Saturday, October 30, 2010

Not All Viruses Are In The Body, Some Are In The E-mails

As they told me during my cancer treatments: "The purpose of Chemotherapy is not to either kill or eliminate Cancer. Chemotherapy is to stop the spread of cancer by making the body inhospitable for the successful spread of cancer."

The best way to analogize it is that metastases are cells that have broken off of the primary cancer due to the fractal way that it grows (think cauliflower). These then circulate through the body through blood, lymph, or even open passage to ultimately become "marooned" on some distant part of your body like the liver or brain. Because these cells are genetically "you", the body will not reject them and they will plant like seeds wherever they land. This tissue retains the character of whatever the initial cancer was. Hence, breast or prostate tissue growing on the brain or wherever. This is why they use the term atypical to describe them. They often don't even look like the surrounding tissue. Chemotherapy makes the body inimicable to the attachment and growth of these new colonies and can often starve the growth of the parent cancer, but only at the margins where blood and nutrition are not sufficient to support the cells anyway - the very cells that were to metastasize, break off, and recolonize.

THE ONLY THING THAT WILL KILL CANCER IS SURGERY OR RADIATION (Which is only an electron beam scalpel.) BECAUSE, cancer is you. Any chemical that would kill it would kill you. These diets that claim to starve it away would starve you as well.

I have scattered more commentary throughout Judee's essay

On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 11:14 -0400, af1skee forwarded:
Johns Hopkins Update – Very Good Article

Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins :
1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer
cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have
multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients
that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after
treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the
cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable

NO, Every cell is a cancer cell. Every cell has the potential to become cancerous. There is little special about them until they actually become cancer. A broken thread of DNA here, or a genetic error there or an inclusion there. This is why prevention is only a false hope.

2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a
person's lifetime.

At the very least.

3. When the person's immune system is strong the cancer
cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and
forming tumors.
Yes .. but only to outside influences such as HPV. Cancers are errors of the normal reproductive controls of individual cells of yourself. For your immune system to destroy them, you would be definition have an auto-immune disorder. (Are you sure this was written by someone from John's Hopkins?)

4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has
nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic,
but also to environmental, food and lifestyle factors.

Big leap here. The second half is correct.

5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing
diet to eat more adequately and healthy, 4-5 times/day
and by including supplements will strengthen the immune system.

Propaganda here to support his #4 thesis

6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing
cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells
in the bone marrow, gastrointestinal tract etc, and can
cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.

True. See my thesis at the beginning.

7.. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars
and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.

Yes, but with IMRT the doses at sites other than the target are minimalized. But to an extent, these secondary sites are those same sites which might have nearby metastases.
(A side anecdotal observation of no general value: I had bad internal mouth sores from childhood. Since the radiotherapy in early 2005 I have not had ANY. Apparently those cells were killed also)

8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often
reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of
chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor

Chemotherapy does not kill cancer. See my note at beginning of message. Radiation is actually surgery burning away tissue.

9. When the body has too much toxic burden from
chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either
compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb
to various kinds of infections and complications.

Also a burden on the kidneys and liver, BUT, so it the necrotizing tissue from a cancer that overgrows its blood and nutrition and withers.

10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to
mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy.

No. The cells are not adaptive in that way. Always remember these cells for good or bad are your own. They are difficult to eliminate because of where they are, infiltrated amongst the healthy and important cells of your body.

Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other

I have read this described as urban legend, but to me, it seems plausible that a sloppy surgeon could screw up.

11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer
cells by not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply.

It might help ... a little, but as a complex system, you will starve to death before the simple system of your cancer.

a. Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made
with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute
would be Manuka honey or molasses, but only in very small
amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in
color Better alternative is Bragg's aminos or sea salt.

