Gut flora

On 10/3/10 12:13 PM, carole wrote:
wrote in message ...
On 10/1/10 6:56 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/29/10 12:53 AM, carole wrote:





Ok, thanks. However -

Testimony of Burton Goldberg
http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/04-11-13.htm

"The NCCAM is presently just a poor cousin in NIH. It needs to be run not by
doctors from or beholden to the NIH, but by physicians who are experienced
in and advocates of alternative methods.

No, it needs to be run by medical scientists who can determine if so-called alternative medicines work. So far, after $1 billion
has been spent, not one alternative medicine has been shown to actually work better than placebo.

The bureacracy at NIH is full of people who serve the interests of the pharmaceutical business with disease which doesn't want the
situation changed. It is making far too much money to let any alternative remedies through.

Evidence, please.

The FDA Exposed: An Interview With Dr. David Graham, the Vioxx Whistleblower
Tuesday, August 30, 2005 by: Manette Loudon, citizen journalist

http://www.naturalnews.com/011401_Dr...m_the_FDA.html
" The FDA has a very peculiar culture. It runs like the army so it's very hierarchal. You have to go through the chain of command
and if somebody up above you says that they want things done in a particular way well, they want it done in a particular way. The
culture also views industry as the client.
They're serving industry rather than the public. In fact, when a former office director for the Office of Drug Safety criticized me
and tried to get me to change a report I'd written on another drug - Arava - he said to me and to a colleague who was a coauthor on
this report that "industry is our client." "

That's the opinion of one person, with an obvious axe to grind.

A lot of organizations has a hierarchy that says do it the way of the
supervisors or you're out. They make some great products, too, like the
Mac and iPhone with this hierarchy. THe military this type of heirarchy.
And, in science, things have to be done a certain way (like take notes
and keep careful records of experiments as well as rules about human
privacy).

Not only can our doctors show you the multiple causes that lead to cancer,
they offer steps that lead to the removal of these causes. Alternative
medicine does not offer a simplistic "cookbook" solution to cancer
treatment. Rather, it emphasizes the unique individuality of each case, with
certain consistent elements in its approach: mobilize the lymphatic and
excretory systems and then detoxify the body of its many cumulative poisons;
fortify the body with nutrients; do everything possible to strengthen the
immune system; stress the importance of early detection and preventive
strategies; and honor the Hippocratic Oath--first, do no harm.

That's what allopathic doctors do.

Allopathic doctors prescribe drugs, that's what they're trained to do.

They also give vaccines and recommend healthy diets and other preventive
strategies. They do more than prescribe drugs.

Conventional cancer doctors today cannot uphold this vow. Chemotherapy and
radiation are toxic and often do as much damage to the body as the cancer
itself. Even though conventional medicine presents and often forces these
treatments (along with surgery) as the only options in existence for cancer,
this is simply and unequivocally not true. There are many successful
alternatives to conventional care that can remove the root causes of cancer
and restore you to health without further poisoning or damaging your body. "

It's true radiation and chemotherapy are toxic - but 50% of all cancer patients are cured. Show us the evidence that there are
successful alternatives to conventional care. Real evidence. Not just anecdotes.

hydrazine sulfate
http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/04-11-13.htm
"Preliminary animal studies supported his concept and by 1973 about 1,000 cancer patients were using hydrazine sulfate. The FDA
issued a few Investigational New Drug permits and Dr. Gold organized the Syracuse Cancer Research Center to develop the drug and its
protocols. In clinical trials in the United States, the compound significantly improved the nutritional status and survival of lung
cancer patients. In a study of 740 patients with various types of cancer, 51% of patients reported tumor stabilization or
regression. Almost half the patients also reported subjective improvement, notably decreased pain and better appetite. Further, and
this is crucial, similar studies were performed in Russia with almost identical results. Dean Burk, M.D., at that time the head of
cell chemistry research at NCI, called hydrazine sulfate the "most remarkable anticancer agent I have come across in my 45 years of
experience with cancer."

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/p...ulfate/Patient

http://quackwatch.org/search/webglim...razine+sulfate

Jeff

* * *
"Many books have been written that document the persecution of alternative cancer doctors who cured too many of their patients with
inexpensive natural products. Of course, most people have never heard of these books because the media does not give them the free
publicity they give their favored books."