Have We Finally Discovered The Food Components Causing Most Disease?

[Bill]

At age 65, my wife and I are back to good health after a
nightmare journey through my four serious cancers and her
heart disease and breast cancer. A Few Vital Diet Improvements
(a free 40-page pdf) at http://www.curemycancer.org tells our
story - including actual medical records history. Download
your FREE copy and read our findings.

Based on our experience, we suspect that at least 90% of
age-onset disease is caused by excessive animal protein and
trans fats in the American diet. We observe that hundreds of
drugs are now commonly used to cure the symptoms of just a few
foods eaten to excess. Why not correct the mix of foods eaten
rather than suffer the ever worsening symptoms some foods in
excess cause? My booklet is our guide to rebalancing the diet
toward great health as we age.

NOTE: We are not vegetarians or vegans or animal rights
advocates; we are survivors!! We believe that as we
humans age, we greatly benefit by an ever decreasing
amount of animal protein in our diets. We offer our own
hard medical evidence in our book which proves this
contention to our satisfaction. With a 5% chance of
survival documented, I'm still alive and well after 3
years; within the last 30 days, I have had a full skin
exam and colonoscopy which yielded a cancer-free,
disease-free result - - this after eliminating 98% of my
previous animal protein intake 14 months ago. - -
Cheers, Bill

[Max C.]

In other words, just take your word for it and buy your book.
Riiiiiight.

Why is it that spammers always post twice?

[Bill]

Hi Max C. You are wrong on both counts.
1) Being new at this I hit the post before edit button
by mistake.
2) My book is my gift to the world, I am selling nothing; I
have merely told our true experience in hopes it will help
others. If you check my link, you will find valuable new
insites into the possibilities of cancer cure.
- - Cheers, Bill

[Max C.]

I've already helped people cure their cancer (including an 87
year old with advanced prostate cancer) and I didn't do it by
telling them to avoid animal foods. To the contrary, I told
them to *increase* their animal food consumption. Most likely
the difference in their cases and yours was the quality of the
animal foods. You should only eat animal foods raised the way
nature intended. Cows eating nothing but grains and
who-knows-what should not be used for food.

The similarities in your cases are probably that you learned
to avoid refined foods and eat a diet as natural and
nutritionally dense as possible. Nothing more.

I see that you were using "organic" raw cow's milk. I have to
say that any time I hear the word "organic" in terms of milk,
I cringe. To most people (and companies) as long as the cow is
eating plant foods, they think it's a healthy cow. Cows are
NOT designed to eat grains, which is what many dairies feed
their cows. Grains cause the cow's rumen to become acidic,
which affects the cow's health, and thus the quality of the
milk. It also creates an unnatural imbalance in the omega
fatty acids in the beef. That, in itself, has been shown to be
cancer-causing.

You move on to quote some work from T. Collin Campbell. The
man is a fraud. He willfully twisted the data in the China
Study to support his vegan agenda. I am probably more
qualified to give an opinion on the China Study than most
others on this board. I've already done a ton of work using T.
Collin Campbell's own data to disprove his position. You're
welcome to read it here: http://tinyurl.com/ecoqs

At this point I can't really tell if you're just a
well-intentioned, misguided person who lived through cancer
and want to share his experiences or another quack with an
agenda (this group gets plenty of those.) I hope it's the
former, but either way I'll rest assured knowing that my
personal experiences and the experiences of those I've helped
have already disproved your "book."

Max.

[Max C.]

> Yeah, and if you check Medline, you'll find that starches
> and sugars have far more association with promotion of
> cancers. No association between animal protein and cancer
> holds up under scrutiny.

Not to mention that Dr. Otto Warburg was awarded the Nobel
Prize in 1931 for his discovery that cancer cells thrived in
an anaerobic environment. The cancer cells had learned to live
without oxygen, and instead fuled themselves with the exact
kind of foods you just mentioned (starches and sugars.)

[Bill]

Max, It must be amazing to be so knowledgeable. You start by
being offensive, then backing off just enough to seem
credible. Are you a stealth Dairy Council person ? They
continue to actively discredit the good work of Dr. Campbell,
as the $$$$ stakes are so very high. If I weren't concerned
for my life and triggering other cancers now in remission, I
am sure enough about my assertions that I would wager you
$10,000 cash that given 4 quarts of the best cows milk you can
find for me and 1/2 pound of the best cows milk cheese (per
week), I will be diagnosed with basal cell skin cancer within
12 months. I have carefully experimented with my own food
intake to find the foods which triggered cancers within me. I
have gone through one complete cycle of turning off my skin
cancers (and all other cancers) for 15 months being off milk,
dairy and meats. When I went back on 3 quarts/wk of the
highest quality raw milk Whole Foods sells, 9 months later I
had full blown prostate cancer and 12 sites of basal cell
cancer. My diet otherwise was the same as it is now, with
ample starches and sugars from various sources, none of which
is or has caused me any cancer this past year !!! I guess, in
short, I question your credentials and your motives to blast
me before you look a lot closer at the facts in my experience.
My only hope is that a few misguided individuals out there can
benefit from my $1/2 million trip through a minefield of
cancers. As I made the trip the misinformation which bombarded
me and the drug-focused medical establishment would have left
me for dead, had I not acted on my own to discover that
indeed, it was a few unsuspected foods causing my cancer. Hope
that clarifies your question about me being a charlitan or
just misguided !!! --- Bill

[Max C.]

Heh, I love how vegans go right for the throat when someone
doesn't agree with every little thing they say. You even try
making up stories about organizations I might belong to in
order to try to discredit my position. I don't care what you
say, you're a vegan with an agenda. I've debated too many
vegans in my time to be duped by the old "I'm not a vegan, I
just know this works for me" line.

Well, what can I say except "Good for you." I'm glad you found
what works for you. While there is substantial debate on the
notion that everyone is different, I personally believe that
it is true. However, *if* you're are who you say you are, the
experiences you've had are not the norm and have been
disproven not only by scientific data, but also historical
data. If animal foods caused cancer, humans wouldn't be around
today. It's as plain as that.

To comment on your assretions that the dairy councel has been
trying to discredit T. Collin Campbell, that shouldn't take
much work. All you have to do is look at his comments on the
data in the China study and then look at the data itself.
While most of what he says about the China study is true, it's
what he DOESN'T say about the data in the study that can
easily be used to discredit him. He willfully omitted data
showing protective aspects of animal foods with regards to
many diseases, including the MOST important aspect of the
study, "ALL CAUSE DEATH."

I clicked on your link, why don't you click on mine?

Max.

[Max C.]

By the way, in what state do you live? (Odd question, I know,
but it certainly ties in to the topic of this discussion.)

[Mr-Natural]

Max C. wrote:
> In other words, just take your word for it and buy your
> book. Riiiiiight.
>
> Why is it that spammers always post twice?

If it was okay for Weston A. Price, DDS, why not for Bill?

[Mr-Natural]

Bill wrote:
> Max, It must be amazing to be so knowledgeable. You start by
> being offensive, then backing off just enough to seem
> credible. Are you a stealth Dairy Council person ? They
> continue to actively discredit the good work of Dr.
> Campbell, as the $$$$ stakes are so very high.

No, he is just a Christain.

Being a good Christian gives him the god given right to be as
stupid and obnoxious as he wants to be.

[Susan]

x-no-archive: yes

Bill wrote:
> Hi Max C. You are wrong on both counts.
> 1) Being new at this I hit the post before edit button by
> mistake.
> 2) My book is my gift to the world, I am selling nothing; I
> have merely told our true experience in hopes it will
> help others. If you check my link, you will find
> valuable new insites into the possibilities of cancer
> cure.
> - - Cheers, Bill
>

Yeah, and if you check Medline, you'll find that starches and
sugars have far more association with promotion of cancers.
No association between animal protein and cancer holds up
under scrutiny.

Just look at the links between hyperinsulinemia and cancer,
for example.

Susan

[Bill]

Max, You asked:
>By the way, in what state do you live? (Odd question, I know,
>but it certainly ties in to the topic of this discussion.)

I like this question; we might be able to accomplish something
as a team together yet. You may be beginning to see more in my
postings than appears typically.

I've lived in California for 30 years - - SF Bay area. Why?
I'm a retired computer design engineer; the current owner of
my patent (#4,085,439)being Northrup-Grumman. My
mission-control-optimized instruction set design flew on the
Galileo Space Craft (NASA) to Jupiter and flies on virtually
every currently operational jet fighter in the world.

After you reply, I will come back with my theory why I believe
living in California increases the odds of cancer hitting many
Californians sooner, harder. TTYL, Bill

[Max C.]

> Being a good Christian gives him the god given right to be
> as stupid and obnoxious as he wants to be.

Yup. What's *YOUR* excuse?

[Bill]

Max, Here goes - - paragraph by paragraph:

You state above:
>Heh, I love how vegans go right for the throat when someone
>doesn't agree with every little thing they say. You even try
>making up stories about organizations I might belong to in
>order to try to discredit my position. I don't care what you
>say, you're a vegan with an agenda. I've debated too many
>vegans in my time to be duped by the old "I'm not a vegan, I
>just know this works for me" line.

Again, you fingers typed before your brain engaged and
before you did some homework !!! In my no-cost booklet "A
Few Vital Diet Improvement Ideas" at www.curemycancer.org ,
on page 3 I ask you to read the chart of "Our Optimal
Eating Frequency Goals" for a large list of foods. Can you
continue to insist I am a Vegan IF:
- I eat butter twice a week
- I eat animal protein once a week, (including eggs, fish,
shellfish yogurt)
- I eat any/all meat once a month I'm an Electrical
Engineer, not a Vegan!!! Electrical Engineers are trained
to consider inputs as well as responses into/out of a
system. Medical doctors, in general, consider one or the
other, but never care to relate inputs and outputs as is
done in control system design, for example. In my Table I
lay out a scheme for cutting back on animal protein
intake, not cutting it out !!! The goal here is to reduce
statistically the cumulative amount of animal protein we
eat, not to cut it out completely. I have repeatedly
observed with my own body the "light switch" phenomenon
where with 1/2 qt milk/day I can turn on latent cancers;
with a few milk products in my diet once a month the
cancers stay in remission - - just as Campbell charts out
on Page 57 in his book, "The China Study".

