|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "Natural" (plant-based) Health Solutions | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1
|
Hi Faith,
he talks about a study in which extracts of different vegetables, juiced for the study, were dripped onto cancer cells to find out if they did anything. Remember how I mentioned in Message 57 how William Li distinguishes between "results in a petri dish and results in a person"? Well apparently Wark doesn't distinguish. That's crazy. There's a world of difference between in vitro results (in a Petri dish) and in vivo results (in a living organism). After all, if I pour liquid hot magma onto a Petri dish full of cancer cells, the cancer will die! That still doesn't mean that you should try and treat your cancer by swallowing molten lava six times a day. The type of study that Wark describes here should only ever be the starting point for studying a potential treatment. Countless compounds have shown promise in vitro only to completely fail when given to actual living organisms. This is sad but true and quite well known. That Wark seems unconcerned about this is one of the reasons why I call him a crank. If he is presenting these results as meaningful, then he's misrepresenting the data. So once again; alt-med cranks are a great source of juice recipes but a lousy source of medical advice. Mutate and Survives Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
Wark does distinguish, he says only that it's worth trying based on the study. Well he's wrong. In vitro trials are not good enough evidence to claim efficacy in vivo. Wark ought to know this but apparently doesn't know or doesn't care. You have to understand that just because a compound is effective in a Petri dish doesn't mean that it's going to work in a person. It is extremely common for a promising compound to show activity in a cell culture in a Petri dish, only for that promise to completely disappear when it's exposed to actual clinical conditions. Not all compounds are bioavailable for example. Some compounds break down in the body far too quickly to have any effect. There are simply too many confounding factors to be able to claim efficacy in patients based only on in vitro studies. Making the kind of claims that Wark seems to be making is grossly irresponsible. He is, at the most generous assessment, deeply ignorant. At a less generous assessment, he is a charlatan making a fortune from shilling bogus "cures" to desperate and vulnerable people. Either way, he has no place offering anyone medical advice. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
Why is it I have the feeling you haven't heard anything he's said on these videos? Could it be because you haven't? Could be. I'm not about to wade through hours of tedious crank videos. If you have evidence you wish to bring to bear, go ahead, I'm listening. But you know the forum rule about bare links just as well as I do.
Do remember, we're talking about everyday fruits and vegetables here, foods we all eat as part of our normal diet from time to time anyway. Really? You eat amla fruit every day? Personally, I skipped mine this morning, cos it's foul.
What could be wrong with eating a lot more of them, Nothing. That's not my objection. I'm objecting to the notion that drinking vegetable juice is going to have any significant effect on cancer. If all that Wark was saying was that juiced fruit and veg are tasty and jolly healthy, I'd have no problem with any of it. Instead, he just has to go too far and claim that juicing will help fight cancer. It won't, or at the most generous assessment, Wark has no good evidence upon which to make that claim.
and what could possibly be wrong with eating more of those that kill more cancer cells in a petri dish just in case it makes a difference? It relies upon the entirely false claim that there is a significant relationship between fighting cell cultures in vitro and fighting cancerous tumours in vivo. Promoting that lie is unethical. It gives people false hope and, at worst, might encourage them to abandon real medicine in favour of quackery.
He also gives more anecdotal evidence about the efficacy of carrot juice in particular with various cancers, as told to him by different people. Adding to my own impression of its great value. I think that you're placing way too much trust in anecdotal data.
One woman told him she drank 40 ounces a day after being diagnosed with a stage four cancer, I forget which cancer, without changing anything else in her diet or lifestyle, and the cancer went away. Another worthlessly vague anecdote. Either this woman is missing out significant details (like, you know, surgery) or she's full of it. I see no reason to believe that far-fetched tale without evidence.
Interestingly carrots didn't score anywhere on these studies of what kills cancer cells in petri dishes. Almost as if there's no meaningful relationship between what works in a test tube and what works in a person.
He gives many caveats about his views not being intended as medical advice, and about consulting with your doctor before changing your diet Yes, he issues the standard Quack Miranda. quote: All quacks do this. It's a standard part of their bag of tricks. "This isn't medical advice!" they insist, before lecturing us on the best ways to fight cancer. What is that if not medical advice? "I'm not a doctor!" they protest, as they launch into another spiel about how your doctor is poisoning you. It's fundamentally dishonest. Wark can lie to camera all he likes, he very clearly is issuing medical advice and the fact that he hides behind disclaimers like this only serves to illustrate his hypocrisy. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
So the short version; Ty Bolinger is a pathetic fraud and his "conference" consists of nothing but lies and lunacy.
