or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › What do you consider to be good food?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What do you consider to be good food? - Page 22

post #316 of 561
Thread Starter 
Come on, they are people which have had success in treating sick people. Just like l have. At least check it out for yourself. They are not exaggerating.
post #317 of 561
Quote:
Come on, they are people which have had success in treating sick people. Just like l have.
How exactly was this success measured? MtB
post #318 of 561
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc37,June 21 2005,10:55
Come on, they are people which have had success in treating sick people. Just like l have.
How exactly was this success measured? MtB
You sick treat people with nutritous juices and sprouts. Everytime they visit the doctor (well after a while), the doctors report improved conditions in the patient. That's how we know it works. With the amount of people l've treated (and other peoples experiences in treating people), this can't be no coincidence. The benifets of juice therapy are amazing, science hasn't obviously tried these methods because they seem to be hesitant to try so called quack methods. Maybe they feer social isolation from their collegues [if they started supporting alternative health]. Science hasn't been unable to unravel the mysteries of plant foods. They probably never will.
post #319 of 561
On Oxygenation Therapy: "....Otto Warburg professed that the cancer problem could be solved if one could identify a biochemical difference between the energy-producing systems of normal cells (controlled growth) and cancer cells (uncontrolled growth.) His research with tissue slices [7] led to the discovery of oxygen-transferring enzymes in cellular respiration, and for this he won a Nobel Prize (1931). In 1944 he won a second Nobel Prize for identifying the enzymes that transfer hydrogen in metabolism [8]. But his research never showed that oxygen use by normal and cancer cells was different. What he did find was that cancer cells produced lactate from glucose in the presence of oxygen whereas normal cells only produced lactate from glucose in the absence of oxygen. This observation led him to conclude that energy metabolism in cancer cells was defective [9]. By 1960, research had identified nearly all energy-producing metabolic pathways in both normal and cancer cells and showed that energy-producing systems in normal cells were the same as those found in cancer cells [10]. Despite this, Warburg insisted until his death in 1970 that the cause of cancer was "inferior" energy of anaerobic metabolism [9]. Oxygenation proponents follow the lines of Koch and of Warburg. They claim that toxins that adulterate processed foods, the environment, and medications damage the oxidative metabolism of normal cells which then regress into anaerobic metabolism in which an inferior energy is produced, resulting in cancer. Normal functions such as digestion, elimination, and immune function are also claimed to benefit from treatment with pure, all-natural, poison-free nutrients, vitamin and mineral supplements, and oxygen-yielding substances that restore and replenish the oxygen needed by tissues for burning off toxins. Hydrogen peroxide and ozone are the substances recommended. [11-13]" From: Cancer and Oxygen
post #320 of 561
>How exactly was this success measured? with a tape?
post #321 of 561
Quote:
Quote:
(Looking to improve @ June 21 2005,02:50)
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc37,June 21 2005,10:55
Come on, they are people which have had success in treating sick people. Just like l have.
How exactly was this success measured? MtB
You sick treat people with nutritous juices and sprouts. Everytime they visit the doctor (well after a while), the doctors report improved conditions in the patient. That's how we know it works. With the amount of people l've treated (and other peoples experiences in treating people), this can't be no coincidence. The benifets of juice therapy are amazing, science hasn't obviously tried these methods because they seem to be hesitant to try so called quack methods. Maybe they feer social isolation from their collegues [if they started supporting alternative health]. Science hasn't been unable to unravel the mysteries of plant foods. They probably never will.
> You sick treat people with nutritous juices > The benifets of juice therapy are amazing I fear to ask you what nutritious juice you are talking about ...
post #322 of 561
Quote:
>How exactly was this success measured? with a tape?
Giona, Naaah. Too quantifiable   . MtB
post #323 of 561
i wanna flip the script on this a little.... excesses and quackery aside, do people here (notably t4 who is the most vociferous of the scientists) actually not believe that nutrition will help the recovery of patients? im far from an expert and have thankfully no experience with cancer, but i would say that i do believe that including proper nutrition while undergoing treatment would certainly aid the recovery process. does anyone disagree with this assertion?
post #324 of 561
Sure, if you do not add "nutrition", the patient will surely die.
post #325 of 561
Quote:
.... quackery and excesses aside, do people here (notably t4 who is the most vociferous of the scientists) actually not believe that nutrition will help the recovery of patients? ...does anyone disagree with this assertion?
Oh I don't disagree at all, and I doubt very strongly that any scientist would. A good balanced nutrition and postive mindset are always beneficial. But then again, we are not talking about that are we? We are discussing Marc's love of the backdoor method, crazy disproven ideas about wheatgrass, chlorophyll (Chlorella), oxygen therapy, and a host of other madness.
post #326 of 561
Quote:
Everytime they visit the doctor (well after a while), the doctors report improved conditions in the patient.
And these doctors, are these the same as the ones whose credentials T4phage seriously doubts? Are they at least 'traditionally' trained in medicine?
Quote:
The benefits of juice therapy are amazing, science obviously hasn't tried these methods because they seem to be hesitant to try so called quack methods.
Frankly, I'd be hesitant as well.
Quote:
I do believe that including proper nutrition while undergoing treatment would certainly aid the recovery process
I'm no expert either, but I would agree that proper nutrition would help. 'Proper' being the operative word. MtB
post #327 of 561
Yes, Marc, Nutrition. Or at least Breath? mmmmm ... no, better not to breath. Many poisons in the air. Do not breath. It's better. You will live 5 minutes, but you will be healthy for that 5 minutes.
post #328 of 561
Here is a tragic story about a person who died trying to "live on Air", Marc's "Breatharianism" nonsense. Guilty Finding for Air Diet Pair m@T, do you ACTUALLY think any of marc's 'treatments' and 'diets' are useful? Would you follow them without some investigation first?
post #329 of 561
No no no no. Jan. She did a mistake. She shouldn't breath.
post #330 of 561
Quote:
m@T, do you ACTUALLY think any of marc's 'treatments' and 'diets' are useful? Would you follow them without some investigation first?
oh god no, which is why i prefaced my query with "excesses and quackery aside". living on wheatgrass is excessive. drinking urine is quackery. however i have no objection to drinking "nutritious juices" (marcs words) to aid recovery assuming this means fruit juices and vegetable juices and providing our definition of nutritious juices doesnt include marc's bodily fluids.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › What do you consider to be good food?