I made the mistake of eating a Wendys single cheeseburger yesterday, after nothing but salads since January.
I felt like the non-smoker trying his first cigarette or the teetotaler who has 2 drinks on New Years Eve.
It's kind of amazing how our bodies learn to normalize the effects of these substances. That first cigarette shows the body's natural reaction to the poison. The longtime smoker is getting the same poison with each cigarette but can no longer feel the effect of it. Indeed, the smoker's system has reconfigured itself so it feels sick when it DOESN'T get the poison.
(05-28-2018, 02:01 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (05-27-2018, 10:35 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]I pulled it off the FDA website.
"It is a violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to market and sell products that claim to prevent, diagnose, treat, mitigate or cure diseases without first demonstrating to the FDA that they are safe and effective for their labeled uses. "
https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/...554698.htm
I asked my late-night pharmacist if they carried FDA-approved limes. She said no but the grocery store has limes.
I didn't report her.
[EDIT]
rj, you are correct about the vitamin C as a treatment and what I posted was essentially backwards. A doctor who recommended citrus for scurvy would not get in trouble. It would only be a violation if the growers or sellers of citrus made the claim that it cures scurvy. It can be used to cure scurvy but as noted above, sellers can't claim it cures scurvy unless they submit to FDA testing and approval.
Let’s completely ignore the baking soda cancer cure.
Like all anti-science quackeries we also need to discredit the information to prevent sick, scared, and vulnerable people from being exploited.
If you're really interested in the research into cannibinoids and cancer there's a great and ongoing log of information at Cancer Research UK's site here:
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/...ce-so-far/
The notes/comments even discusses the OP and why it's sensationalist poppycock.
(05-28-2018, 09:58 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]If you're really interested in the research into cannibinoids and cancer there's a great and ongoing log of information at Cancer Research UK's site here:
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/...ce-so-far/
The notes/comments even discusses the OP and why it's sensationalist poppycock.
What a bunch of dupes.
Here, take two of these and call me in the morning.
![[Image: Z0G2-yfo9oy.JPG]](https://cloudfront.zoro.com/product/full/Z0G2-yfo9oy.JPG)
(05-28-2018, 09:29 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]I made the mistake of eating a Wendys single cheeseburger yesterday, after nothing but salads since January.
I felt like the non-smoker trying his first cigarette or the teetotaler who has 2 drinks on New Years Eve.
It's kind of amazing how our bodies learn to normalize the effects of these substances. That first cigarette shows the body's natural reaction to the poison. The longtime smoker is getting the same poison with each cigarette but can no longer feel the effect of it. Indeed, the smoker's system has reconfigured itself so it feels sick when it DOESN'T get the poison.
That's my problem with caffeine right now. Two weeks ago I actually changed my brand of K-Cups from Green Mountain over to Death Wish. I was drinking 6 - 7 cups of coffee a day to stay awake or keep my energy levels up and it wasn't working. I started drinking 1 cup of Death Wish for a week and it felt good.
Just 1 cup is all I needed for a good work day. Week two I started feeling it less. Week three I started yawning just 3 - 4 hours of drinking 1 cup of that so I doubled it up to 2 cups per day. Still yawning right now as I type this [BLEEP] out at nearly 1300 hours. Supposedly Death Wish is "The World's Strongest Coffee". Hate to tell you. That's a load of [BLEEP]. LOL.
I've even had their special blend called Valhalla Java K-Cups. STILL not enough to keep me buzzed. So... I don't know. Each cup is supposed to be anywhere between 700 - 730 milligrams of caffeine per 12 fluid ounces of coffee. And I've been drinking two of them per day at least five times a week for work. So over 1,000 milligrams of caffeine per day and I am still able to pass out between 930 - 1000 PM most nights and sleep just fine.