The conference is over and I just want to say I thought it was extremely good and inspiring. You have been conned. Again.
I feel sorry for the people who dismiss out of hand anything about healing strategies that don't agree with the medical establishment. Fortunate then that no-one on this thread has made any such dismissal. Novel solutions from outside the medical establishment are fine, but they need to submit to testing and evidence, just like any treatment.
I changed my mind about the presenter I tuned out because he seemed fringey, He is more than fringey, he's a complete loon. Let's take a look at some of his "truth";
quote: Source; The Truth About Cancer Series Is Untruthful About Cancer | Science-Based Medicine 97% percent of people who take chemo are dead in five years! OMFG!!!!!!1! That's amazing!!!!! Or at least it would be if it weren't a disgusting and moronic lie. Nobody dies from cancer! Well that's a relief. I guess we'll just stop all cancer treatments, I bet that will work out well. Gee, I wonder what it was that cancer sufferers died from before the advent of these killer therapies. What a moron. What a liar. What a scumbag.
A bunch of smart, knowledgeable and passionate people... A motley collection of liars and loons, such as snake oil salesman Joe Mercola, scam artist Mike Adams, cynical quack Stanislaw Burzinski and the whacky Tullio Simoncini, who thinks that cancer is a fungus. Crackpots every one.
...nutrition, which is an area of study doctors are simply not trained in. Faith, why are you repeating this obvious lie? Doctors are trained in nutrition. There are even specialists in nutrition, they are called dieticians (note that the terms dietician and nutritionist are not interchangeable; anyone can call themselves a nutritionist, whereas dieticians are actual medical professionals). Bolinger's Truth About Cancer series is nothing more that the same banal debunked rubbish that alt-med quacks always serve up. If you have cancer, see an oncologist. Don't risk your life following the advice of frauds. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
Remarkable post that, without a shred of evidence for anything you say, just a lot of assertions. How much evidence did Ty Bolinger provide for his inane lie about 97% of chemo patients dying within five years?
Dietitians are medically trained? Yes. Registered dietitians must be properly trained to use the title. This is a legally protected professional term, with its own professional bodies. Anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. Dr Ben Goldacre registered his dead cat as a certified professional member of the American Association of Nutritional Consultants. To become a registered dietitian, you actually have to do the work.
Doctors get training in nutrition? Yes. For example;
quote: Source; Division of Nutrition at Harvard Medical School
How much training? How much do you feel would be enough? More than frauds like Bolinger, who has had no formal training in any medical field?
And there was plenty of cited research. Cite it then. Don't hide your light under a bushel Faith, share these incredible insights with us. Are they as reliable as claims like "Nobody dies from the cancer"?
I missed the talk about fungus, have no idea what the guy said Check it out;
quote: Source; Tullio Simoncini - Wikipedia Simoncini is a dangerous fraud and a complete asshole.
The history given by G Edward Griffin was very interesting, Another loon. Griffin is a promoter of amygdalin, another failed and debunked cancer treatment. He is fond of bonkers conspiracy theories and this appears no different. Do you intend to address the lies told by Bolinger? Or are you content to stand by him as he lies to cancer patients? Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
Actually I did check and they do not have MEDICAL training which is what GM implied. Of course they have medical training. They are trained in a medical field, thus medical training, to a professional standard. Dietitians are not doctors, I didn't intend to imply that they were, but they are nonetheless trained medical professionals. As to actual doctors, nutrition is a standard part of their advice. Every time a doctor tells you to lose weight, they are giving you medical advice on nutrition. And I already showed you a prestigious medical school that teaches doctors nutrition. So yeah, doctors do use nutrition. The attempts to claim otherwise are yet another example of the endless attempts by alt-med quacks to co-opt real medicine and re-brand it as exclusively theirs. It's nonsense. Mutate and Survive Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
Having a Division of Nutrition says nothing about what training in nutrition MDs get, You claimed that doctors get no training in nutrition.
