dude, pass me whatever it is your on because it MUST be good.

 

If I have some time to waste I will get on PubMed and look for some articles supporting your claim. I do not doubt that it is theoretically possible that pesticides are a common environmental exposure (but on the flip side 100% of cancer patients have ingested water). But pesticides are such a wide family of chemicals that you cannot realy lump them together too hastily.

I find it extremely hard to beleive that anybody has been cured of malignant cancer by an organic diet. Once a cell is malignantly transformed that is it. Removing the precipitating agent won't change it back to a normal cell, and probably will not make it any more susceptable to apoptosis, etc. I dunno, maybe that is just one of those things they don't teach us in med school.

Re: DDT
Arguably no larger beneficial impact on human health than any other single chemical ever. DDT doesn't just kill mosquitoes, and mosquitoes are vectors for so many diseases besides malaria that I see a large underestimation of the usefulness of this agent. It also turns out that the experiment on bird eggs used to argue for the ban on DDT had faulty results and were not reproduced. In 1972 the EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."

Feeding primates more than 33,000 times the average daily human exposure to DDT (as estimated in 1969 and 1972) was "inconclusive with respect to a carcinogenic effect of DDT in nonhuman primates."

A nested case-control study was conducted to examine the association between serum concentrations of DDE and PCBs and the development of breast cancer up to 20 years later. Cases (n = 346) and controls (n = 346) were selected from cohorts of women who donated blood in 1974, 1989, or both, and were matched on age, race, menopausal status, and month and year of blood donation. "Even after 20 years of follow-up, exposure to relatively high concentrations of DDE or PCBs showed no evidence of contributing to an increased risk of breast cancer."

To prospectively evaluate relationships of organochlorine pesticides and PCBs with breast cancer, a case-control study nested in a cohort using the Columbia, Missouri Breast Cancer Serum Bank. Women donated blood in 1977- 87, and during up to 9.5 years follow-up, 105 donors who met the inclusion criteria for the current study were diagnosed with breast cancer. For each case, two controls matched on age and date of blood collection were selected. Five DDT analogs, 13 other organochlorine pesticides, and 27 PCBs were measured in serum. Results of this study do not support a role for organochlorine pesticides and PCBs in breast cancer etiology.

And on and on...

DDT did not induce "resistance" in mosquito populations under the Malaria Eradication Project of the WHO. However, cotton farmers did manage to accelerate adaptation to the chemical through improper use, although the mosquitos would not die they did still avoid DDT sprayed areas.

 

Clearly Flouride is the great evil this civilization as we know must overcome.


Ditto.

 

Just curious, you think that outside of chemotherapy and surgery there is no way to cure/control cancer?

My friend's grandfather (Jerry) is living with cancer for the past 12 years. Jerry's brother was diagnosed with the same cancer about the same time. They both went different routes for their treatment - the brother followed the advice of the medical profession. Jerry went to a naturopath. 2 years later the brother died. When visiting medical doctors, Jerry was told he had at most 6 months left. Guess what? He is still alive today, after 12 years. While he is not cured, he is able to control his cancer through strict diet and various herbs. Were he to do chemotherapy, he'd be where his brother is.

And here is another one for you. Schizophrenia is a hard to cure disease. When people in North America become diagnosed with it, around 95% never recover. In Africa, upwards of 40% of diagnosed people eventually recover on their own. Genetics? Maybe. Diet? Maybe. Environment? Maybe. While there is no conclusive study about this difference, it is understood that a combination of the three is what helps.

 

damn, they must have had it good back 200 years ago when cancer cured itself.

 

I know I clicked on page 3, my view is set to 30 posts per page, and I was like did I click on the wrong link?

 

Maybe it didn't exist, like AIDS?

 

This is the worst hi-jacking of a thread I have ever seen. Every time I click on it, I forget what people are actually talking about by now

 

GM needs DDT sprayed on them to increase profits.

 

so your saying cancer didn't exhist 200 years ago?

 

actually... down here in florida it wouldn't be so bad for DDT to be injected into the plastics of the car so i can cruise with the t-tops off without being bothered by bugs

 

Of course it didn't. People's life spans weren't long enough for them to worry about cancer. Damn technology.

 

you mean billions of dollars of LOSSES, right?

This has to be the most niave, dumb thread I have ever read in this forum. Lounge material at best. I expect a higher level of discourse in the 5th gen forum.

 

That is FUNNY!!!!

 

Yeah, they may have been losing money this year, but if they have never made a profit, they wouldn't be in business. In fact, until recently, they were doing pretty well, weren't they?