SO, I don't see on God's green earth how you can call me a
Vegan ?!?!? I'm waiting for your erudite reply - maybe some
more Latin we all have to look up, Max. Or are you ready to
start working with me, and others who may join us as a
result this conversation. And YES I have an AGENDA!!!!, My
goal, before I shuffle off, is to help eliminate cancer as
a significant health problem through discovery of the few
food components which fuel terminal cancer. Is that such a
bad agenda?
- - Bill

[Max C.]

> I like this question; we might be able to accomplish
> something as a team together yet. You may be beginning to
> see more in my postings than appears typically.

I asked for 2 reasons. 1 - if your answer had been anything
other than California, I would have known you were lying about
buying raw milk from Whole Foods and would have dismissed you
as a spammer or someone trying to push an agenda. In the time
frame you mention in your article, there would have been no
other states that would have allowed the legal sale of raw
milk in a Whole Foods market. 2 - if your answer WAS
California (as it is) I would certainly look to other
environmental factors as the cause of your cancers. The only
dairy I'd trust raw milk from in California would be Organic
Pastures Dairy. Their cows are on green pasture 24 hours a
day. They are even milked on green pasture. Most other raw
milk dairies, including one of the largest, Alta Dena, feed
their cows nothing but grains. As I've said many times, if you
can't get raw milk from animals eating a natural diet, don't
drink milk at all.

Cows living in most areas of California would be exposed to
several environmental pollutants that could potentially cause
cancer. I recall reading articles about "rocket fuel" in
iceberg lettuce grown in California. Apparently there were
pollutants in the water used to irrigate the fields where the
lettuce was grown.

I have no reason to doubt your claims as a scientist (or
mathematician if that title is more appropriate) but that in
itself does not make a person a nutritional expert. To the
contrary, one would expect that a medical doctor, as educated
on the human body as they are supposed to be, would know all
their is to know about nutrition, but I find that most medical
doctors I talk to (especially my own) know next to nothing
about the science of nutrition.

I do not claim to be a nutritional expert myself. I only claim
to have helped many people who were willing to listen to me
and learn from the knowledge I've accumulated over the years.
Of those people, many, MANY of them were former vegans who had
lost their good health from a diet devoid of animal foods.
Some were even so far gone that they were losing their hair.

I am curious to hear your theories, but as you should be able
to tell from the link I've already provided, there's not much
that can be said to prove that a vegan diet is what's right
for humans. There's too much evidence against the notion.

Max.

[Bill]

Max, You wrote (above)
>I am curious to hear your theories, but . . . . . . <

My theory is simply that the "unusually high" (a phrase I
often see in the papers) cancer rates in California are caused
by the "Fortified" milk and milk products sold only (I
believe) in the State of California The state of California
has for many years required all retailers of milk products to
sell a "Fortified" milk in dairy products having under 4%
butterfat. Apparently the California Milk Advisory Board (or a
similar marketing entity) pursuaded the State of CA to require
all under 4% milk products to be mixed with a goodly
percentage of non-fat powdered milk - - and, in turn, the
State in turn sanctioned higher prices for the milk products,
because they were "Fortified" at exta expense. I contend that
the extra casein (milk protein) in California's unique
fortified milk is the most significant cause of higher cancer
rates in California.

Now I need to get valid stats to back my theory, and if stats
show higher cancer rates in CA, initiate a properly designed
study to prove or disprove my theory. I could really use some
help from you or someone out there who can get me accurate
California breast, prostate, and skin cancer statistics as
well as those for other states. If CA cancer stats are
statistically significantly higher than other states
(especially neighboring states), then I contend this alone is
grounds to do a full study comparing cancer rates among
fortified milk consumers versus unfortified milk product
consumers. My agenda here is to prove or disprove my theory.
And if the stats and subsequent study results support my
theory, I will work with other interested parties to require
by law the State of California to warn milk consumers of the
potential risks.

For now, the jury is still out on this theory, but I want to
log this issue here, as I believe not one in a million
Californians knows he/she is drinking "fortified" milk, nor do
they understand the possible (frrom my experience) increased
cancer risk.

I'm sure you will throw a barage of barbs at this theory, but
I assure you, if I had the money at my disposal, I would
privately fund this study before looking for some new, highly
profitable drug (with a dozen side effects) to "cure" cancer.
My interest here is to discover the simplist way, not the most
profitable way to end cancer as a significant health problem.

- Bill

[Max C.]

> I'm sure you will throw a barage of barbs at this theory,
> but I assure you, if I had the money at my disposal, I would
> privately fund this study before looking for some new,
> highly profitable drug (with a dozen side effects) to "cure"
> cancer. My interest here is to discover the simplist way,
> not the most profitable way to end cancer as a significant
> health problem.

Actually, your theory is not too far off. I didn't know about
the law in California you mentioned, but knowing that now, I
fully understand your experience. I certainly hope other
states don't adopt such idiocy.

While I can't comment on what happens to casein during the
drying process to make powdered milk, my guess would be that
it's simply denatured as any other protein would be. What you
should REALLY turn your attention to is the cholesterol in
that powdered milk. The drying process normally uses high heat
and lots of air, which tends to oxidize the cholesterol.
Natural cholesterol is very beneficial to our health. Oxidized
cholesterol is a killer. It is oxidized cholesterol that can
cause serum cholesterol levels to increase. That's because the
oxidized cholesterol causes damage that our own cholesterol
must repair. The body sees the damage and triggers the liver
to produce more cholesterol. If you haven't already, I highly
recommend reading the info at www.realmilk.com. You'll see
both sides of the issue there, and might find the answers to
some of your questions.

For your research, a good place to start might be the
California Cancer Registry:

http://www.ccrcal.org

Click on the "Publications" link at the top to get stats on
various types of cancer. Of course this info will probably be
difficult to compare with other states' info since the formats
will more than likely be dissimilar.

Another site that *may* be of some help to you is the National
Cancer Institute.

http://www.cancer.gov

I've never used the site, so I can't really comment on its
usefulness. I know it has some data in it, but I don't know
how applicable that data will be to your search.

Sorry for the misunderstanding at the start of the thread.
Your post *did* look just like one of the dozens of spam posts
we see here all the time. I'm happy we got the
misunderstanding worked out.

Max.

[Tc]

Bill wrote:
> Max, You wrote (above)
> >I am curious to hear your theories, but . . . . . . <
>
> My theory is simply that the "unusually high" (a phrase I
> often see in the papers) cancer rates in California are
> caused by the "Fortified" milk and milk products sold only
> (I believe) in the State of California The state of
> California has for many years required all retailers of milk
> products to sell a "Fortified" milk in dairy products having
> under 4% butterfat. Apparently the California Milk Advisory
> Board (or a similar marketing entity) pursuaded the State of
> CA to require all under 4% milk products to be mixed with a
> goodly percentage of non-fat powdered milk - - and, in turn,
> the State in turn sanctioned higher prices for the milk
> products, because they were "Fortified" at exta expense. I
> contend that the extra casein (milk protein) in California's
> unique fortified milk is the most significant cause of
> higher cancer rates in California.
>
> Now I need to get valid stats to back my theory, and if
> stats show higher cancer rates in CA, initiate a properly
> designed study to prove or disprove my theory. I could
> really use some help from you or someone out there who can
> get me accurate California breast, prostate, and skin cancer
> statistics as well as those for other states. If CA cancer
> stats are statistically significantly higher than other
> states (especially neighboring states), then I contend this
> alone is grounds to do a full study comparing cancer rates
> among fortified milk consumers versus unfortified milk
> product consumers. My agenda here is to prove or disprove my
> theory. And if the stats and subsequent study results
> support my theory, I will work with other interested parties
> to require by law the State of California to warn milk
> consumers of the potential risks.
>
> For now, the jury is still out on this theory, but I want to
> log this issue here, as I believe not one in a million
> Californians knows he/she is drinking "fortified" milk, nor
> do they understand the possible (frrom my experience)
> increased cancer risk.
>
> I'm sure you will throw a barage of barbs at this theory,
> but I assure you, if I had the money at my disposal, I would
> privately fund this study before looking for some new,
> highly profitable drug (with a dozen side effects) to "cure"
> cancer. My interest here is to discover the simplist way,
> not the most profitable way to end cancer as a significant
> health problem.
>
> - Bill

My theory, regarding the elevated incidences of cancer, is
generally poor nutrition combined with somewhat higher
exposure to carcinogens. Of key interest, nutritionally, are
Vitamin C, collagen, L-Lysine and L-Proline.

Cancers occur when cells fail to function normally and begin
uncontrolled growth. The cells functional integrity is
directly linked to its nutritional health. A well fed cell can
maintain its functional integrity against exposure to
carcinogens. A poorly fed cell becomes susceptible to
multivariate failure scenarios.

When we eat, we are feeding our cells. Feed them crap they
can't use and withhold from them the nutrition they need,
and they will fail to function to their potential, and if
the nutrition is poor enough they will fail to function
normally at all and will, in fact, function abnornally.
Hence the cancers.

TC

[Max C.]

Bill, along the lines of what TC just said, you may want to
research the work of Dr. Otto Warburg, whom I previously
mentioned. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1931 for his
discovery that cancer cells stopped using oxygen to convert
glucose to energy, and instead started using a fermentation
process. This produces a very acidic environment which tends
to kill surrounding healthy cells, allowing the cancer cells
to multiply.

Dr. Warburg's discovery SHOULD be required reading for every
medical student on the planet, but most doctors have never
even heard of him.

Max.

[Bill]

Max, I've been focussed (but not yet written about it) on pH,
body acidity, food acidity, for two years, and have been fully
aware of the probable relationship between cancer and acidity.
I have quite a story to tell, infact. I left it out of my
book, as the book will be used by many who don't understand
body pH, but yet, if not side-tracked by details will become
healthier by simply following the top level diet changes I
have said so helped my wife and me.