Faith writes: nutrition, which is an area of study doctors are simply not trained in. That was false. Doctors are trained in nutrition, that's why goddamn Harvard built a dedicated nutrition centre. What do you imagine they do there all day? Your false claim is debunked. Admit your error.
and having to have training to be a dietitian says nothing about what sort of training and what connection there is with the medical profession. They are the medical profession! They are medical professionals with a formal accreditation body. How are they not medical? Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
The level of advice about nutrition I'm familiar with from doctors is awfully low, not even as good as granma's knowledge. Your doctor never told you to lose weight? Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
You consider advice to lose weight evidence of training in nutrition? That's pretty funny. How so? A doctor giving you advice on your diet clearly constitutes medical advice on nutrition. What else could it possibly be?
Here is an entire series of advice pages from the UK's National Health Service giving advice on dieting and weight loss. What is that if not medical advice on nutrition? You claimed that doctors are not trained in nutrition. In actual fact, nutritional advice is part of the day to day activities of doctors. You were wrong. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
*sigh* It's this kind of thing that makes me wonder if you even read what is addressed to you. Try again. Actually read it this time.
from Message 198 Doctors get training in nutrition? Yes. For example;
quote: Source; Division of Nutrition at Harvard Medical School Did you follow the link? It takes you to a page with "Harvard Medical School" at the top of the page. Check the sources!
so I imagine different levels of health professionals being trained there, not necessarily just MD candidates, Have you considered reading what is addressed to you and checking cited sources instead of imagining things that turn out to be untrue? You claimed that doctors do not receive training in nutrition. That was false. Now if you'd said that doctors frequently don't receive enough training in nutrition, I would agree with you. But you didn't say that. You said that they didn't receive any. That was false. This "Truth About Cancer" quackfest had you making false claims. Your faith in it and its quack purveyors is misplaced. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1
|
But I'm not very impressed anyway, with one nutrition program in one medical school that teaches doctors about nutrition in a once-a-month seminar and a yearly symposium. Feel free to withdraw your false claim any time. The reason why doctors typically don't study deeply into nutrition is largely because they don't need to; they have dietitians for that, just as doctors don't usually do physiotherapy; they have physiotherapists they can call upon for that.
Granted it's something but it doesn't seem to have had much effect on the medical profession at large since it was founded in 1996. That medical school isn't the only place that teaches nutrition to doctors. It is, in fact, standard. take a look at this study;
quote: Now that is not good, but it is very far from the situation you tried to portray. Instead of no doctors receiving any nutrition training as you falsely claimed, ninety-nine out of 106 medical schools responding taught nutrition. On average students received 23.9 hours of nutrition training. Plenty of room for improvement I agree, but anywhere near as bad as you claimed.
But the conference was focused on nutrition as a cure of disease, not just small improvements in the national diet, which seems to be the Harvard focus. Yes, the Harvard facility concentrates on real medicine, not crazed fantasies of the kind peddled by Bolinger.
If a radical change in diet can prevent or cure cancer, you aren't going to find that out through the Harvard facility. You're not going to find that out from the likes of Bolinger and Adams, who are scientifically illiterate lunatics. They don't bother to do the kind of research that might prove their claims, nor are they competent to do so.
Mercola's talk was about the dangers of microwaves and cell phones and similar hazards, for developing cancer and other diseases. Exactly, Joe Mercola is a nutcase. Cell phones will not give you cancer. This particular claim is especially bonkers.
Mike Evans, whom you also denounced, talked about heavy metals in the environment, even in organic produce. Is there something objectionable about such topics or what? Mike Adams is another nutcase. He's an anti-vaxxer and a notorious purveyor of pseudo-science. His presence discredits the whole enterprise. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1
|
Well, of course I'm just a loony here as usual, but I found many of the presentations valuable, and after getting all this debunkery I think it's unconscionable that the medical profession with its chemo and radiation and no consideration at all of nutritional treatments has all the authority in the area and the power to keep other systems marginalized. It's not up to doctors to test every insane notion that runs through a crackpot's head. They don't necessarily have the resources for that and in any case, many alt-med interventions are so loony that they don't even pass the prior plausibility test. The alt-med industry on the other hand is rolling in cash. Estimates online value the industry at 30 to 200 billion dollars. If they want to test their nonsense, they can. But they rarely do. Worse, when something is debunked, they just carry on with it as though nothing had happened.
There are nevertheless studies and many were quoted during the conference. Bring them. Don't just mention them offhand. If you have evidence, bring it. Otherwise no-one is impressed. Alt-med studies are typically poorly designed and amount to little more than quacks cosplaying as real doctors.