Here is the author's thesis that she is trying to push, and she is mostly wrong. Aspertame may or may not be harmful (I believe it is), but cancer cells do not feed on it.
Here is why: Asperatame is non-nutritive. That is why it works as a non-fattening sugar substitute. That could also be a reason that it could cause cancer - an inert foreign body (like asbestos) where it shouldn't be irritating and interfering. But, "Cancer cells feed on" real sugars. They eat 1000 times more sugar that a normal cell. This is why (most) cancers can be located with a PET scan of radioactive tagged glucose.
Therefore, her honey or molasses will only feed the cancer. Sorry, Judee.

b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the
gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting
off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk cancer
cells are being starved.

Never heard that cancer feeds on mucus before. But even the premise is odd. Milk has a mucus-like protein called casein that leaves the film on the inside of the glass or your mouth. Casein was the protein in the medical food that I was prescribed for PEG tube feeding during my cancer. I could not tolerate it and it caused me to vomit. Real Mucus is entirely different and not even related. The reason that Casein leaves a film on the inside of your mouth is that it doesn't mix easily with the body's own mucus. Casein based medical food was prescribed so that my body would have a supply of protein and not cannibalize itself while I could not eat. The author here is recommending starving your body of protein to avoid feeding the cancer.
I think I detect a Vegan health-food zealot rationalizing her beliefs.

c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based
diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little other meat,

Exactly the opposite. Chemotherapy lowers the body's pH. There are good reasons to reduce our consumption of meat, but this is BS (and that is a meat by-product)

like chicken. Meat also contains livestock
antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all
harmful, especially to people with cancer.

I thought I smelled Vegan propaganda. They might initially cause a cancer, but to a cancer in progress? Rationalization of pre-held conclusions.

d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole
grains, seeds, nuts

No warning about the dangers of nuts and colon cancer?

and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment.

Overreaching BS. Do a little figuring - if it were even possible to raise the body's pH, would would be the effect on the Amino acids that are your body? A little Googling to find the natural pH of the body found 72 million different answers! These had ranges from 7.68 to 6.8 in the first few dozen I found. All were pushing some kind of agenda or other and not one credible scientific establishment!

About 20% can be from cooked
food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live
enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to
cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance
growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building
healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most
vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw
vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at
temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C)..
e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high
caffeine Green tea is a better alternative e and has cancer
fighting properties. Water-best to drink purified water, or
filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap
water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.

Johns Hopkins, huh. Distilled water is acidic? Distilled water is pH7. By definition, water is neutral.
(50% of the population will always be of below average intelligence.)

12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of
digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the
intestines becomes putrefied and leads to more toxic

Gotta love the Progressive food police. I think the truth is that the Progressive elite do not want us competing with them for food. Malthus, anyone?

13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By
refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes
to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the
body's killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.

BS, cancer cells are the same compositionally as the parent cells. It is the reproduction that has been turned on to high gear.
But let me understand her logic... The enzymes would be digesting the protein covering on cancer cells (read her own body cells) were they not occupied digesting the meat in her colon. I don't think so...

14. Some supplements build up the immune system
(IP6, Flor-ssence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals,
EFAs etc.) to enable the bodies own killer cells to destroy
cancer cells.. Other supplements like vitamin E are known
to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body's
normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or
unneeded cells.
Some truth carried to presumed conclusions. But always back to that same premise that somehow cancer cells are not cells of the host.

15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit.
A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior
be a survivor. Anger, un-forgiveness and bitterness put
the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to
have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy
Aom. You really passed this New-Age shit on to me? There I go, another cancer.

16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated
environment. Exercising daily, and deep breathing help to
get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen
therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer
Pure oxygen kills most everything.

1. No plastic containers in micro.
2. No water bottles in freezer.
3. No plastic wrap in microwave..

Sort of jumps around doesn't it. Hitting all the issues that those who would tell us how to run our lives espouse.

Johns Hopkins has recently sent this out in its newsletters. This information is being circulated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as well. Dioxin chemicals cause cancer,
... [more redundant drivel removed for brevity]...
Please share this with your whole email list.........................

Johns Hopkins may have published something. But there are many hands at work here pushing a number of "Liberal" agendas. (I use Liberal here in quotes, because true liberal was libertarian, not about controlling others as Progressive "Liberalism" is now) This is propaganda, pure and simple.