Briefly, I was shocked to find in fall 2003 that my salva
was pH 6.0 and urine, 5.0 (I felt this was low, but blood
tests say this is "in range"). I was also shocked to get
specs from leading springwater companies that indicated the
low end of their "Spring" water was pH
5.. So I checked around and stumbled on water ionizer products
which promised to separate and cast out the acid ions and
give me a water at pH 8.0. I began drinking/cooking with
this water, and noticed in days my saliva had gone up to pH
6.5; urine 5.5. So in absolute terms, I had increased my
body fluids alkalinity by half an order of magnitude. A
month later Jan, 2004, I added 3 qts/wk raw, whole,organic
milk to my diet and my PSA, which had been steady at 2.6
(See page 6 of my book, www.curemycancer.org) shot in 10
months period to 5.8, bringing with it full blown prostate
cancer and 12 basal cell skin sites. The point being:
Significantly increased body fluid pH followed by moderate
high quality dietary milk yielded ferocious cancer growth.
PS: Wife and I have continued using the ionized water,
exclusively, and after getting off milk and most other
dairy/meat, have had no disease at all ! Because
increasing my body pH didn't seem to be a factor in my
beating back cancer, I have written nothing about
adjusting my body fluid pH until now.
- - Bill

[Bill]

TC, Let me add the following, perhaps surprising theory - -
based on living with and examining my own cancers as they
swelled and ebbed. Remember, as you read this I am an
Engineer, trained to solve problems, and I have defined my own
terms, rather than read through medical or nutrition journals
to get their jargon. I have dyslexia, and reading is not a
walk in the park. My theory is that my cancer is initiated by
"Type A" carcinogens that I ingested/absorbed from my
environment over a period of 59 years. I define a Type A
carcinogen as one that yields occasional, scattered, but
dormant cancer cells. For example, I spent most days shirt off
in the sun from age 9 to 21, no cover, light skin. Ergo, skin
cancer cells scattered over the top half of my body. But no
skin cancer lesions were visible on me until age 36, left arm.
My theory further has identified that for the cancer to grow,
a "Type B" carcinogen must be present to facilitate the basal
cell skin cancer (or any other cancer cells in the body) to
grow and spread. My intuition told me to look for the type B
carcinogen(s) in my diet, whereas, I knew the Type A
carcinogens would be in radiation and in the air, as well as
my food. So from 2000 to 2005, I went back to a pure
plant-based diet, and added one item at a time slowly until I
saw the spectacular eruption of cancers when I went back on
the best quality whole raw milk I could buy and a few other
minor sources of animal protein. Voila! My stealth Type B
carcinogen discovered! And confirmed by my PSA history chart,
p 6 of my book at www.curemycancer.org . I had a history of
about 4 spots of basal skin cancer per year since 1980. So I
could count on them showing up each year, and I had each
removed as they appeared. When my PSA dropped the first time
in 2003, I also had no skin cancer at all for one full year
that I was off all animal protein but white fish once a week.
Then the Milk enabled or "fed and watered" my 12 new skin
cancers, and my PSA, which went way up in fall, 2004 ending in
discovery of serious prostate cancer. So at the beginning of
2004, I was able to "turn on" my cancers with 3 qts milk, 1/2
lb cheese per week and a meat main course about once a week.
My oncologist used hormones and radiation to put the prostate
cancer in remission, and I had the skin cancers removed with
surgery; BUT my elimination of all dairy and most animal
protein (again) has kept all my cancers in remission ("Turned
them off") through the present (a period of one year at this
writing, and I am betting for many years to come.

Two months after I made my discovery of the Milk/animal
protein Type B carcinogen on my own, I read in Dr.
Campbell's book, "The China Study" on page 57 that he had
discovered the same carcinogenic nature of milk protein.
Your comments ?? - - Bill

[Mr-Natural]

To TC 'The Complainer' and Mad 'Max'

I should really join in this thread and write about how I
survived the cancers known as TC and Mad 'Max.'

Just a hint guys. Bill is the one who survived cancer, NOT
you buffoons.

Just thought that you might want to know.

[Bill]

For TC and Max - - one last theory regarding my Type B
carcinogens
- Animal Protein Toxins, - - one which answers the question,
"Why didn't my copious milk consumption since age 1 trigger
the first skin cancer at age 30 or 25? Here goes. All my
experience observing my family back to my great grandparents
to my grandchildren and friends through the years, and
finally myself, I advance the theory that animal protein or
its negative component(s) (I call it AP Toxins) are
cumulative in our bodies and that we each have a lifetime
limit of these toxins. Because we all eat different amounts
of animal protein at each meal, there is a wide range of
ages at which different people reach their limit. By age 60,
we have eaten 65,700 meals. Just one extra ounce of animal
protein per meal would have you accumulate 65,700 units of
AP Toxins. We need to assess each animal protein source to
determine how much AP Toxin there is in one ounce of each
source. This would answer the question, "Is yogurt lower in
this toxin than 2% milk?" - - as some of us suspect. "Does
steak contain more AP Toxin than chicken," etc.? At this
point, anyone can see why small differences in animal
protein intake per meal can explain why I got my first skin
cancer at age 36, while my father was in his 60s before his
first skin cancer. Of course, there are other factors, like
time in the sun, etc., but a primary factor is accumulated
AP Toxin. Now, consider that at my present AP Toxin
accumulation level at age 65, it takes only a few quarts of
milk per week in me to spawn multiple cancers. Back when I
was age 36, it took meat main courses two meals per day,
every day, lots of ice cream, 3-egg omelets with sausages -
- you get the picture - - to slowly bring out my first skin
cancer over 5 years before it was diagnosed and removed. So
the name of the game for all of us is to plan to
continuously decrease animal protein intake as we age - - to
be safe, the sooner the better, so there'll be room for some
animal protein in your diet as long as you live. I believe
there is value in small amounts of mild animal protein in
the diet each week to supply key nutrients (e.g., B12, etc.)
not effectively obtained from plant foods. I have included
our current "Food Eating Frequency Goals on page 1 of my
book at www.curemycancer.org . Beyond this animal
protein-cancer association theory, I believe, based on a lot
of good evidence, that 95% of all age-onset disease is
caused by AP Toxin as we each approach to our limit of it. I
watched my mother hit her limit at age 80 when she began to
literally disintegrate from, blood cancer, osteoporosis,
Parkinson's, colon cancer, among other diseases. The doctors
had her on 12 or more pills a day to keep her going in her
wretched state for her 5 "extra" years. All her adult life
she knew something she was eating was ailing her; the one
food group she never thought to try removing from her diet
was dairy and meat (animal protein). I discovered what foods
had ailed her 3 years after her death. Eating the same foods
my mother ate for his last 65 years, my father died with
Alzheimer's, melanoma, mental depression as known ailments.
I have many other examples, but they all tell the same
story. Thus I postulate it is not our genes that are
sickness or wellness prone; it is the rate we eat animal
protein during our lives. Why, you ask, does disease seem to
come early in families ?? Because parents teach their kids
to like and eat certain foods and establish eating habits,
some of which tend to be passed down for generations. A
family line that has for generations encouraged extra
helpings of animal protein foods tends toward disease at an
earlier age than a family that stresses a higher ratio of
plant to animal food consumption. Yes, refined foods, sugars
in excess will have an impact on all this but my experience
says that these items are 1/3 to 1/5 as detrimental to
health as animal protein is. I'd love to see these Simple
Carbohydrate Toxin factors as well as AP Toxin factors
quantified as soon as possible. After I had developed this
theory based on my experience, I read Dr. Campbell who
observed ("The China Study", Pg 85) that study results led
him to conclude that genes have only a 2% to 3% impact on
one's health.

I rest my case. - - Bill

[Max C.]

Just when I was starting to have a little respect for you, you
blow it. I handed your answer to you on a silver platter and
you completely ignored it and went on about animal proteins.
You didn't mention even a possibility that cholesterol may
have been the culprit. Had you even mentioned *something*
about cholesterol in your reply in any way, you would have
kept your credibility. Your unwillingness to talk about other
aspects tells me your here with an agenda.

And again about T. Colin Campbell? Let's look at some of the
numbers from the China Study, shall we?

Let's look at how all-cause death was correlated with various
foods in the study:

Corr Coeff. Item Item Description -29 D005%FATKCAL Percent of
fat that makes up the diet 30 D009%CARBKCAL Percent of carbs
that make up the diet 31 D028PLNTFOOD plant food intake -24
D034ANIMPROT animal protein intake 28 D035%PLNTPROT percent of
dietary protein from plant foods -28 D036%ANIMPROT percent of
dietary protein from animal foods -29 D048EGGS egg intake -27
D409MEAT meat intake -25 D050REDMEAT read meat intake -30
D052FISH fish intake -31 D082MUFA monounsaturated fatty acid
intake -25 D084SATFA saturated fatty acid intake -34 D085CHOL
dietary cholesterol intake 31 Q158dWHEAT wheat intake
(questionnaire) -35 P001TOTCHOL Total serum cholesterol level
-29 P002HDLCHOL serum HDL cholesterol level -26 P003NONHDL
Non-HDL cholesterol level

Honestly, I don't care nearly as much about cancer as I do
all-cause death. I'm not going to avoid foods that may or may
not cause cancer if it means I'm going to die from some other
cause sooner. As you can clearly see, animal foods were
NEGATIVELY associated with all causes of death. That's the
bottom line of the China study that the "great T. Colin
Campbell" failed to tell everyone.

I'm now back to the opinion that you're just a vegan with an
agenda. You haven't presented anything here but your opinion
and you refuse to look at more plausible alternatives to it.
I'm sorry. That kind of attitude is of no value to me.

Max.

[Enrico C]

On 9 Mar 2006 10:34:35 -0800, Bill wrote in
<news:1141929275.870117.172570@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
on sci.med.nutrition :

> At age 65, my wife and I are back to good health after a
> nightmare journey through my four serious cancers and her
> heart disease and breast cancer. A Few Vital Diet
> Improvements (a free 40-page pdf) at
> http://www.curemycancer.org tells our story - including
> actual medical records history. Download your FREE copy and
> read our findings.

"Findings" is a big word to me.

I would call them hypotheses based on your personal
experience.

> Based on our experience, we suspect that at least 90% of
> age-onset disease is caused by excessive animal protein and
> trans fats in the American diet.

I gather your experience was about cancer.

How do you know that other age-onset diseases are caused by
excessive animal protein intake?

What do you mean by "excessive"? How many grams per kg of body
weight per day?

> We observe that hundreds of drugs are now commonly used to
> cure the symptoms of just a few foods eaten to excess. Why
> not correct the mix of foods eaten rather than suffer the
> ever worsening symptoms some foods in excess cause? My
> booklet is our guide to rebalancing the diet toward great
> health as we age.

> NOTE: We are not vegetarians or vegans or animal rights
> advocates; we are survivors!!