I can't push myself much further than that because it's simply not safe. Even though I am not getting the high or buzz off the two cups it's been recommended not to exceed no more than 400 - 500 milligrams of caffeine per day to ensure that you're not damaging your body. But I really don't feel any adverse effects from what I consume on a daily basis. I don't feel an accelerated heartbeat or muscle tremors or any digestion issues making me run to the bathroom with fire in the hole. I don't get any of those side effects at all.
But I don't know if I should try cycling it off and on. Go two weeks without. Then drink it two weeks straight, etc.
(05-28-2018, 09:33 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Like all anti-science quackeries we also need to discredit the information to prevent sick, scared, and vulnerable people from being exploited.
Or you could google it and discover it's a real thing. Page after page of results.
(05-28-2018, 04:57 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2018, 09:33 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Like all anti-science quackeries we also need to discredit the information to prevent sick, scared, and vulnerable people from being exploited.
Or you could google it and discover it's a real thing. Page after page of results.
I'm sure your single 15 minute Google search weighs equally with literally decades of medical research and collaboration.
(05-28-2018, 09:58 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]If you're really interested in the research into cannibinoids and cancer there's a great and ongoing log of information at Cancer Research UK's site here:
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/...ce-so-far/
The notes/comments even discusses the OP and why it's sensationalist poppycock.
Bob Marley died from Melanoma, so there's that.
(05-28-2018, 04:57 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2018, 09:33 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Like all anti-science quackeries we also need to discredit the information to prevent sick, scared, and vulnerable people from being exploited.
Or you could google it and discover it's a real thing. Page after page of results.
Anecdote does not equal data and Google is far short of scientific proof. Again, chemistry and biology both disprove the Sodium Bicarbonite scam, the human body simply does not work that way. If your Ph is too high you piss and exhale the overage out or you suffer from acidosis and eventually die.
(05-27-2018, 09:06 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2018, 01:31 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]So much this, and not just cancer.
Absolutely. Also look into pH levels. An acid pH level facilitates cancer growth while alkaline pH kills it. A pH of 7 is neutral; the blood should be slightly alkaline at 7.3 - 7.5 pH.
I believe we all carry the building blocks for cancer but it cannot thrive unless our systems become too acidic.
Some cancers can be cured with a combination of maple syrup and baking soda. The sugar acts as a Trojan horse, carrying the soda to the cancerous cells where the alkalinity kills the cancer.
I thought NYCJags had a pretty good joke till I read this one. This is the best joke in the thread. I loled.
(05-28-2018, 09:36 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2018, 04:57 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]Or you could google it and discover it's a real thing. Page after page of results.
Anecdote does not equal data and Google is far short of scientific proof. Again, chemistry and biology both disprove the Sodium Bicarbonite scam, the human body simply does not work that way. If your Ph is too high you piss and exhale the overage out or you suffer from acidosis and eventually die.
Alkalosis, but the idea is correct. If your pH gets to high your body has only two ways to compensate -A. pee out bicarb (i.e. Alkaline stuff), or B. hyperventilate to blow off CO2 (acidic stuff). If it can't do either you do indeed die.
Homeostasis is real. Homeopathy is not.
(05-28-2018, 04:57 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2018, 09:33 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Like all anti-science quackeries we also need to discredit the information to prevent sick, scared, and vulnerable people from being exploited.
Or you could google it and discover it's a real thing. Page after page of results.
Find me even one published case study from an even moderately reputable journal. There is at least one published case study for tumeric even, but I know of none for the maple syrup baking soda method.
(05-28-2018, 07:11 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]I've also heard about the pH stuff and acidic stuff. I don't know enough about it though to say it's effective or if it truly works. I've just tried to scale my beliefs down to a simple concept and I think it makes a ton of sense when you look at the statistics in our country. The original USDA Food Guide Pyramid is terribly wrong and it was honestly engineered to benefit and fit the market needs at the time for agriculture. And it's the reason why we saw a sudden explosion in various health issues related to diet and also why people just started getting sicker by the year.