Also, he pointed out that plastic wrap, such as Saran, is just as dangerous when placed over foods to be cooked in the microwave. As the food is nuked, the high heat causes poisonous toxins to actually melt out of the plastic wrap and drip into the food. Cover food with a paper towel instead.
This is an article that should be sent to anyone important in your life.
> --
> Judee
(Even the name is a give away to her bias. Judee is an just affectated way of spelling Judy.)

By the way, I have outlived all my health food fanatic peers but one. And I'm waiting for him ...

Monday, October 25, 2010


There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

"Gospodin," he said presently, "you used an odd word earlier--odd to me, I mean..."
"Oh, 'tanstaafl.' Means ~There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.' And isn't," I added, pointing to a FREE LUNCH sign across room, "or these drinks would cost half as much. Was reminding her that anything free costs twice as much in long run or turns out worthless."
"An interesting philosophy."
"Not philosophy, fact. One way or other, what you get, you pay for.
. - The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Robert A Heinlein

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell - Useless News Filler

Both the Authoritarian Socialists and the Authoritarian Conservatives have staked out their positions on this. But what does it really mean anyway? What does getting rid of the rule really mean from a logical standpoint? There are only four logical possibilities.

Dont ask. Don't tell...........Ask. Don't tell.

Don't Ask. Tell................Ask. Tell.

So, which alternative is the preferred one? From my libertarian perspective Don't Ask, Don't Tell seems the preferable one - for heteros as well as homos. Whatever you do for jollies keep it to yourself. Besides, as a lady friend told me many years ago, the best sex was done on the sly.

Other than that, you're just bragging.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Hey! Dummies! You in front of the TV camera.

Hey! Dummies! You in front of the TV camera, Gold reaching new highs is not a good thing!
Silver, maybe. It may be if it is reclosing the historical 16:1 ratio to gold.

BUT, gold reaching a new high means the dollar is reaching a new low.

Last year, at this time, I wrote a blog about gold breaking $1000 an ounce. Then, as now, I found this to be a worrisome thing. As I write this 54 weeks later, Gold has a bid price of $1372.33 and an ask price of $1372.88¹. This means that in the last year gold has risen 37.23%! In one year! Or more correctly, the dollar has fallen 27.15% against gold. Again, it isn't the gold that is changing. An ounce of gold is always worth ... an ounce of gold.

¹The day's high was $1374.05.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Lazyness Is Not a Disability

Spare me from tubs of lard on Hoverounds.

I recently had the unmitigated joy of going to Disneyworld. It used to have a very efficient transportation system. Step out from your hotel room and short a bus or a water taxi would come and in moments wisk you away to one of the theme parks or other Disney delights.

Now, the world comes to a stop for people in electric wheel chairs. "You three give up your seats so they can be folded up to stow the electric cart; and you two give up your seat so he can sit down. There will be another bus in ten to twenty minutes."

Does it sound compassionate? Well, it isn't. These are not truly handicapped people. There is no clearing of eligibility for these people as there is with the red and blue handicapped placards at the DMV. The truly disabled have their own wheelchairs; and in many cases pride themselves on walking with crutches or canes. No, these are the fat and lazy who rent the carts as much for the extra privilege of access by going to the front of the queue lines as for the laziness of hauling their fat carcasses around. These are people who could use the extra expenditure of energy to forestall their inevitable appearance on America's Biggest Loser.

One can only long for the day that Obama's medical panels decide that joint replacement surgery is declared cost ineffective and no longer offered, so that these people can have the legal right to their ADA use.

A Federal Answer to a Personal Responsibility Question, NO!

I am already sick of hearing about freezing foreclosures. The level to deal with alleged deficiencies in the paperwork is in your dispossesory trial. A foreclosure is a legal proceding. It has rules. It seems that nobody in the 21st Century wants to play by the rules -- not the homeowners, not the mortgage companies, and not the government.

Look, mortgagees, you made a deal to pay for a loan of money. Pay it. Or give up the house!

