O/T: Johns Hopkins Update

Page 1 of 3  
This was sent to me by a cousin who also happens to be an orthopedic surgeon.
It's worth a read.
Lew ----------------------------------- Johns Hopkins Update - This is an extremely good article. Everyone should read it.
AFTER YEARS OF TELLING PEOPLE CHEMOTHERAPY IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRY ('TRY', BEING THE KEY WORD) TO ELIMINATE CANCER, JOHNS HOPKINS IS FINALLY STARTING TO TELL YOU THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY .
Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins:
1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.
2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person's lifetime.
3. When the person's immune system is strong the cancer cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.
4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, but also to environmental, food and lifestyle factors.
5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet to eat more adequately and healthy, 4-5 times/day and by including supplements will strengthen the immune system.
6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastrointestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.
7.. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.
8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.
9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.
10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites.
11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply.
*CANCER CELLS FEED ON:
a. Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses, but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in color Better alternative is Bragg's aminos or sea salt.
b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk cancer cells are being starved.
c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little other meat, like chicken. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.
d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including be an sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C)..
e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer fighting properties. Water-best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.
12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines becomes putrefied and leads to more toxic buildup.
13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the body's killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.
14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the bodies own killer cells to destroy cancer cells.. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body's normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.
15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger, un-forgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.
16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily, and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.
1. No plastic containers in micro.
2. No water bottles in freezer.
3. No plastic wrap in microwave..
Johns Hopkins has recently sent this out in its newsletters. This information is being circulated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as well. Dioxin chemicals cause cancer, especially breast cancer. Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don't freeze your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic. Recently, Dr Edward Fujimoto, Wellness Program Manager at Castle Hospital , was on a TV program to explain this health hazard. He talked about dioxins and how bad they are for us. He said that we should not be heating our food in the microwave using plastic containers. This especially applies to foods that contain fat He said that the combination of fat, high heat, and plastics releases dioxin into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body. Instead, he recommends using glass, such as Corning Ware, Pyrex or ceramic containers for heating food You get the same results, only without the dioxin. So such things as TV dinners, instant ramen and soups, etc., should be removed from the container and heated in something else. Paper isn't bad but you don't know what is in the paper. It's just safer to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, etc. He reminded us that a while ago some of the fast food restaurants moved away from the foam containers to paper The dioxin problem is one of the reasons. Please share this with your whole email list......................... Also, he pointed out that plastic wrap, such as Saran, is just as dangerous when placed over foods to be cooked in the microwave. As the food is nuked, the high heat causes poisonous toxins to actually melt out of the plastic wrap and drip into the food. Cover food with a paper towel instead.
This is an article that should be sent to anyone important in your life.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes. Thanks!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's a hoax. See Snopes:
<http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cancerupdate.asp
No such article was ever published by Johns Hopkins, and most of the content is standard alt-med deception and misinformation.
For a point-by-point debunking from Johns Hopkins, see:
<http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/kimmel_cancer_center/news_events/feature d/cancer_update_email_it_is_a_hoax.html>
--
John

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Santos wrote:

Thanks for finding this.
"The Truth about the "Cancer Update" Email
It has become such a problem, that the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and individual cancer centers like the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center have posted warnings on their Web sites. Emails offering easy remedies for avoiding and curing cancer are the latest Web-influenced trend. To gain credibility, the anonymous authors falsely attribute their work to respected research institutions like Johns Hopkins. This is the case with the so-called "Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins."
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/kimmel_cancer_center/news_events/featured/cancer_update_email_it_is_a_hoax.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Talk to your doctor first, before you follow the quack advice from some internet posting. Just ask Steve Jobs.
scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in