6 - 11 servings per day of cereal, rice, and pasta isn't a great idea. You may be able to get away with that if you're some sort of athlete or work a very active job but it's not that common at all for most Americans today who sit at a desk or office for a living. But you can keep it very, very simple. Just look at how our ancestors had to eat before the industrial and highly processing of food age had came into existence. The old hunter and gather mentality. Our ancestors didn't have a grocery store where you could be picky and choosy. You ate what was around you and what was seasonal or sustainable. And even back then with certain grains and proteins you at least knew it was in it's base form.
A lot of today's foods, even the foods deemed "healthy" still have a [BLEEP] ton of additives and preservatives to keep it's shelf life through the roof. That should be a good rule of thumb for you while shopping. If something has more than three to four ingredients in it or on it then is it really food? Or is it just some [BLEEP]? A lot of people also complain about the good foods being too expensive. I completely agree and understand the frustration with that. BUT...but... if you pay attention to serving sizes and macros you would realize it's not so bad paying $9.99 for a pound or two of raw almonds when you consider that 1/4 cup of Almonds is roughly 200 calories. And most containers have anywhere between 12 - 20 servings depending on where you buy.
That's something I've learned on this diet. When you start eating more healthier fats and proteins in your diet. And the only source of carbohydrates is coming from sources like leafy greens or most vegetables you're at least getting a ton of fiber which keeps you full throughout the day. I eat between 1400 - 1800 calories a day. And it's usually 130 - 150 grams of healthy fats, 60 - 70 grams of good sources of protein and then no more than 20 grams of carbohydrates and maybe 5 - 10 grams of sugar. When I wasn't being lazy and staying disciplined I dropped down from 304 to 261 between last year back in the beginning of June - Thanksgiving of last year. That Ketogenic diet works. Just takes time for your body to adjust. I've since slumped back into old habits and packed the weight back on but, again, that's because I am lazy at times.
But it's doable. When I was able to maintain it for 5 months I saw a huge increase in my energy levels. I started sleeping much deeper. My skin cleared up better. Even my allergies seemed to get better. I found myself sneezing less and less around my own dog and my family and friend's dogs as well.
I have been doing something similar to this for about 6 weeks plus. Its funny, I always had so much trouble lossing weight, but 1500 calories and minimal simple carbs (including sugar) and the weight is coming off at like 2 lbs a week. I feel silly for not being able to do this earlier.
(05-28-2018, 05:29 PM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2018, 04:57 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]Or you could google it and discover it's a real thing. Page after page of results.
I'm sure your single 15 minute Google search weighs equally with literally decades of medical research and collaboration.
Decades of medical research that still has no real understanding of what cancer is and how to prevent or cure it. Is it possible they are on the wrong track? Is it possible that cancer is too profitable to cure? I think it was Forbes who ran a major article noting that we really can't AFFORD to cure cancer because hundreds of billions of debt has been taken on building research centers and cancer treatment facilities. We can't find a cure because banksters would be harmed.
As with politicians, don't listen to what they say. Instead watch what they DO. The majority of oncologists would not take chemotherapy if they themselves were diagnosed with cancer. I wonder why?
(05-29-2018, 08:48 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2018, 05:29 PM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure your single 15 minute Google search weighs equally with literally decades of medical research and collaboration.
Decades of medical research that still has no real understanding of what cancer is and how to prevent or cure it. Is it possible they are on the wrong track? Is it possible that cancer is too profitable to cure? I think it was Forbes who ran a major article noting that we really can't AFFORD to cure cancer because hundreds of billions of debt has been taken on building research centers and cancer treatment facilities. We can't find a cure because banksters would be harmed.
As with politicians, don't listen to what they say. Instead watch what they DO. The majority of oncologists would not take chemotherapy if they themselves were diagnosed with cancer. I wonder why?
Odd, I had cancer and took medicine and now I don't. Guess my personal anecdote disproves your whole theory?