None of these people struck me as irresponsible quacks, the accusation of quackery seems to come from a prejudiced opposition rather than a fair consideration of the work involved. I call them quacks because that's what they are. Have you forgotten that Ty Bolinger, the person behind "Truth About Cancer" is responsible for various grotesque lies, or did you fail to read that as well? As a reminder, this is the guy who said that 97% of people on chemo are dead within five years. Do you believe that? Or is it a disgusting and irresponsible lie that will discourage sick people from taking life-saving medication?
G Edward Griffin... ... is a total loon. He's an HIV?AIDS denialist and a 9/11 "truther". He is nothing but a conspiracy theorist.
Also there's this weird idea that people defend cures like amygdalin for some reason other than that they've seen it work. Amygdalin doen't work. It was tested extensively when it first came to light and found to be worthless. This is an excellent example of alt-med quacks refusing to abandon failed treatments. The reason why so many people become convinced that quack cures are in fact working is mostly because they don't know what they are doing. The testimonies of non-experts aren't especially reliable. Might as well say that magic is real because some people say that they've seen it work. Once again, anecdote is no substitute for data. Also, don't forget, many of the ringleaders in the alt-med world are simply liars. Ty Bolinger, as we have seen, is a liar. His word is not trustworthy.
And most of the presenters at this conference were asking only for trying it when there is time to try it, so that anyone can go back to the conventional treatment at any time. Excpet that's not true. Bolinger tries to convince people that chemo and radiotherapy are going to kill them. That's not presenting a choice, that's fear-mongering for profit. It's a despicable lie, designed to drive sick people to buy snake oil. For instance, from Bollinger's own website;
quote: I did not know that. I didn't know it because it's complete horse shit. That's easily checkable and it's completely untrue. That's the sort of filthy lie you get from scam artists like Bollinger. How exactly are you going to get useful information from someone who lies so freely and so crudely? Or are you going to defend that rubbish? Tell me, do you think he's right about that? Or is it nonsense? Or are you just going to continue to ignore it? Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
I didn't take notes at the conference; now I wish I had. Yeah, they're relying on that. They casually mention some study, they don't provide any detail, then they move on, leaving you with the impression that they did something sciencey. It's a con job, a conjuring trick.
You say Bollinger lied about this or that. He didn't speak at the conference and I haven't heard any lies so I can't respond. It's Ty Bollinger's conference, he's the owner, the ringleader in this particular circus. He bears overall responsibility for it. Anyway, you have seen his lies. I showed you one in the last message. He asks "Did you know that the overall success rate for most cancers treated with the chemotherapy is a paltry 3%?". It's right here. And it's simply untrue. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of the truth. You need to respond to this. Why is it acceptable for Bollinger to bear false witness like this?
I'm just tired of the attitude here, this smearing of anybody who doesn't toe the status quo line. But it's okay for you to portray those who disagree with you as prejudiced and closed minded? I don't call Bollinger a liar because he doesn't toe the party line, I call him a liar because he tells easily disproved lies. For money. At the expense of the gullible and the desperate.
I've seen some interviews by Griffin that are quite compelling. Sorry you don't think so. Medical science and public healthcare do not rely upon whether or not someone can make a compelling Youtube video. They rely upon carefully gathered evidence. If Griffin has evidence that - for instance - HIV does not cause AIDS, a favourite insane claim of his, let him bring it. Until that time I will continue to call him a crank. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1
|
Beggin yur pahdin but I don't trust what you told me, Cue the temper tantrum. You don't have to trust me, you can look for yourself. The lie is right there on Bollinger's own site. Look for yourself.
perhaps it's out of context, It's not out of context. Bollinger claims that 97% of chemo patients die within five years. What context is there where that is in any way true?
perhaps he's since changed his mind, It's right there on his current website and in the videos he still promotes. He has not changed his mind. You are clutching at straws.
I don't know, but I don't trust anything you tell me at this point. Sawry. I'm taking sides against you, sawry. I thought you were against smear tactics? To me, this translates as "La-la-la, I'm not listening". How childish. This is a debate forum. If you want to post your opinions unchallenged, put them on your blog.
I also don't care if someone misspeaks once in a while, You don't care if people lie to cancer patients. You don't care that people lie to scare cancer patients into rejecting life-saving medicine. Got it.