Indeed, a vegan would never write "excessive animal
protein". A vegan would just recommend "no" animal protein
at all! But then, you also write "eliminating 98% of my
previous animal protein intake"...! 98% is nearly all. Maybe
you *are* a vegan? ;)

> We believe that as we humans age, we greatly benefit by an
> ever decreasing amount of animal protein in our diets.

Do you mean that animal protein is okay for young people but
not so okay for the old?

> We offer our own hard medical evidence in our book which
> proves this contention to our satisfaction. With a 5%
> chance of survival documented, I'm still alive and well
> after 3 years;

I am glad for you. But... have you ever considered that
doctors *can* be wrong, sometimes? They think you are going to
die, nevertheless you survive, or vice versa. Or, that you
might be the lucky 5%?

> within the last 30 days, I have had a full skin exam and
> colonoscopy which yielded a cancer-free, disease-free result
> - - this after eliminating 98% of my previous animal protein
> intake 14 months ago. - - Cheers, Bill

In fact, you gave up all animal protein except for a morsel
now and then, is that so?

[Bill]

Enrico, I'm glad to see what I have written has interested
you. Welcome to the party. At this point in my thinking, my
goal has been to document publicly what I have observed about
diet's impact on cancer as I battled 4 cancers over 5 years. I
agree from hindsight that some of my word choices in this
thread could have been better, but these flaws should not mask
the message here that animal food sources stood out (by
perhaps by an order of magnitude) over all other food intake
as a facilitator of cancer in my body.

I would like to see research investigations established to
prove or disprove my theories about Animal Food Sources. I
want to see this research done as we in Engineering would do
it: Monitor food intake versus human health resultant
response. We need to document and evaluate (assign weights
to) the qualities of foods we eat according to how human
health responds over time to each food. This effort I want
to see done independent from other efforts investigating WHY
the foods react in the body as they do. If we learn that
certain foods are ten times more likely than others to harm
our health, then it becomes our choice not to eat them,
rather than spend a fortune on cures for their symptoms - -
or die prematurely.

You asked:
>How do you know that other age-onset diseases are caused by
>excessive animal protein intake?
Answer:
1) I watched my wife's cholesterol drop from 314 to
165 between
1/1/02 and 5/12/03 eating the much the same modified diet I
was consuming to successfully keep all my cancers in
remission. We can produce the medical records to establish
proof of her body's response to an estimated 90% reduction
in our rate of consumption of animal food sources.
2) I watched my mother, once a school dietician, battle for
10 years 2 major cancers, osteoporosis and Parkinson's.
I know for a fact that her diet included significant
amounts of animal food sources and hydrogenated oils - -
the only two food components she never removed from her
diet - - as she never suspected they were a problem.
These are two of several observations that lead me to
suspect that more diseases than cancer are likely caused
by years of excessive animal foods consumption. I will
grant you that we have also removed all hydrogenated
oils from our diet, so a more accurate statement for the
record is: "I believe most age-onset diseases are caused
by a combination of excessive animal food sources and
hydrogenated oil dietary intake." Which indicted food
does what in causing other diseases should be sorted out
in the study which I have proposed herein. What I do
know is that animal food sources alone triggered my
3/5 prostate & basal cell cancers to flourish (come out of
remission and require professional treatment by
oncologists).

I believe excessive simple carbohydrates in our foods
(especially, high fructose corn syrup - HFCS) are factors
in disease, but as I virtually never consumed HFCS in my
life, nor did the people I observed closely, it plays no
role in my experience, and I thus leave it for another
thread to deal with.

You asked:
>In fact, you gave up all animal protein except for a morsel
>now and then, is that so?

Yes. I have butter every other day or so on toast, an ounce
of sheep milk feta cheese every other day in salad, fish
about every 10 days, a few ounces of beef about once per
month. Hopefully, my honest response to this question will
help you assess what I have said above. By the way, as Max
has pointed out elsewhere in his blunt style, perhaps I/we
should be using the term "animal food sources" instead of
the term "animal protein". Max is correct in pointing out we
really don't know what the specific toxin is in the animal
food sources - - it could as Max says be the cholesterol or
anything else in the animal food sources. THE POINT IS - -
my message here does not sink or swim on which toxin in the
animal food sources had so effectively nourished my cancers
out of remission, causing my 2004/2005 flare-up of prostate
and basal cell cancers.

Thanks for some good questions.
- - Bill

[Dakikos]

I have read Bills book, and find his theories worth studying.
Most of the people posting here have expressed their opinion
based on what they have read our there, while 'Bill bases his
in facts related to his own experience with cancer. I think
the problem in this whole theme is the lack of respect that
Max, TC and others have for opinions which do not agree with
their own agenda. I think Bill has the right to tell people
about his own experience with cancer and how in his case
reducing substantially animal protein intake has prevented
cancer from coming back, There are millions and millions of
vegetarians out there and they lead total normal lives, the
have chosen to substitute animal protein with vegetable
protein. The same right that max and TC have to eat steak,
fish or chicken every day these people have of eating whatever
they wish. So I think than instead of bashing somebody like
Bill who has chosen to share his experiences, and to assume
like max did in his first posting that Bill was a spammer and
was trying to sell his book, which both were only assumptions
proven to be wrong, people should b more respectful and op-en
about different points of view. It is really sad to see a
group of know-it-all posters not only in this group but other
related groups bashing and offending people, just because they
present information they do not like. Bill has the right to be
heard. I think that a study related to what he proposes makes
all the sense in the world, specially in US where almost
600,000 people die every year from cancer. I will gladly
accept opinions that are different from mine, but lets keep
them in respectful and adult tone. Finally, after reading
Bill's book, I can see that his own reason is to let other
people know about what happened with him and his wife (who
lost 50 Lbs, and lowered her Cholesterol from 307 to 170).
Even Max would have to accept that this outcome was very
successful. Personally, for a start, I will be rucing
substantially my consumption of Milk, Cheese and red meat, and
by doing this I hope my Cholesterol level drops also. Studies
have shown a big correlation between animal fat consumption
and prostate cancer. Please see this paper published in PUBMED
the leading index for scientific publications in the USA:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db-
=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16435998&query_hl=1&itool=pub-
med_docsum

A low fat diet rich in fruits and vegetables may reduce the
risk of developing prostate cancer.

Sunny L.

Bombay Population Based Cancer Registry, Indian Cancer
Society, Parel Mumbai 400 012, India. lizzy_sunny@yahoo.com

BACKGROUND: Diet has been implicated in prostate cancer risk
and there is evidence of risk reduction with a healthy diet.
The objective of this population-based case control study was
to examine whether a low fat diet rich in fruits and
vegetables can reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer
in Mumbai, India. METHODS: Included in this study were
microscopically proved cases of prostate cancer diagnosed
during 1998 to 2000 and registered by Bombay Population Based
Cancer Registry (n=594). The controls were healthy men
belonging to the resident general population of Mumbai, India.
Two controls for each case matched by age and place of
residence were selected as the comparison group. Data on
oil/fat consumption, fruits and vegetable consumption and
other probable confounding factors were obtained by structured
face-to-face interview. After exclusions, 390 cases and 780
controls were available for final analysis and confounding was
controlled by multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: 58.7% of
the control group consumed more than 3 kg of fruits and
vegetables per week compared to 52.1% of the case group.
Controlling for age and probable confounding factors, a
statistically significant protective effect for prostate
cancer was observed for those who consumed fruits and
vegetables 2 to 3 kg (OR 0.5, 95%CI 0.3-0.8) and more than 3
kg (OR .4, 95% CI 0.3-0.6) per week compared to those who
consumed less than 2 kg per week. The linear trend for the
protective effect was highly significant with increase in the
consumption of fruits and vegetables (p = 0.001). Even though
not statistically significant, oil/fat consumption showed an
elevated risk (OR 1.7, 95%CI 0.9-3.3) for those who consumed
more than 2 kg of oil/fat per month compared to those who
consumed less than 1 kg. CONCLUSION: The findings from this
study support the hypothesis that a low fat diet rich in
fruits and vegetables may reduce the risk of prostate cancer.

[Mr-Natural]

Nothing on my web site http://naturalhealthperspective.com is
about treating cancer. It is strictly 100% about preventing
cancer, and other lifestyle diseases. I think it best to leave
the treatment of cancer to the professionals. Therefore, I
have nothing to say on this subject. Treating versus
preventing are two totally different topics, IMHO.

However, I have in fact downloaded Bill's e-book. Bill has
a much a right to express his opinion as anyone else does.
If Weston Price could do it, so can Bill. He at least has
set up his own web site, which is certainly a step in the
right direction. Bill has certainly accomplished a lot more
than what TC, Mad Max, or Montygram has done. I challenge
TC, Mad Max, or Montygram to put whatever they are yacking
about constantly into an e-book and/or a web site. After
all, you have to have something to say before you can write
a book. Any fool can complain on these ngs like these 3
fools do all the time.

One day, I plan on converting my web site into an e-book.

Just my opinion, but I am NEVER wrong.

[Enrico C]

On 11 Mar 2006 15:22:50 -0800, dakikos wrote in
<news:1142119370.568920.12090@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> on
sci.med.nutrition :

> I have read Bills book, and find his theories worth
> studying. Most of the people posting here have expressed
> their opinion based on what they have read our there,
> while 'Bill bases his in facts related to his own
> experience with cancer.

What do you think medical research is based on?

> I think the problem in this whole theme is the lack of
> respect that Max, TC and others have for opinions which do
> not agree with their own agenda. I think Bill has the right
> to tell people about his own experience with cancer and how
> in his case reducing substantially animal protein intake has
> prevented cancer from coming back,

As long as he makes clear that that is guesswork, not
scientific "findings".

> There are millions and millions of vegetarians out there and
> they lead total normal lives, the have chosen to substitute
> animal protein with vegetable protein.

So what? Lots of vegeterians, by the way, drink milk, eat
eggs, and so on, let alone "vegetarians" who even eat fish! :)

> The same right that max and TC have to eat steak, fish or
> chicken every day these people have of eating whatever
> they wish.

Tell Bill. Lots of vegetarians do eat and drink animal
protein. Bill argues that animal protein, such as in milk, can
be bad for you. Who is right?

> So I think than instead of bashing somebody like Bill who
> has chosen to share his experiences, and to assume like max
> did in his first posting that Bill was a spammer and was
> trying to sell his book, which both were only assumptions
> proven to be wrong, people should b more respectful and
> op-en about different points of view. It is really sad to
> see a group of know-it-all posters not only in this group
> but other related groups bashing and offending people, just
> because they present information they do not like. Bill has
> the right to be heard.