Ok, you, bankers, play by the rules. I don't care how many houses you have in foreclosure right now. Dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s. File the paperwork the right way. Make sure you have the paperwork in hand. No cutting corners.

And you, Government, allow the bad loans to play themselves out and clear the market, or we will never recover.

And while we are at it, all of you in the press. The proper place to play this out is in the courts, not the Executive Branch, or the Legislature. The banks and borrowers make a contract. Allow contract law to be settled in the courts on a case-by-case basis as it should be. Believe it or not, the bank doesn't just show up one day and take the house. There is a legal procedure where the mortgage holder must file in state court for default and remedy. AND, the borrower has the right (read duty) to answer the complaint. If there is question of the standing of the lender, the debtor should make it known then. If you have been sending (or not sending or you wouldn't be here) your checks to Washington Mutual and Bank of America is filing your dispossessory, make it known in your answer. If you are in default you do not have a right to your house. Sorry, Charlie.

And finally, anything but enforcing the contract against delinquents is unfair. UNFAIR to those of us who live within our means, pay our bills, and fulfill our promises.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Uh Oh ...

Normally I agree with Dave Ramsey, at least at a personal economic level. It is good not to be in debt. And I even agree with him on another idea he spoke of today, but not for the same reason. I do not recommend to my friends to buy gold. My reason is that one does not make all that many $1000 (now $1300) purchases. Gold isn't an investment. It is a parking place. As is silver, which I do own and recommend. $20 increments. Dave Ramsey is worried about a gold "bubble", the price being unreasonably high and going down later. In what? Dollars? Unlike shrimp, lettuce, and even corn, silver and gold stay the same. An ounce of silver is worth an ounce of silver. No more. No less.The ounce of silver that I got for a dollar in 1964 is still worth ... an ounce of silver. The Federal Reserve Note I left in an old coat pocket and found recently now buys about 4% of what it would in 1964. That is the point. Dave Ramsey made a point about the Petroleum bubble last Summer when sweet crude went to $145 a barrel and gasoline was "$5 a gallon", and how that was a bubble too. But he missed the point: it wasn't petroleum nor gold that is the bubble. The dollar is the bubble, and a heavy one at that. When gasoline was $4.50 a gallon here, my ounce of silver bought four gallons of gasoline just like it did in 1964 when gasoline was 25¢ a gallon.

Right now, Mr. Ramsey, gold is at a record high, and silver is as high as it has been since the Hunt Brothers tried to corner the market many years ago. But, this is merely a symptom. The following is a commodity news clip from Friday October 9, 2010 from Brock Associates, a commodities broker to his clients:

Corn, soybean and wheat futures at the Chicago Board of Trade will all have expanded daily price limits on Monday as a result of Friday's sharp gains.
The daily price limit on corn futures will be expanded to 45 cents per bushel from the normal level of 30 cents.¹
Price limits will also expand on Monday for CBOT soymeal, soyoil and oats futures. For soymeal, the price limit widens to $30 a ton, from $20.

Straightforward working information that CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC and MSNBC, and even FOX didn't find important enough to mention even though it is a suspension of rules designed to control runaway panic selling and buying. Couple that with this information from today's Economic Policy Journal:

Corn prices have hit a two-year high in early morning trading, jumping more than 8 per cent.
CBOT December corn surged by an expanded daily limit of 45 cents, or 8.5 per cent, to $5.73¼ per bushel, the highest since September 2008. In the last two trading sessions, corn is up more than 15%.

Now, remember that little decal on your gas pump last time you bought gas - "may contain 10% ethanol". Ethanol, alcohol made from corn by Archer Daniels Midland in Clinton Iowa. They are competing with you for the food you eat and the feed that feeds the food that you eat.

Last Call For Alcohol

No, Dave, you don't have to trade in commodities for the price of commodities to reach down and bite you².
Dave, usually I try to live my live in rules you would approve. I have little to no debt (depending on when you ask me. After a trip or after the next month). But I do have some holdings in silver of which you would not approve. They are not an investment. They are an insurance. Just like term insurance on my life, my silver is an insurance against financial calamity. And just like the life insurance, the health insurance, and more obviously, the fire insurance, I hope never to take advantage of it. I don't track its value from day-to-day looking for my opportunity to sell and make a profit. What would I put my safety net in? Dollars? A 401k?
You often advise your listeners to put their savings in a 401k. Do you suppose that the surge in the price of commodities on Friday and Monday might possibly be connected with a recess hearing at the U. S. Senate on Thursday that revived a long dormant plan to nationalize 401k and other tax sheltered savings plans.