(05-29-2018, 01:23 AM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-27-2018, 09:06 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]Absolutely. Also look into pH levels. An acid pH level facilitates cancer growth while alkaline pH kills it. A pH of 7 is neutral; the blood should be slightly alkaline at 7.3 - 7.5 pH.
I believe we all carry the building blocks for cancer but it cannot thrive unless our systems become too acidic.
Some cancers can be cured with a combination of maple syrup and baking soda. The sugar acts as a Trojan horse, carrying the soda to the cancerous cells where the alkalinity kills the cancer.
I thought NYCJags had a pretty good joke till I read this one. This is the best joke in the thread. I loled.
(05-28-2018, 09:36 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Anecdote does not equal data and Google is far short of scientific proof. Again, chemistry and biology both disprove the Sodium Bicarbonite scam, the human body simply does not work that way. If your Ph is too high you piss and exhale the overage out or you suffer from acidosis and eventually die.
Alkalosis, but the idea is correct. If your pH gets to high your body has only two ways to compensate -A. pee out bicarb (i.e. Alkaline stuff), or B. hyperventilate to blow off CO2 (acidic stuff). If it can't do either you do indeed die.
Homeostasis is real. Homeopathy is not.
(05-28-2018, 04:57 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]Or you could google it and discover it's a real thing. Page after page of results.
Find me even one published case study from an even moderately reputable journal. There is at least one published case study for tumeric even, but I know of none for the maple syrup baking soda method.
Right, right, I typed the wrong one. Been a few years since I dealt with this stuff.
(05-29-2018, 08:48 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2018, 05:29 PM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure your single 15 minute Google search weighs equally with literally decades of medical research and collaboration.
Decades of medical research that still has no real understanding of what cancer is and how to prevent or cure it. Is it possible they are on the wrong track? Is it possible that cancer is too profitable to cure? I think it was Forbes who ran a major article noting that we really can't AFFORD to cure cancer because hundreds of billions of debt has been taken on building research centers and cancer treatment facilities. We can't find a cure because banksters would be harmed.
As with politicians, don't listen to what they say. Instead watch what they DO. The majority of oncologists would not take chemotherapy if they themselves were diagnosed with cancer. I wonder why?
We know exactly what cancer is: It's abnormal, usually rapid, cell growth with the potential to spread to other parts of the body. Because it concerns abnormal cells they are unable to fulfill their intended purpose and thus contribute to the failure of organs which eventually results in death. The difficulty with treating cancer is that cells are made by the patient's own body and therefor usually not recognized as a disease by the immune system like a virus would be.
On top of that, cancer the collective noun for a wide range of diseases, each unique in its own way and each requiring a specific treatment or cure. Some of these diseases we understand very well and are relatively easy to treat, others are essentially a death sentence.
Your are describing the process. How did that first cell become abnormal or cancerous?
Is cancer viral, bacterial, fungal? All of the above? None of the above?
I postulate some cancers are more easily treated because they are easier to get at.
With that said, today I am getting a CT scan of the pancreas. Wish me luck.
(05-29-2018, 08:27 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2018, 12:52 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]With that said, today I am getting a CT scan of the pancreas. Wish me luck.
Best of luck man.
Thank you. It's been a rough couple of weeks.
(05-29-2018, 12:52 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]Your are describing the process. How did that first cell become abnormal or cancerous?
Is cancer viral, bacterial, fungal? All of the above? None of the above?
I postulate some cancers are more easily treated because they are easier to get at.
With that said, today I am getting a CT scan of the pancreas. Wish me luck.
Here's hoping all is well.
(05-30-2018, 02:29 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2018, 12:52 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]Your are describing the process. How did that first cell become abnormal or cancerous?
Is cancer viral, bacterial, fungal? All of the above? None of the above?
I postulate some cancers are more easily treated because they are easier to get at.
With that said, today I am getting a CT scan of the pancreas. Wish me luck.
Here's hoping all is well.
Thank, rj. I'll find out tomorrow afternoon.