Bill has the right to be heard, and other posters have the
right to ask questions and discuss or even criticize his
hypotheses.

> I think that a study related to what he proposes makes all
> the sense in the world, specially in US where almost 600,000
> people die every year from cancer. I will gladly accept
> opinions that are different from mine, but lets keep them in
> respectful and adult tone.
[...]

Agreed. But, until a peer-reviewed study provides some
scientific evidence that confirms Bill's hypothesis, also tell
cancer patients to stick with their prescribed medical
treatment.

[Mr-Natural]

Max C. wrote:

> Cows living in most areas of California would be exposed to
> several environmental pollutants that could potentially
> cause cancer. I recall reading articles about "rocket fuel"
> in iceberg lettuce grown in California. Apparently there
> were pollutants in the water used to irrigate the fields
> where the lettuce was grown.

Great, if you want to spend your life looking for safe
sources of milk.

But, for anybody normal ... How about a normal diet designed
for normal people to eat who actually want a life, rather than
just live in order to eat some kooky diet!

http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/whole-grains.html
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor
of the mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages,
the Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and
sharper terminology than ever before.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/

[Bill]

Enrico, You said:
>> Agreed. But, until a peer-reviewed study provides some
>> scientific evidence that confirms Bill's hypothesis, also
>> tell cancer patients to stick with their prescribed medical
>> treatment.

I want to make it very clear here that I agree with you: In
every case of my cancers over 5 years, I accepted the
oncologist's treatment when I had a cancer that warranted
immediate action. I have the $300K plus bills to prove
this. Fortunately for me, 90% was insured. And on my web
page and in my book (www.curemycancer.org,) I make this
history and my position clear. But the conclusion I have
drawn from my experience is that I successfully delayed my
prostate and 12 basal cell cancers by about 14 months by
going off animal food sources for 14 months prior ro these
cancers. Please look at the graph of my PSA Medical record
on page 6 of my book. The lower (2.8) PSA for the year 2003
was uniquely driven lower by elimination of animal food
sources (except white fish). As soon as I want back on
whole raw organic milk, the PSA and both cancers went wild,
and I had to take medical treatment. Multiple family
members had died of prostate cancer, so I wasn't taking any
chances. The evidence is in the PSA graph straight from my
oncologist's medical files as plain as day. This evidence
is a strong basis to proceed with controlled studies, the
results of which are highly likely to help all mankind.

- - Bill

[Dakikos]

Enrico:

The tone has changed from agreesive to respectful. That is a
good start.

Again, this forum is for people to voice opinions. I think
everybody is smart enough to perform due dilligence and make
their own decisions about their cancer or other treatment. All
Bill was doing here was telling his story and showing the
evidence in his personal case, and the US constitution gives
him the right to say whatever he pleases here and everywhere
else. The same way you and the others do.

What Bill proposes, and I agree is to tst his theory. there
are multiple published paper that suggest that excesive fat in
the daily diet may be a trigger for cancers such as prostate.

The mainstream of cancer research has a long way to go before
they can say they are succesful. There are cancers that are
99% incurable: GBM, Pancreatic and Metatastatic melanoma to
name a few. Nutrition should be a factor to consider during
treatment.

[Bill]

There is more important information and commentary I didn't
have time to include in my previous message above. So I'll
add it here.

I Quote myself:
>>The lower (2.8) PSA for the year 2003 was uniquely driven
>>lower by elimination of animal food sources (except white
>>fish). As soon as I want back on whole raw organic milk,

My basal cell cancer history is of key importance during
this same period where I removed most animal food sources,
then went back on 3qts raw milk/wk, During my year 2003 of
no dietary animal food sources but white fish, for the
first time in perhaps 10 years I had no basal cell skin
cancer visible. So coincident with the significant drop in
PSA, my skin cancers were effectively put in remission. In
fact, one spot that I had on my chest at start of 2003,
faded and disappeared during all of 2003. I wish to God I
had photographed it in its three states: 2002, a dime-size
red spot; normal looking skin during 2003; then by Oct
2004, after 9 months of Raw Milk (3qt/wk), a big bright red
spot which my Mohs surgeon scraped/removed along with 11
other ugly skin cancer spots, 10 on my left jaw area. I
believe my Mohs surgeon still has photos of all of them at
the time of removal. Another interesting note, my Mohs
surgeon commented that my basal cell cancers in 2000 - 2002
were 3 mm deep (when I was eating major meat, milk, cheese,
ice cream in quantity); but my 12 skin cancers in 2004 were
only about 1mm deep. This tells me that the rate of animal
food consumption is directly related to the depth
(severity) of the basal cell cancer.

Can you all see why I am eager to see some key studies be
defined and completed as soon as possible. Some will say we
are all so different that what happened to Bill bears no
relation to the average person. My gut tells me this
attitude is dead wrong. I believe it will be shown clearly
with appropriate studies that the important difference
between us is not our genes, but the accumulated "effect"
of our individual animal food source consumption over time.
I believe each of us has a limit - - perhaps based on
height - - for the amount of animal foods we can eat in a
lifetime. I hit my limit at age 59 because I ate animal
foods at a greater rate than my uncle who hit it at age 68
and quickly died of prostate cancer. My mother lasted until
age 80 before hitting her limit (as evidenced by rapid
onset of osteoporosis, Parkinson's, and 2 serious cancers).
Let's find the resources and the will to make the studies
to quantify the impact of animal foods in the diet. For
once, let's focus some resources toward quantifying food
intake risks, not only expensive cures for the sick. I tell
people that I spent about $300 on my best quality raw milk
for 8 months and paid over $100,000 in medical treatment of
multiple cancers to repair the damage to my body caused by
the milk. Following that episode, I've gone 14 months now,
with no milk and a few ounces per week total animal foods
in my diet with no cancer detectible anywhere on my body (I
just had a full skin exam and colonoscopy in the past
month, and not a whisper of cancer or pre-cancer anywhere.)

Looks like I'll be around a while longer - - hopefully long
enough to get these studies completed. - - Bill

[Mr-Natural]

I have now read/skimmed through the A Few Vital Diet
Improvement Ideas pdf file.

I found it very interesting reading and reasonable. I too have
heard bad things about milk protein.

But, I would imagine that a lot has to do with the particular
cancer in question. For instance, how about Lung Cancer? Which
foods are bad for Lung Cancer?

[Bill]

Max, You said above:
>>If animal foods caused cancer, humans wouldn't be around
>>today. It's as plain as that.

Nothing I have said here in these many message posts states
that I believe animal protein initiates cancer or any other
disease in young, even middle-aged people. What I have said
is that animal protein or possibly more correctly, animal
food sources "facilitate" cancers already initiated by what
I called a Type A Carcinogen such as cigarette smoke or
sun. My example was that sun, a Type A carcinogen, started
my dozens of basal cell cancers; hi quality raw milk,
3qts/week for 9 months (I call a Type B carcinogen), grew
12 of those cancers on my face in 2004 and full blown
prostate cancer (Gleason 3,3) at the same time. I know the
milk alone facilitated these cancers because I tightly
controlled my diet that year. Also, I received most of the
intense sun on my upper torso between age 6 and 21; I also
know that my milk (and other animal foods intake) remained
quite steady from age 23 to age 59. My first skin cancer
appeared on my arm at age 36. Another theory (or as you may
prefer, hypothesis) I stated elsewhere says that I believe
the human body has a limit of animal food sources it can
consume over a lifetime - - due to accumulation of a toxin
of some sort in these animal foods, but absent in plant
foods. As one approaches that limit, disease such as cancer
begins to appear - - signaling declining body condition.
Once we establish repeatable, statistically significant
experimental proof of my hypothesis, and do tests on key
foods in the diet, we can publish rankings as to the
long-term toxicity of various common foods, and people will
then be able to make an informed choice about what they
eat, and how frequently they eat it. Then, too, the
pharmaceutical folks can start looking for
"animal-food-toxin-remover drugs" for those who are willing
to pay big bucks to keep drinking their milk after they've
hit their lifetime limit (typically between 55 and 80 years
of age for most people, depending on individual rates of
animal food ingestion). Working through my hypothesis, and
history above, and if I had lived 1000 years ago and had no
modern medical care nor other lethal disease, I would have
lived until age 65 when toxins from milk and other animal
food sources took me out with prostate cancer (as did
happen to my 67 year-old uncle in 1992 and my 74 year old
grandfather in 1942). Specifically, I don't want your
ridiculous statement above to stay unchallenged in this
thread; thus my response and clarification here.
- - Bill

[Max C.]

> Working through my hypothesis, and history above, and if I
> had lived 1000 years ago and had no modern medical care nor
> other lethal disease, I would have lived until age 65 when
> toxins from milk and other animal food sources took me out
> with prostate cancer (as did happen to my 67 year-old uncle
> in 1992 and my 74 year old grandfather in 1942).

The only thing ridiculous in this thread is your assumption of
animal foods. Let's say you HAD lived 1000 years ago. I feel
quite safe saying that you wouldn't have gotten the cancer to
begin with. You would have been getting unadulterated animal
foods. The animals would have been raised in a clean and
natural environment, free from pesticides, growth hormone
injections and constant antibiotics.

Your assumption that sun causes cancer is also completely
wrong. The only way sunlight can cause skin cancer is if your
diet isn't right. For example, sodium fluoride in your
drinking water can be used in place of thyroxin inside the
body because they're both halogen molecules. However, sodium
fluoride cannot provide you the protective properties from the
sun that thyroxin does. There are many recent alterations in
the human food supply that advance many cancers. Animal
protein is not one of them. Polyunsaturated fat ratios *in*
those animal foods, yes. Environmental carcinogens *in* those
animals foods, yes. Diseases contracted by those animals
because of abhorred living conditions, possibly. Refinement of
animal foods to make them able to sit on a store shelf for
months before "going bad," absolutely! Animal food proteins,
absolutely not.

If, in fact, you are not a vegan with a made up story and an
agenda, I'm sorry for your suffering. I've debated dozens of
vegans over the years and you wouldn't be the first to make
up such a story to try to get a point across. However, your
theory does not stand up to historical or scientific data...
even data provided by your beloved T. Colin Campbell. To
further my suspicion of your agenda, you have systematically
ignored data and suggestions that I've posted to counter
your theory.