Democrats in the Senate on Thursday held a recess hearing covering a taxpayer bailout of union pensions and a plan to seize private 401(k) plans to more "fairly" distribute taxpayer-funded pensions to everyone.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee heard from hand-picked witnesses advocating the infamous "Guaranteed Retirement Account" (GRA) authored by Theresa Guilarducci.
In a nutshell, under the GRA system government would seize private 401(k) accounts, setting up an additional 5% mandatory payroll tax to dole out a "fair" pension to everyone using that confiscated money coupled with the mandated contributions.³

Which 2000 page lame-duck omnibus bill will this be hidden in? Between theft like this and the regulations-and-debt coming out of Washington, is there any wonder that people are afraid of the future of the dollar?

¹ What this means is that there are no sellers willing to sell at the mandated price high limit. So far, people can not be forced to sell at a loss. Stay tuned.
² Gold here may diverge from the other commodities as it is a hedge against currency variation only, i.e. it does not get traded like all the other commodities primarily as a regulator of supply against future commercial demand - even silver is an industrial metal and traded that way as its primary purpose. Speculation and arbitrage are parasitic riders on the primary purpose of commodity trading; even if, sometimes the tail wags the dog.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

War Against The Weak

I am currently reading War Against The Weak, Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, by Edwin Black. I would describe it as alternately fascinating, boring, horrifying, and intriguing. It documents many of the things Glenn Beck has spoken of on his television show for the last few months - in great detail, and referenced and documented. It will go on, I have been clued in, to explain how the Fabians, Socialists, and Progressives and their elitist attempt to engineer the family tree of mankind became Hitler's attempt to prune that tree by genocide.

The question I am awaiting the answer for is: When did the Progressives change from being elitists trying to eliminate us lesser people from competing in the Malthusian dilemma to elitists being our benefactor protecting us from every sling-and-arrow of life, physics, economics, and biology? Or indeed, Have they?

I have pondered for a long time why so many "Liberal"¹ policies seem to side with death over life. You know, little things like abortion, of course; but also euthanasia; disarming the potential victims of crime; opposition to execution or even harsh imprisonment of violent criminals²; the destruction (in the name of fairness) of the World's best medical system³; policies that will inevitably destroy the currency and savings of the elderly and others on fixed incomes; and an almost zealous promotion of homosexuality coupled with a suspension of normal epidemic tracking of aids (even making a person's AIDS status a secret from the very medical people who would come into contact with him)⁴.

My Democratic Liberal friends seem to have a blind faith in the Federal Government whenever the titular head is a Democrat and a blind paranoia about the Presidency when a Republican is in charge despite the fact that there is little change other than a minimal reduction in the progress forward to total government control of our lives. This, despite the fact that there is an elite ruling class that comprises both parties with a common Ivy League education for both (Both Bush and Obama had Harvard educations); and a persistence of the operating levels of the Federal Government no matter who is in charge. Somehow my friends have a fierce distrust of "business" despite the relative dispersal of control, but have trust in a monolithic government with the power to legally use deadly force. I don't get it.

¹ I put Liberal in quotes, because the meaning has changed so in today's usage. Where Liberal was once Libertarian and on the side of the individual freedom of man, now it is about collectivism, restriction, control, and group identities, in other word, Fascist.
² I know this seems contradictory, but in not doing it, society sentences the victims rather than the perpetrators to death.
³ Here we go again. If England, Cuba, and Canada are so great, Not only why do their leaders come here for treatment, but what great advancements in medicine have come from those systems?
⁴ It seems perhaps the goal of the social planners is the same as the psychosis of some AIDS victims - the deliberate spread of the disease?