patients received larger doses of CoQ10 (390 mg). Their tumors disappeared. Here’s what the researchers said regarding one of the patients:
“After three months, the patient was in excellent clinical condition and there was no residual tumor tissue.”3

Remarkable isn’t it?

Yet CoQ10 is one of the most overlooked nutrients. The government doesn’t even have a recommended daily intake for it. And in my practice, I’ve found that most of my new patients are deficient.

The only natural source of CoQ10 is red meat, especially organ meat. But today’s commercially-raised, grain-fed beef is a poor source.

Even worse, many popular drugs — especially cholesterol-lowering drugs like statins — cause your levels of CoQ10 to plunge.

I recommend getting 50 mg of the new form of CoQ10 daily. It’s called ubiquinol CoQ10. That’s equivalent to 400 mg of regular CoQ10.

To Your Good Health,

Al Sears, M.D.

References
1. Sakano K, et al. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2006 Oct; 7 (4): 599-603.
2. Folkers K, et al. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1993 Apr 15;192(1): 241-5.
3. Lockwood K, et al. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1994 Mar 30;199 (3):1504-8.

[Ed. Note: Dr. Sears is Chairman of the Board of Total Health Breakthroughs. He has written over 500 articles and 7 books in the fields of alternative medicine, anti-aging, and nutritional supplementation.]


I would argue that it is NOT a nutrient as it gets made by the human body. I believe in supplementing vitamins when they are too low and I believe in supplementing CoQ10 as well when levels are low. Older people should take supplements of this stuff from time to time. The Ubiquinol form of it seems like a very good development to me.
 

Dark Phoenix

Patron Meritorious
I finally got to the end of this thread. Very entertaining indeed. The way RolandRB refutes the woo woo is just classic.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
There are approx. 400 studies re Aspartame.

Approx. half of the studies were done by independent researchers. The other half were done for FDA or the Aspartame industry.

The results are pretty evenly split: Nearly all independent researchers say "Aspartame is a problem". Nearly all FDA/Industry founded studies say "Aspartame is good for ya". It's pretty exactly 50:50.



well as you are not a statistician perhaps you should try this study

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/82236.php

It actually does take a statistician to analyse a trend - why not study up on the subject before trying to refute it?

OK, I should of used the term "correlation" rather than that of "trend". A correlation describes the degree of relationship between two variables.

Presuming what KNN said was true, I think an average person would be able to evaluate that data and realize that there was a serious problem.

In January 2002, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) approved a report by its task force stating: "Financial conflicts of interest of clinical investigators... [is] the single issue that [ ] poses the greatest threat to maintaining public trust in biomedical research."
(Kelch, RP, "Maintaining the public trust in clinical research," NEJM, Jan 24, 2002, vol 346: 285-287.)

The "sweeping review of research studies" on aspartame you provided in the link to me was funded by "unrestricted support from Ajinomoto Company, Inc."
How much would you trust a review of the research into the "danger of cults" that was funded by unrestricted support from the Church of Scientology? I already know the answer to that. You would'nt.
Big conflict of interest!
http://www.aspartame.info/mediarch/medit034.html
 
Last edited:

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
CoQ10

CoQ10 is the one supplement I take every day, without fail.
New evidence of an even greater benefit is pouring in. And over the next couple of weeks, I’ll tell you about some of the amazing discoveries happening in CoQ10 research.
CoQ10 is a powerful cancer fighter.

Thanx Roger, look forward to hearing about it!
 

knn

Patron Meritorious
The link you provided me that reviewed the studies on aspartame was funded by "unrestricted support from Ajinomoto Company, Inc."
Yes, Ajinomoto (the initiator of that *cough* study) is one of the world's biggest producers of Aspartame (45% share of European Aspartame market).

That study that Mick Lenin posted underlines what I have been saying: The industry sees no problems with Aspartame, no matter what. Another worthless study.

The 61-year-old president of Ajinomoto died of cancer recently, by the way.
 
Top