We are now into the 3rd, 4th and maybe even the 5th
generations of people who consume large quantities of refined
foods. There has been speculation that such diets may make
offspring more susceptible to disease, including cancer. It is
possible that you are able to contract cancer more readily
than others. It is also possible that you were ingesting large
quantities of carcinogens, such as the oxidized cholesterol I
mentioned, that aided in the formation of cancer. I'm glad you
found something that works for you, but I won't sit by and let
you tell the world that a vegan diet will cure cancer, because
more often than not, it won't AND it will cause other diseases
in the process.

Max.

[Johngohde@]

Max C. wrote:

> If, in fact, you are not a vegan with a made up story and an
> agenda, I'm sorry for your suffering. I've debated dozens of
> vegans over the years and you wouldn't be the first to make
> up such a story to try to get a point across. However, your
> theory does not stand up to historical or scientific data.

At least he has a theory. You have absolutely nothing, but
your buddy the goat farmer and Weston Price.

Hs, ... Hah, Ha!

You are full of crap. And, I do NOT mind saying so. :)

[Bill]

And Max, In your diatribe above, you write as would a
professional obfuscator, handsomely paid by one of the large
companies which would loose $ billions if I am right. So as
you accuse me of being a Vegan, I accuse you of being a PAID
Professional Obfuscator!

You have succeeded in barrage wordsmithing to discourage
most readers from continuing - - perhaps pleasing the people
you work for. You have said a few things I would agree with,
but which change nothing I've said. Your insistence in
seeing every source of possible age-onset disease as an
equally potent health threat (as you throw many weak
possibilities around in your text to obscure my points)
shows that you have no appreciation for the potential value
of identifying the few Type B carcinogens in our foods which
are an order of magnitude more lethal than all the others
!!! This is my goal as an Engineer. By the way you might
want to begin accusing me of being an Engineer, because it
is highly likely Engineers working together will find the
lowest cost approach to eliminating cancer as a major health
risk. If you look at Vegans as a threat to your status quo,
I suggest you consider Engineers working on the cancer
problem as a huge threat to your status quo. May I point out
that neither the Medial Establishment nor the marketing
organizations for dairy and meat conglomerates have any
incentive to study food causes of disease. I suspect you
work for one of these organizations, and you are well paid
for your efforts here.

When will you understand that whether the animal food
toxin is oxidized cholesterol, or animal protein or a
third element in milk, it matters not to my hypotheses,
nor the results one would get by eliminating milk in a
diet to reduce risk of dying of cancer, once one has been
diagnosed with cancer! - - As I have successfully done
twice with the same result: putting all my existing
cancers in remission. --Bill

[Max C.]

> When will you understand that whether the animal food toxin
> is oxidized cholesterol, or animal protein or a third
> element in milk, it matters not to my hypotheses, nor the
> results one would get by eliminating milk in a diet to
> reduce risk of dying of cancer, once one has been diagnosed
> with cancer! - - As I have successfully done twice with the
> same result: putting all my existing cancers in remission.

Once again, I wholeheartedly disagree. Identifying the true
cause of the cancer is of the utmost importance. I fully
believe that in your case, it was not the milk, but rather the
added powdered milk that was the carcinogen. It wasn't the
elimination of the milk that helped, it was the elimination of
the refined milk product.

I am not at all surpised at your latest twist to try to
discredit me. Most of my debates with vegans usually take a
turn towards personal attacks on me after the facts are all
laid out. I am not concerned, though. Anyone who has read my
many posts on this news group already knows that your
accusations are false. Exactly what billion dollar companies
would I be working for? The local organic co-ops? The family
owned farms? The multi-billion dollar grass-fed beef industry?
Your accusations are laughable.

Max.

[Bill]

Max, You're losing it. - - - In desperation you wrote:
>>I fully believe that in your case, it was not the milk, but
>>rather the added powdered milk that was the carcinogen. It
>>wasn't the elimination of the milk that helped, it was the
>>elimination of the refined milk product.

I explicitly stated in a previous message the following:

>>But the conclusion I have drawn from my experience is that I
>>successfully delayed my prostate and 12 basal cell cancers
>>by about 14 months by going off animal food sources for 14
>>months prior to these cancers. Please look at the graph of
>>my PSA Medical record on page 6 of my book. The lower (2.8)
>>PSA for the year 2003 was uniquely driven lower by my
>>elimination of animal food sources (except white fish).

>>>>>As soon as I went back on whole raw organic milk, <<<<<<

>>my PSA and both cancers went wild, and I had to take medical
>>treatment. Multiple family members had died of prostate
>>cancer, so I wasn't taking any chances. The evidence is in
>>the PSA graph straight from my oncologist's medical files as
>>plain as day (see pdf page 6 at www.curemycancer.org). This
>>evidence is a strong basis to proceed with controlled
>>studies, the results of which are highly likely to help all
>>mankind.

The "whole raw organic milk" I drank WAS NOT REFINED, HAD NO
POWDERED MILK ADDED, AND WAS PURE AS THE DRIVEN SNOW. The
milk you describe is standard California LoFat Milk, which I
did not consume to bring on these 2004 cancers. Drinking no
milk for 14 months, I had complete remission of all cancers
for the first time in 10 years. This period was Dec 2002
through Jan 2004. Then I selected the purest raw, organic,
unmodified milk I could buy and drank 3qts per week for 8
months and brought on 12 basal cell and Gleason 3,3 Prostate
cancer into full bloom. So Max, you are wrong again, and
there is nothing more you can say that will warrant my reply.
I have said it all; my important message is scattered, but
all here in this message thread for anyone who cares to read
through it. Your last few replies indicate you must be a
desperate man (or woman), as you have failed to discredit my
experience, my hypotheses and my plans to take this energy to
the next level Thanks for asking AN OCCASIONAL good question
that helped me to clarify my ideas and get them in print. I
will reorganize and sharpen my writings here and use this
work to establish a new non-profit corporation dedicated to
groundbreaking research based on my hypotheses stated herein.
Good by, and good luck. - - Bill

[Max C.]

> You're losing it. - - - In desperation you wrote:
...
> So Max, you are wrong again, and there is nothing more you
> can say that will warrant my reply. I have said it all; my
> important message is scattered, but all here in this message
> thread for anyone who cares to read through it.

I've always loved the fact that when vegans have been totally
discredited they start attacking the messenger rather than
using real facts and data to support their position.

> The "whole raw organic milk" I drank WAS NOT REFINED, HAD NO
> POWDERED MILK ADDED, AND WAS PURE AS THE DRIVEN SNOW. The
> milk you describe is standard California LoFat Milk, which I
> did not consume to bring on these 2004 cancers.

I think you'll find, upon review of our discussion, that I
have not changed my position at all. That would also be
obvious to anyone else reading this debate. May I remind *YOU*
of one of *YOUR* preivious posts?

> The state of California has for many years required all
> retailers of milk products to sell a "Fortified" milk in
> dairy products having under 4% butterfat. Apparently the
> California Milk Advisory Board (or a similar marketing
> entity) pursuaded the State of CA to require all under 4%
> milk products to be mixed with a goodly percentage of
> non-fat powdered milk - - and, in turn, the State in turn
> sanctioned higher prices for the milk products, because they
> were "Fortified" at exta expense. I contend that the extra
> casein (milk protein) in California's unique fortified milk
> is the most significant cause of higher cancer rates in
> California.

So, by your own admission, if the raw milk did not contain at
least 4% butterfat, it could not be legally sold without the
added powdered
milk. You said yourself that it's the law in California. Some
cows *DO* provide 4% butterfat, but some do not. It's
entirely possible that the milk you were buying would
not have 4% butterfat on its own. It would seem to me
that by law, it would have to have been "fortified."

But nevermind the fortification process. Let me say this one
more time for all to read... IF YOU CAN'T GET RAW MILK FROM
COWS FEEDING ON GREEN GRASS, DON'T DRINK MILK AT ALL. Did you
go to the farm that produces your milk to see the diet of the
cows producing your milk? You said you bought it from Whole
Foods. Organic does not equal grass fed. With regards to milk,
there is a HUGE difference. It is much more likely that you
were getting raw milk from grain fed cows. The nutritional
profile of grain fed milk is very different from grass fed.

So, feel free to continue to attack me personally rather than
use actual data to support your position. You're only
discrediting yourself.

Max.

[Max C.]

By the way, I completely forgot to address the last 2
paragraphs in your latest reply. You said:

> Your last few replies indicate you must be a desperate
> man (or woman), as you have failed to discredit my
> experience, my hypotheses and my plans to take this
> energy to the next level

First, I'm not exactly sure what I'd be desperate about...
except being desperate to make sure false information isn't
spread across a scientific news group as though it were fact.
This news group is here for the science, not for opinions.

Second, I truly hope you move forward with your "next level"
plans. It would be refreshing to see someone doing the science
all on their own. I just have 2 words of advice for you... 1 -
don't think you're going to get anything worth while published
in a popular peer-reviewed journal. Those journals make the
bulk of their money off of adds and direct / indirect support
from the very companies for which you accuse me of working.
Obviously publishing any information that would take money
away from such companies would be bad for the journal. It's
the sad reality in which we live. 2 - be open minded enough in
your tests to admit when your hypothesis is wrong... because I
can tell you from a great deal of study you're going to find
that your animal protein hypothesis will not hold up to
scrutiny... at least not when the animal proteins come from
animals raised and fed the way nature intended them to be.

> Thanks for asking AN OCCASIONAL good question that helped me
> to clarify my ideas and get them in print. I will reorganize
> and sharpen my writings here and use this work to establish
> a new non-profit corporation dedicated to groundbreaking
> research based on my hypotheses stated herein.

I look forward to it. Make sure to come back once you have it
more organized. Just remember that many wealthy vegans have
been trying to prove the very same thing for decades with no
success. If you're really not a vegan and you actually intend
to make these things happen, it would be in your best interest
to have other people (like me and others in this group) point
out potential flaws in your theory before you spend money on
testing them.

Max.

[Johngohde@]

Bill wrote:

> So as you accuse me of being a Vegan, I accuse you of being
> a PAID Professional Obfuscator!

Mad Max ain't no professional obfuscator! He is just a
Christian, whose obfuscation comes as second nature. Ask him
what the Bible says, and he obfuscates!

Ask him if he can raise the dead and Mad Max obfuscates!