+10
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I just glanced at the original post. One thing that caught my eye was that chocolate was bad.. That is al I needed to know. If a program bans chocolate, I am not going to do it. There is lots of studies that say chocolate is good for you. The fat and sugar may be bad, but the chocolate it self is very good for you.
Beside, how are you going to live with women without chocolate?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Baloney! Some compounds in chocolate are stated good for certain problems.
--------- "Lee Michaels" wrote in message
I just glanced at the original post. One thing that caught my eye was that chocolate was bad.. That is al I needed to know. If a program bans chocolate, I am not going to do it. There is lots of studies that say chocolate is good for you. The fat and sugar may be bad, but the chocolate it self is very good for you.
Beside, how are you going to live with women without chocolate?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I watched an interesting news cast on candy. It turns out that chocolate is on the good list for cavities. The worst - sour whatever.
It is due to the PH of the candy - sour is way down and eats teeth alive. Chocolate is better as it is near neutral and has an oil that protects the teeth.
Martin
On 10/31/2011 5:22 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Actually, it isn't so much the food you eat pH but rather the pH response your body produces to digest it. Your saliva becomes very acidic when you eat sugar products and that breaks down your tooth enamel.
If you want to get nutritional benefits out of chocolate then try some real chocolate without the sugar, not the chocolate flavoured candy we like to pretend helps our health.
It's not so much fun as they would have you believe and the chocolate bar companies have more testing results to hide. Know where the breakthrough reports are generated from.
--------------- "Martin Eastburn" wrote in message
I watched an interesting news cast on candy. It turns out that chocolate is on the good list for cavities. The worst - sour whatever.
It is due to the PH of the candy - sour is way down and eats teeth alive. Chocolate is better as it is near neutral and has an oil that protects the teeth.
Martin
On 10/31/2011 5:22 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are contributing to lies. Stick to woodworking. This is not a joke.
There is indeed an immunological aspect to cancer, as well as an oxygen aspect, and many bad substances can contribute to cancer. Once you have a mutation leading to, say CML, a diet can't help you. Perhaps Steve Jobs is an example. He delayed having surgery FAR, FAR too long in favor of alternative crooked medicine, and he did eventually die, but could have lived much longer had he had immediate surgery of his rather tame cancer. Alternative medicine may help conventional medicine, but in the case of cancer it can't substitute.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Taking one extreme view or the other helps no-one. You've got to think critically. This link may be useful to you:
http://www.badscience.net /
Writing off 'conventional medicine' due to opinion is silly, equally as silly as accepting 'alternative medicine' as viable due to someone else's opinion.
For what it's worth, I tend to think of medicine as falling into two categories too, but my categories are:
1. Evidence-based medicine, and 2. Wishfull-thinking based bullshit.
There is also a US based site:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org /
a group of people including doctors, who pull-apart quackery.
But please don't think that the OPs forwarded letter is of any value when it contains such glaring errors as
"Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk cancer cells are being starved."
Where-else other than the gastro-intestinal tract would mucus be produced? DOES cancer really "feed on mucus"?
And the even more-established-to-be-bullshit:
"Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines becomes putrefied and leads to more toxic buildup."
Meat IS NOT difficult to digest. It may take longer, but this is a GOOD THING as it mean you don't feel hungry so often. How does undigested meat stay in the intestines? Why wouldn't peristaltic action shift it all along the gut?
I am not trying to attack you personally, just combat bullshit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Many sheeple still fall for the big money promoted products and techniques.
There are others that can actually learn by the SoHK (School of Hard Knocks) by actual experience instead of listening to "conventional" doctors preach about things they have absolutely no schooled training in... like Nutrition or preventative health.
This is not to say that the whole text is not BS to some degree. As the "conventional medicine" quacks do, they have stretched some of the findings.
BTW: Some of your statements below actually contradict themselves in the same paragraph. Your "evidence based medicine" should include al the failed trials that have been discarded. Doctors should reveal their sources. It wasn't taught them in medical school..
Here is another quack based website www.quackwatch.com where MDs express radical comments, based on hearsay, about subject matter they have no training in, for money and.or publicity.
Where there is a buck to be made there is a liar.
----------- "David Paste" wrote in message wrote:

Taking one extreme view or the other helps no-one. You've got to think critically. This link may be useful to you:
http://www.badscience.net /
Writing off 'conventional medicine' due to opinion is silly, equally as silly as accepting 'alternative medicine' as viable due to someone else's opinion.
For what it's worth, I tend to think of medicine as falling into two categories too, but my categories are:
1. Evidence-based medicine, and 2. Wishfull-thinking based bullshit.
There is also a US based site:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org /
a group of people including doctors, who pull-apart quackery.
But please don't think that the OPs forwarded letter is of any value when it contains such glaring errors as
"Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk cancer cells are being starved."
Where-else other than the gastro-intestinal tract would mucus be produced? DOES cancer really "feed on mucus"?
And the even more-established-to-be-bullshit:
"Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines becomes putrefied and leads to more toxic buildup."
Meat IS NOT difficult to digest. It may take longer, but this is a GOOD THING as it mean you don't feel hungry so often. How does undigested meat stay in the intestines? Why wouldn't peristaltic action shift it all along the gut?
I am not trying to attack you personally, just combat bullshit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Where?
This.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If anything, we don't eat enough meat, but eat waaaaay too much processed shit they call 'meat'. Rarely (if ever) does a natural product 'improve' when industrial corporations screw with it. Same goes for processed dairy, grain and sugar/salt laden anything! Take a look at a 1000 year curve of modern diseases and overlay that on a curve when we started screwing with food. It will amaze you. Fruits, veggies, meats, unaltered from its natural form (processing, pesticides etc., etc.) is what will keep us healthy. A ground-up pig's cock/ears/lips/arse (AKA as a hotdog), with a list of 40 deadly ingredients added is NOT the way to stay healthy. The salt alone will hurt you... and now they're all on about 'Sea Salt'? WTF? Does salt really give a shit where it comes from?
Hey, but find a way, that the nerve that runs from the eyeball to the brain, can be modified, plumped up, sugared, salted, coloured, and then sold as a treat to the kids, and the MBA running that outfit will get another bonus. Of course the packaging will announce in bold letters: All natural! Sea Salt! Sugar product from natural corn! No animals were used in the testing of this product..... hey, but testing on our kids is okay, no?
The absolute garbage they sell in ordinary supermarkets these days makes me cringe. But wait! There's more! Now they are genetically modifying that garbage to boot!
How about Occupying Monsanto?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm torn between this idea. GM foods can be good, but when the commercial pressure is applied, it's invariably shite.
People need to be educated on the matter of diet, but the sad fact is, people just don't give a shit. I consider myself lucky that the vast majority of processed foods taste hideous to me, and also I live in a place where it is seen as socially positive to grow your own food, etc. I know most places, whilst not having a negative attitude to this, it just doesn't register at all.
(Of course, this is just my opinion...)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"David Paste" wrote in message wrote:

I'm torn between this idea. GM foods can be good, but when the commercial pressure is applied, it's invariably shite.
People need to be educated on the matter of diet, but the sad fact is, people just don't give a shit. I consider myself lucky that the vast majority of processed foods taste hideous to me, and also I live in a place where it is seen as socially positive to grow your own food, etc. I know most places, whilst not having a negative attitude to this, it just doesn't register at all.
(Of course, this is just my opinion...)
================== Sounds like your, how did you phrase it? "better than placebo" attitude only applies when you need it.
All these "processes foods" have been approved by most of our nutritional boards by massive money studies and now you indicate they are not as good as natural methods.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with what you are saying but you appear to contradict yourself, as pointed out by others.
--
Eric


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In what way?

I didn't indicate they weren't as good, I indicated that I don't consider them as good as the alternatives I have access to, for me. I also acknowledged that many people just don't care.
Also, all food is natural. Maybe best to use the phrases 'processed' (or 'highly processed'?) and 'unprocessed' rather than 'natural' and 'processed' as it would seem to be setting up a false dichotomy.

How?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:02:20 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy

What about "processed cheese food"? They can't even label it as "cheese" any more because it contains so little.

The "improvement" is in their pocketbooks.

I eat Foster Farms Turkey Dogs. (Now with turkey-beak protein!)

Sea salt has lots of other trace minerals in it. It is more healthy for you...in moderation.

Bbbut, "It's for the chil^H^H^H^Hdollar!"

Tomorrow, look at the sale ads. Note the number of processed foods v. the natural foods. The ratio is usually around 100:1.

A Most Excellent idear, sir.
-- Inside every older person is a younger person wondering WTF happened.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Jaques wrote:

Think about it. All commercial salt is/was sea salt. It may be from a sea that dried up millions of years ago. It is mined and the impurities removed. If you want the impurities, get some road salt.
--
Gerald Ross

Afraid of heights? Not me, I'm afraid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.