Originally Posted by ACS

The Edwin Smith Papyrus, or writing, describes 8 cases of tumors or ulcers of the breast that were treated by cauterization, with a tool called "the fire drill." The writing says about the disease, "There is no treatment."

Originally Posted by ACS

Bone remains of mummies have revealed growths suggestive of the bone cancer, osteosarcoma. In other cases, bony skull destruction as seen in cancer of the head and neck has been found.

Originally Posted by Nemmerle (Post 4730842)

I said, most disease can be cured by good sanitation, and natural nutrition including remedies.

Sanitation is more than just washing hands... you also have to wash your feet.

Avoiding synthetic methods of mass production will help. And if they light has blinded your eyes, then maybe you should practice clicking within your mouth.

Most disease can be cured by good sanitation? I think not. Once you've got a disease sanitisation to the outside of the body will help only in an incredibly small number of cases.

As for prevention the standards of sanitisation most people live in these days are excessive and quite frankly counter productive already.

Most diseases, in reference to a population disease rates. And many poor countries and many in secular countries do not wash their hands, faces, feet as much as certain folks. And of course, I added good nutrition to that.

Use scroogle if you do not like google: Black cumin seed oil and search away.

Thymoquinone has shown promise as a prevenatitive and as a recovery aid after chemo, it's by no means a cure for cancer.

Well I'll say it is. As would changing ones diet from synthetic to natural, on a preventative scale.

How interesting, you wish for slavery over humanity?

You wish the same in making them teach their kids. The question isn't whether they should be enslaved, you both want that, the question is what you're going to enslave them to do.

You believe biology is slavery? Are you human? Are you a carbon life form? Free spirit?

Sorry, I'm sure I didn't say milk. Pasteurization is used on many poor defenceless substances.

Sorry my sympathy only extends to things that are me.


You poor thing.


But I wasn't just refering to hospitals, I was refering to pharma and biochem industries etc.

Of course they're for profit industries. Why on earth would I sink twenty years and billions of dollars into a thing if it was never going to yield a result for me?


They do not have our interest. If they did, then we'd be in a golden age... but currently we're living in the beginning of a great depression.


How interesting, I note that back in the 1800's there were many less deaths from cancer.

Hardly surprising since only a tiny portion of the population had access to modern diagnostic equipment or a competent doctor back then which would assign them a cancer diagnosis.

Besides which cancer results from the degredation of cells during their reproductive stage. We now have more people living longer, hence more cancer.
[

Are you refering to causes of death?

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic (Post 4731223)

I do not. But then, hopefully you don't either. If you've never tasted something, how can you say you can't taste the difference between that and something else which by your own admission you don't eat?
Ah. But whether you consume pork or not isn't, except in the case where, as above, you try and distinguish between human and pig flesh by taste alone.


Click on the link I provided

You are just backing up my point. It seems clear to me that the article refers to non-synthetic as merely being the fresh article, and nothing but. Therefore, anything you add to a food product to increase its edible lifespan, enhance its taste, or in any other way alter the food is deemed synthetic. So. Sodium chloride is synthetic. Ethanoic acid is synthetic. Phenols are synthetic. Your point that 'synthetic' purely means 'post 19th C' isn't very pertinent.



Sodium chloride is mass produced by evaporation of sea water. You can't call that synthetic. But when they add magnesium carbonate and iodine with salt, that's not 100% natural.

As for vinegar, there are two ways of making it, synthetic or natural way. Unfortunately, only 10% of it is produced by the natural way.

Same goes for phenols, theres a lab method and foraging for it from the plant kingdom

The Age of Synthetic Chemicals (comic)


And I note that the website links to no studies by reputable food safety organizations (eg. FDA, UN, etc) to back up its rather grave claims. So, would you care to do that for us, lest your contribution be labelled as 'not really important'?


FDA? UN?

I think the sources are in the book. I'll go get those references from the book.

Indeed there is. But by the looks of things, even according to the American Cancer Society, cancer was recognized as a relatively common ailment at least since the time of recorded history, and most likely stretching far beyond that into human evolution:


Does America have much of a history? And why does the American Cancer Society skip 2000 years? And where is the evidence to show that cancer rates have chaned or whatever?


And, may I add, the reason why your link says there is a huge 'increase' in the prevalence of breast cancer may be because of the formal recognition of oncology, the study of cancer, also in the 19th Century. Coincidence?


Study of oncology (researching involving living) would not provide anything for the increase of deaths by cancer. You'd expect an inverse relationship, but that's not the case.

Oh. Is this like one of those 'popular science' books, where the author tries to use scare tactics to frighten the readers into believing his agenda, and misquoting, misinterpreting, or even not providing links to scientific studies to back up his agenda? I think so.

Are you refering to Ritalin? The review said it had references and highly recommended...

So...what if I'm self-employed? It's still work, isn't it? But just because I'm paying myself rather than someone else doing it for me, it suddenly becomes not slavery?

Depends upon what your self employing yourself, and then if you . And perhaps it doesn't become slavery, but you still have to think about interests.

No, I've never had the flu. But I have had colds. So, in answer to your implicit question, yes, I can tell the difference between a rhinovirus infection and an influenza infection.


You've never had flu? I never did ask.

This is the pub. Not cool. :cort:

Overthinking, bad for you. Don't think, research. Patience is a virtue, thinking isn't? :lol:

Originally Posted by AlDaja (Post 4731409)

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic (Post 4731489)

On the contrary. The rise in cancer diagnoses gives credence to Nem's and my theory that cancer prevalence was relatively invariant before and after the Industrial Revolution, just that the number of cancers that were diagnosed increased because of a formal recognition and documentation of the symptoms, and allowing people a certain degree of self-diagnosis.

And where did you learn this? Please make me understand how symptoms and self diagnosis have to do with death rates.

:vikki: Whether America has a long history is irrelevant. And there is no evidence to show that cancer rates have changed, that is the point.

I already provided a link to the evidence.

Let me know why this: Death Rates by Cause of Death, 1900–2005 — Infoplease.com is not suitable.


I don't see any difference between synthetic and organic methods of production of any chemical, as long as the result is the same chemical. Therefore, I see no reason why people should waste money on making something the natural way when it could be made ten times cheaper, in a quarter of the time, and the product is exactly the same.

Have you switched from a synthetic diet to a organic diet for some time and switched back?

As for money, please refer to the "Money Masters".

:lol: Actually, phenols (and a whole host of other aromatic compounds) are formed from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. These aromatic compounds form part of the smoke that people use to, you guessed it, preserve meats by smoking. Same with ethanoic acid, there is no reason to produce something 'naturally' when a cheaper, quicker artificial process exists for it and the end products are exactly identical.



I'm sure you do know that there are natural methods and lab methods of producing phenols?

And just because forced labour sounds cheap or exactly the same, doesn't make it either good or actually the same thing, no?


Which one? You have lots of them.

This one: SouthCoastToday.com - Japanese unveil robot wine steward - September 03, 2006 maybe you taste like pulled pork.


I can see you are a hopeless case.
Perhaps you failed to convince me?

Originally Posted by AlDaja (Post 4731523)

:withstupid:

Dude…you sound like Peter from Family Guy. Not trying to ride your ass here, but do you actually read your posts or copy and past from various Internet sites (of which some I don’t think you read either…) cohesive thought – please, thank you.