Ask him if he can heal the sick and he obfuscates!

Ask him what his Christianity is good for and he obfuscates!

Ask him if he has such great faith in the Lord, why does he
cling so to all things physical, and Mad Mad obfuscates!

Mad Max ain't no Christian because he has no faith in
his faith. :(

Who says so? I do!

Just thought that Mad Max might want to know that his
shallowness isn't fooling anybody.

[Bill]

Max, Thanks for taking a constructive approach in this
message. Your points are well advised and understood. We are
proceeding accordingly with excellent advice and council from
several sources. - - Bill

[Johngohde@]

Bill wrote:
> Max, Thanks for taking a constructive approach in this
> message. Your points are well advised and understood. We are
> proceeding accordingly with excellent advice and council
> from several sources. - - Bill

Well Bill,

You as a typical Arse, must be either filtering out or
ignoring my posts.

Well, good for you idiot. You obviously wont be seeing
this post.

What you obviously got in your little pdf file is a
case-study. All you have to do is re-write it in the stand
case-study medical research format and submit it for
publication.

Being that you are claiming to be a little self-appointed
genius / engineer you should not have any problems doing this.

Of course, since bigotry among these research journals
obviously is alive and well you probably will get published
faster ghostwriting the case-study for some research MD, such
as our resident Steve Harris who hangs out on news:sci.med.

Then there is always, the Medical Hypothesis research journal
who for a fee will certainly publish it. Our resident
Montygram 'The Idiot/Moron' is too stupid / cheap / and/or
Chichken Shit to publish his PUFAs crap. Posting on any
NON-moderated science group idientifies you as a rank amateur
conversing with the mentall ill nobodies, such as Mad Max who
is the biggest idiot that I have seen in a long time.

As for you, who cares. I too had problems with sun burns in my
youth but have NOT come down with skin cancer or any other
cancer for that matter.

I can read. I can think for myself, and have managed to do my
research without any help from any body.

And, as your little letter from your little MD who said that
you have only a 5 to 10 percent chance of surviving 5 years
wrote, YOUR 5 period is NOT over yet. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! So, you
are bragging prematurely.

Treating cancer, by diet is somewhat novel but the Japanese
macrobiotic diet has been around for a long time ... Jack. So,
you hardly did something novel. The results of one person is
meaningless, but if the same approach would be tested on 10 to
20 different persons and they all got favorable results, then
you might have something to write a book on.

Of course, you wont be seeing the above, ... Mr. Nobody.

Cheers ...

Just thought that you might want to know, how much of an Arse
you really are.

[Mr. Natura]

> Bill wrote:
> > Max, Thanks for taking a constructive approach in this
> > message. Your points are well advised and understood. We
> > are proceeding accordingly with excellent advice and
> > council from several sources. - - Bill
>
> Well Bill,
>
> You as a typical Arse, must be either filtering out or
> ignoring my posts.
>
> Well, good for you idiot. You obviously wont be seeing
> this post.
>
> What you obviously got in your little pdf file is a
> case-study. All you have to do is re-write it in the stand
> case-study medical research format and submit it for
> publication.
>
> Being that you are claiming to be a little
> self-appointed genius / engineer you should not have any
> problems doing this.
>
> Of course, since bigotry among these research journals
> obviously is alive and well you probably will get published
> faster ghostwriting the case-study for some research MD,
> such as our resident Steve Harris who hangs out on
> news:sci.med.
>
> Then there is always, the Medical Hypothesis research
> journal who for a fee will certainly publish it. Our
> resident Montygram 'The Idiot/Moron' is too stupid / cheap
> / and/or Chichken Shit to publish his PUFAs crap. Posting
> on any NON-moderated science group idientifies you as a
> rank amateur conversing with the mentall ill nobodies, such
> as Mad Max who is the biggest idiot that I have seen in a
> long time.
>
> As for you, who cares. I too had problems with sun burns in
> my youth but have NOT come down with skin cancer or any
> other cancer for that matter.
>
> I can read. I can think for myself, and have managed to do
> my research without any help from any body.
>
> And, as your little letter from your little MD who said that
> you have only a 5 to 10 percent chance of surviving 5 years
> wrote, YOUR 5 period is NOT over yet. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! So,
> you are bragging prematurely.
>
> Treating cancer, by diet is somewhat novel but the Japanese
> macrobiotic diet has been around for a long time ... Jack.
> So, you hardly did something novel. The results of one
> person is meaningless, but if the same approach would be
> tested on 10 to 20 different persons and they all got
> favorable results, then you might have something to write a
> book on.
>
> Of course, you wont be seeing the above, ... Mr. Nobody.
>
> Cheers ...
>
> Just thought that you might want to know, how much of an
> Arse you really are.

Also, I forgot to mention that you really are posting on the
wrong ng to begin with.

You should have posted on the SCI / CANCER or the Cancer
support groups, such as:

sci.med.diseases.cancer, sci.med.prostate.cancer,
alt.support.cancer.prostate, alt.support.cancer

And, of course, you would have started target in ngs covering
skin cancer and the other cancers which you allegedly
recovered from.
--
John Gohde, Achieving good health is an Art, NOT a Science!

The http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com website is a
Multilingual, cross-browser, cross-platform friendly site
which offers no Web Accessibility barriers.

[sigvald]

Alf Christophersen wrote:
> On 9 Mar 2006 16:48:43 -0800, "Bill"
> <svpafug@rahul.net> wrote:
>
> >I'm an Electrical Engineer, not a Vegan!!! Electrical
> >Engineers are trained to consider inputs as well as
> >responses into/out of a system.
>
> Hm. Interesting
>
> So, if you have a main power cable and some heaters
> controlled by a controller using the wires for sending
> control signals, do you just meter if power voltage is
> correct? (It's an analogy to you just looking at
> proteins. Except for a few essential amino acids mostly
> lacking in vegetables, they are mostly identical, but,
> proteins are a major component together with starch and
> the big lump of fat.)
>
> Why not rather look at the composition of the fats you
> get. Not the white fat, but the fats that muscle cells are
> build up of.
>
> When feeding animals with grains, and no greens, only
> different kinds of derivatives of linoleic acid are
> incorporated in meat as PUFA, but, in cow, rumen is
> desaturating them and/or conjugating them, forming long
> chain saturated fats and CLA which enter muscles and milk.
> The more grain in diet, the more C18:0 and C20:0 you will
> get in milk, while giving them green hay will probably
> provide more omega-3 in diet plus much more short-chain
> saturated fats like C12:0, C14:0, C15:0,
> C16: which has been shown to rather prevent several
> diseases.
>
> In sheep, the difference btw. Norwegian sheep and Icelandic
> sheep is stunning. The difference occure due to feeding
> practices. In Iceland, sheep are grazing in the free all
> year around, while in Norway, they are grain fed most of the
> year due to too much snow covering the fields. And, if fed
> hay in winter, the hay is conserved using formic acid which
> probably is not so good for the animals health in the long
> run, and most probably not for us neither.

Icelandic sheep are fed indoors for most of the winter, they
are allowed to feed outside in the winter if the weather is
good but most of their feed in winter is hay.

[Alf Christ]

On 12 Mar 2006 09:08:37 -0800, "Bill"
<svpafug@rahul.net> wrote:

> But the conclusion I have drawn from my experience is that
> I successfully delayed my prostate and 12 basal cell
> cancers by about 14 months by going off animal food
> sources for 14 months prior ro these cancers. Please look
> at the graph of my PSA Medical record on page 6 of my
> book. The lower (2.8) PSA for the year 2003 was uniquely
> driven

There might be an explanation around. While eating an
unbalanced vegan diet, your diet will lack most probably
several amino acids needed by body in order to make new cells.

That means, cancer cells will stop dividing for a while or
slow down dividing, but at the same time, so do every other
cell in your body, so if you cut yourself on a knife or
worse, get into a car accident with lot of trauma, the trauma
will neither get cured. When you again start eating animal
proteins also containing the essential amino acids (which you
also may get from a well-balanced vegan diet), the cancer
cells will of course again start to divide and you experience
a new, serious outbreak.

but unfortunately, at no poing you was or has been cured for
the cancer. The cancer cells are still there, waiting for more
fuel and building stones.

[Alf Christ]

On 9 Mar 2006 16:48:43 -0800, "Bill" <svpafug@rahul.net>
wrote:

>I'm an Electrical Engineer, not a Vegan!!! Electrical
>Engineers are trained to consider inputs as well as responses
>into/out of a system.

Hm. Interesting

So, if you have a main power cable and some heaters controlled
by a controller using the wires for sending control signals,
do you just meter if power voltage is correct? (It's an
analogy to you just looking at proteins. Except for a few
essential amino acids mostly lacking in vegetables, they are
mostly identical, but, proteins are a major component together
with starch and the big lump of fat.)

Why not rather look at the composition of the fats you
get. Not the white fat, but the fats that muscle cells are
build up of.

When feeding animals with grains, and no greens, only
different kinds of derivatives of linoleic acid are
incorporated in meat as PUFA, but, in cow, rumen is
desaturating them and/or conjugating them, forming long chain
saturated fats and CLA which enter muscles and milk. The more
grain in diet, the more C18:0 and C20:0 you will get in milk,
while giving them green hay will probably provide more omega-3
in diet plus much more short-chain saturated fats like C12:0,
C14:0, C15:0,
C16: which has been shown to rather prevent several diseases.

In sheep, the difference btw. Norwegian sheep and Icelandic
sheep is stunning. The difference occure due to feeding
practices. In Iceland, sheep are grazing in the free all year
around, while in Norway, they are grain fed most of the year
due to too much snow covering the fields. And, if fed hay in
winter, the hay is conserved using formic acid which probably
is not so good for the animals health in the long run, and
most probably not for us neither.

[Alf Christ]

On 12 Mar 2006 09:53:03 -0800, "dakikos"
<garciacm@gmail.com> wrote:

>What Bill proposes, and I agree is to tst his theory. there
>are multiple published paper that suggest that excesive fat
>in the daily diet may be a trigger for cancers such as
>prostate.

There is almost no doubt about certain fatty acids are
dangerous and cancer-cell growing rate (shorten time btw. each
cell division because all the signals needed to start a new
round of cell divisions are all around, or some receptors has
been modified to be giving signals all the time, like in a
computer program to forget to set a key boolean variable to
false after turning to true).

But now it was about animal proteins and not vegetable
proteins being the culprit.