This conference raised lots of issues I want to think about and your eagerness to blast the whole thing with personal accusations is repugnant to me. What I find repugnant is lying to cancer patients in a way that could cost them their lives. Apparently you care so little about that possibility that you won't even address the issue, resorting instead to childish antics. A shame. Again, I would suggest that you take a look at Bollinger's crappy website. You will find the "97%" claim right there in black and white. Even a casual analysis of this claim reveals it as a moronic lie. Why are you content to treat liars as reputable sources? Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
I looked at Bollinger's site and failed to find the statistic you are talking about. It's here --> Cancer Truth You were probably looking at another of his sites, Bollinger has a few. For the record;
quote: Faith, in Message 221 writes: I don't see that anybody is lying to cancer patients. I don't even see anyone discouraging conventional treatment, though there may be some that go overboard that I've missed. Well I guess you've seen it now, unless you're going to tell me that claiming a 97% kill rate for chemo is somehow not discouraging people from taking chemo.
Faith, in Message 221 writes: Most are just suggesting that "overdosing on nutrition" be tried when there is still time for it to see if it works before going ahead with the chemo or whatever, and some of the testimonials include both standard treatment and nutritional treatments. Not true in Ty Bollinger's case. He explicitly encourages people to refuse chemotherapy, radiotherapy and (most worryingly of all) even surgery. This is exactly the sort of irresponsible behaviour that gets people killed. Again, just for the record, Bollinger's claims are purest poppycock. The 97% claim in particular is blatantly insane and the reality is easy to check up. Bollinger has no excuse for this kind of nonsense. He's a terrible, terrible source for anyone to be relying on. At the most generous possible assessment, he's a insane idiot. At a less generous assessment, he's a lying asshole.
But I came back to comment on the fungus guy. I looked him up too and at first glance his idea does look pretty wacky. Second glance too.
But a review of his book suggested that the idea of baking soda simply agrees with the general understanding that cancer requires an acidic body environment to grow and that whatever you can do to make it slightly alkaline will discourage the growth of cancer. I don't know if this is something only the "alt-med" people say or it's common knowledge, but it was said a lot by many at the conference That is not a general understanding, it's an alt-med thing. It's also completely untrue.
But someone also pointed out that it depends on where the cancer is located whether baking soda can even reach it. Indeed. Bio-availability is the key concept here, not to mention potential side effects.
Also I don't get the connection with candida yet. Well you see, this is really in-depth, technical science stuff, so buckle up... Candida is white. And cancer is white. That's it. Really! That's it! Never mind that cancer isn't necessarily white. Or that fungus isn't necessarily white either. Simoncini really is a fruitcake's fruitcake.
But I've had an interesting personal experience recently I'd like to report. I've been sort of trying the high starch diet I recently learned about, not really following their protocol but making potatoes my main food followed by salad and carrot juice, though I deviate into other things that are off the diet too so I can't say I'm really following it. For one thing fat is not allowed and I really can't eat potatoes or salad without olive oil at least. Anyway, I started noticing after a few days that I no longer had the candida rash I sometimes get on my abdomen these days (due to slightly high blood sugar that isn't quite Type 2 diabetes yet and I hope won't ever be). I usually use Nystatin to cure it, but maybe potatoes will do it? ' Huh. Weird. Well I'm glad you're feeling better at any rate, skin rashes can be a real pain. For my money it's more likely that the problem was being exacerbated by something that you have now stopped eating, rather than being cured by something you started eating, but hey, what do I know... Incidentally, diabetes very much is something that can be prevented and/or managed by diet. Any mainstream doctor will tell you this, there's nothing "alternative" about it. Alt-med cranks do not have an exclusive on dietary interventions.
Alkaline potatoes, alkaline carrots No, that's not right. Carrots and potatoes have a ph of around 5. That makes them comparatively low acid as far as foods go, but that's still acid. It's not very acid, but it's more acidic than neutral. The whole alkaline thing is a red herring anyway.
Even if he's wrong in some important way I have the impression there is logic to his thinking. He's wrong in every possible way. Tullio Simoncini is a total loony and not a reputable source. His presence robs any venue where he appears of a great deal of credibility. I see from your follow-on post that you are aware of how dangerous he is. I don't see why you would want to salvage anything from this mess. I certainly don't see why Ty Bollinger would invite Simoncini to talk at his cancer conference. Well, not unless Bollinger were as quacky as Simoncini is. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024