[Alf Christ]

On 14 Mar 2006 11:34:43 -0800, "Max C."
<maxc246@yahoo.com> wrote:

>scientific news group as though it were fact. This news group
>is here for the science, not for opinions.

Sorry to say, but for scientific use, it is useless. Most
researchers avoid this group by all means, at least to provide
scientific proofs. But as an entertaining channel, it is of
course of use.

[Alf Christ]

On 9 Mar 2006 17:26:59 -0800, "Max C."
<maxc246@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Cows living in most areas of California would be exposed to
>several environmental pollutants that could potentially cause
>cancer. I recall reading articles about "rocket fuel" in
>iceberg lettuce grown in California. Apparently there were
>pollutants in the water used to irrigate the fields where the
>lettuce was grown.

I would rather suspect polonium and other long-lived deposits
coming from nuclear bomb tests in Nevada desert falling down
on the west side of mountains far more than any other reasons
in California.

But, I would suspect that level of Po-pollution is a high
secret in US.

[Alf Christ]

On 10 Mar 2006 16:05:43 -0800, "Bill"
<svpafug@rahul.net> wrote:

>range"). I was also shocked to get specs from leading
>springwater companies that indicated the low end of their
>"Spring" water was pH
>5.. So I checked around and stumbled on water ionizer
> products which

In Northern Europe, due to sulphur oxide downfall from
pollutions from coalfueled power plants in Germany and
England, water pH was down in
3.5-4 range. Very few places had as high as 5. And still they
are low. But not anymore cancers than most other places in
Western hemisphere.

On the other hand, places in US with lot of Se (which is far
more toxic than fluorine by the way) has far lower cancer
rates than area with low Se content. I do not know average
California levels, but would believe them quite lower than in
central areas of US (where they may even be in chronic to even
acute lethal ranges)

[Alf Christ]

On 11 Mar 2006 06:50:08 -0800, "Max C."
<maxc246@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Just when I was starting to have a little respect for you,
>you blow it. I handed your answer to you on a silver platter
>and you completely ignored it and went on about animal
>proteins. You didn't mention even a possibility that
>cholesterol may have been the culprit. Had you even mentioned
>*something* about cholesterol in your reply in any way, you
>would have kept your credibility. Your unwillingness to talk
>about other aspects tells me your here with an agenda.

Are you talking about cancer or something else?

There are very little proof about connection btw. oxidised
cholesterol and cancer, except when the diet is very high
in PUFA's.

Look rather to other prooxidants and also to deposits of
radioactive materials in your neighbourhood.

Over here, radon exposure is a real threat, not coming from
nuclear tests, but from naturally exposures of radium and
uranium in soil being there for million of years. Like, Oslo
is build on deposits with alum shale (alunskifer) which is
leaking radon which again give rise to polonium
exponentiation. About 10% of homes in Norway has more than 200
Bq/m(3) of radon in air.

[Alf Christ]

On 19 Mar 2006 08:10:30 -0800, sigvald@binet.is wrote:

>
>Icelandic sheep are fed indoors for most of the winter, they
>are allowed to feed outside in the winter if the weather is
>good but most of their feed in winter is hay.

Is this correct also in southern Iceland? We are mostly told
that sheep graze outdoor all year round, as opposed to ours,
and that this is why there is so much more MUFA in those
animals. (In some part of Western and Northern Norway, sheep
is outdoor almost all year)

[sigvald]

Alf Christophersen wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2006 08:10:30 -0800, sigvald@binet.is wrote:
>
> >
> >Icelandic sheep are fed indoors for most of the winter,
> >they are allowed to feed outside in the winter if the
> >weather is good but most of their feed in winter is hay.
>
> Is this correct also in southern Iceland? We are mostly told
> that sheep graze outdoor all year round, as opposed to ours,
> and that this is why there is so much more MUFA in those
> animals. (In some part of Western and Northern Norway, sheep
> is outdoor almost all year)

The lamb that we eat are usually slaughtered in the autumn so
they have never eaten indoors but the older sheep are fed
indoors if the weather is bad.

[Bill]

Alf said:
> While eating an unbalanced vegan diet, your diet will lack
> most probably several amino acids needed by body in order to
> make new cells.

Alf, you are wrong on this assertion and I am not going to
let what you said stand without comment. When I went off
most animal foods (except white fish) from Dec 2002 through
Jan 2003 (the first time), I closely observed my skin
day-to-day and watched it go from dry, flaky, and basal
cell spot producing, to a vibrant, self-lubricated,
exceptionally healthy look, I had never before experienced.
My skin cells were clearly growing and thriving on the
limited animal foods diet described. It may also be useful
to know that I began consuming 1 to 2 tablespoons of
coconut oil per day from Dec 2002 to the present. In Jan
2004, I went back on the 3 qts/wk of most expensive raw,
organic, whole cows milk I could buy locally, and my skin
over a few months went back to its prior unhealthy state,
and produced the 12 basal cell spots within 9 months. Since
November, 2004, I have had no milk, and my skin has grown
back to its wonderful healthy state as before the milk was
added to my diet.

Alf also wrote:
> but unfortunately, at no poin(t) you was or has been cured
> for the cancer. The cancer cells are still there, waiting
> for more fuel and building stones.

I completely agree with this assessment, Alf. As I have
said over and over in this thread and in my booklet at
www.EndCancerNow.org, the cows milk is not the initiator of
cancer, it is the enabler of cancer already in my body. By
reducing animal food sources by 90+%, especially cows milk,
I am currently holding my cancer growth in check, am thus
fully functional, and in good enough health to think,
write, travel, split wood, etc. And I know that if I chose
to go back on the typical American 70% animal foods diet, I
would be soon consumed with terminal cancer. It's too bad I
have to die prematurely to prove my assertion. So I have
chosen to live longer by consuming a diet primarily from
non-animal food sources. It'll be interesting to see how
long I can live with 4 cancers in remission and no cancer
detectable, as is the case now. I'll keep you posted.
- - Bill

[Alf Christ]

On 20 Mar 2006 13:46:02 -0800, "Bill"
<svpafug@rahul.net> wrote:

> Alf, you are wrong on this assertion and I am not going to
> let what you said stand without comment. When I went off
> most animal foods (except white fish) from Dec 2002
> through Jan 2003 (the first time), I closely observed my
> skin day-to-day and watched it go from dry, flaky, and
> basal cell spot producing, to a vibrant, self-lubricated,
> exceptionally healthy look, I had never before
> experienced. My skin

Anyway, no proof that the protein was the culprit, rather
the huge change in fatty acid profile which is known to give
such effects.

[Alf Christ]

On 20 Mar 2006 13:46:02 -0800, "Bill"
<svpafug@rahul.net> wrote:

> I completely agree with this assessment, Alf. As I have
> said over and over in this thread and in my booklet at
> www.EndCancerNow.org, the cows milk is not the initiator
> of cancer, it is the enabler of cancer already in my body.
> By reducing animal food sources by 90+%, especially cows
> milk, I am currently holding my cancer growth in check, am
> thus fully functional, and in good enough health to think,
> write, travel, split wood, etc.

Animal meat contain lot of omega-6, also arachidonic acid
which are metabolized to form eicosanoids, important signal
molecules in the cell division cycle and it has been, at
least using mice, that growth and also initiallizing cancer
cells are dependent on getting AA in diet. But, if you quench
the feed completely, also normal cell growth will be
hampered, so too little AA/omega-6 in diet is just as bad as
too much in diet.

Changing to plant diet, the omega-6 intake is lowered
dramatically, but not abolished, while proportion of omega-3
is increased, which has an antidote against the hormone effect
of PG-2 series and lipoxide made from omega-6 acids. PGE3 and
PGF3 is not the correct signal for the receptors that is
triggered by PGE2 and PGF2alfa, but they may bind, more or
less knocking out the effect of the omega-6 derivatives.

But, also EPA and DHA can form compounds that is speculated
to be slightly carcinogenic, the socalled isoketals and
isoneurals that may crosslink with DNA and form
irreversible changes to DNA. But mostly it is deadly for
the cell if that occur.

[Alf Christ]

On 20 Mar 2006 02:10:56 -0800, sigvald@binet.is wrote:

>The lamb that we eat are usually slaughtered in the autumn so
>they have never eaten indoors but the older sheep are fed
>indoors if the weather is bad.

the same, but in spring, the elder ones are quite filled up
with lots of omega-6s and little omega-3 and MUFA :-( And
maybe also metabolites of formic acid used to conserve the hay
and gras. If not mainly fed cereals and corn.

[Dakikos]

Heather Mills McCartney: wants cancer causing dairy banned
Posted Mar 25th 2006 8:35PM by Dalene Entenmann Filed under:
Breast Cancer, Prostate Cancer, Prevention

In London, on May 24, 2006, The Vegetarian and Vegan
Foundation will be

launching White Lies, a campaign to raise awareness of the
health risks

of consuming dairy products. Why You Don't Need Dairy, an
event to mark

the beginning of the campaign, will feature Heather Mills
McCartney, wife of former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney, as a
speaker who will call for milk to be dropped from the
nation's diet.

Other speakers include Professor Jane Plant CBE, a
geochemist, who fought breast cancer three times and went
into remission after giving up dairy products. Plant is the
author of the best selling books 'Your Life in Your Hands -
Understanding, Preventing and Overcoming Breast Cancer' and
'Prostate Cancer.'

On March 1, the foundation called for a total ban on all
imports of milk that contain raised levels of a growth hormone
linked to cancer. Tests confirmed that milk from the US is
being imported into the EU, dosed with the synthetic growth
hormone, rBST, recombinant bovine somatotrophin. According to
The Vegetarian and Vegan Foundation, one of

the effects of this hormone in milk is to increase its levels
of the naturally-occurring growth hormone IGF-1 as much as
fivefold. IGF-1 has been strongly linked to certain cancers.

In a related post, drinking milk can lead to ovarian cancer,
we shared news on a Harvard School of Public Health report
which indicated a 19 percent higher risk of ovarian cancer for
some women who drink milk. Included in the post is the
Nutrition Resource Centre of the Ontario Public Health
Association, Non-Dairy Sources of Calcium, available as a

PDF document online, with non-dairy food suggestions that
offer plenty of calcium.

In 1956, Paul McCartney lost his mother, Mary, to breast
cancer. His first wife, Linda McCartney, died on April 17,
1998 from breast cancer.