Cthulhu

It does make sense if you look at high cholesterol as the only factor leading up to heart disease. But there are of course other risk factors too. Fuhrman has also said that a person eating a standard Swedish diet and a person eating a medeterrainan diet that both have high cholesterol, the person on the Swedish diet has a higher risk of heart disease. He has also stated that he thinks that coconut milk can be part of a healthy diet (as long as you're thin). I think this is what separates him from most of the "vegan doctors" (McDougall, Esselstyn, etc) in that he looks at other things than just cholesterol itself since it's just part of the bigger picture. When cholesterol is heated or dried, it reacts with oxygen, and becomes "oxidized." Fried foods, and processed and cooked foods that contain butter, eggs, and other sources of animal fat, often contain oxidized cholesterol-which has been damaged by reactive oxygen molecules called free radicals. Our bodies have no receptors for normal cholesterol, only for oxidized, damaged cholesterol. For example, if you consume animal byproducts, raw eggs and milk will not effect us because they are not heated heavily. Although it would seem that the key factor in atherogenesis would be oxidized cholesterol, it is much more complex than that. Since oxidized cholesterol has been damaged by reactive oxygen molecules, called free radicals, I would recommend a HIGH intake of Antioxidants in the form of fresh produce to help offset the effects caused by oxidized cholesterol for anyone who chooses to consume cooked cholesterol. Many doctors forget that we only have receptors for OXIDIZED CHOLESTEROL and not raw cholesterol. In fact, many tribes have shown to naturally have higher cholesterol levels while having very low cases of heart disease amongst their people. There really isn't any proof showing that there is a connection between higher cholesterol levels and heart disease, like many have been brain-washed into believing . A bigger person can naturally have higher cholesterol levels and a smaller person have lower cholesterol levels. There are many people who have high cholesterol levels and never had heart diseae. In fact, my Dad was one of them and there has never been a case of heart disease in my family. It's just that Statin drugs are the biggest money-making scam in history. Many people forget that the actualy "cause" of heart disease and unnaturally high cholesterol levels are damaged arteries, where arterial plaque starts sticking to the walls of your arteries. The major cause of this, I believe, is the large consumption of pasteurized dairy and trans fatty acids. In a healthy person with no arterial damage, the cholesterol would go right through just like water goes through a pipe and would not stick. Nevertheless, ANYONE can suffer from unnaturally high cholesterol levels, which may lead to heart disease. This, however, depends on the age, size, etc. of the person. If someone naturally has higher cholesterol levels than someone else and has practiced a healthy diet for all or most of his life, then that is where his cholesterol levels are naturally. But, if it goes up because he's eating junk food, then, obviously, that would not be his natural level and that could set him up for heard problems later on in life.

That information Dr. Fuhrman is LARGELY flawed. The saturated fats in coconut oil/meat are medium chain fatty acids and do not raise bad cholesterol. Medium chain and long chain fatty acids work differently in the body. Honestly, I still believe there is still a fat conspriacy among most raw fooders/vegans that I meet today. Lately, there has been attacks made on both cocoa and coconut with now scientific theory or studies behind what was being claimed. Clearly, you can tell this doctor is on a "low fat" trip by reading his article. In fact, there really isn't any clean proof on saturated fat causing heart disease, since almost EVERY study that claims saturated fat is evil also used TRANS FAT. Most processed foods today that are high in saturated fats are also high in trans fat. There never was any distinction made between what fats were being consumed during these studies. Maybe one day people will realize that it's not fat that hurts your health, but the kinds of fat you consume that makes a difference. There are days where I consume over 8 avocados. If you're eating healthy fats, there should be no problem. Period.

I don't think someone who eats raw honey isn't a vegan. After all, a honey bee is a insect. I don't count that as eating a animal product. Personally, I love raw honey and there are much health benefits to it. It's a wonderful healing food too- they used it to heal wounds in the old days. I also eat raw yacon root syrup too. I think it tastes way better than the other stuff. You guys should try it if you don't eat honey.

If you're not a bodybuilder or someone who lifts weights, then you shouldn't worry about your protein needs as much. You'll get enough through the foods you eat.

I used to have asthma when I was 11 or 12. I had it badly. After I found nutrition and exercise, I had the asthma attacks a lot less. But then I went about 80% raw and took out all pasteurized dairy products and stopped having asthma attacks. I would basically say that I don't have it anymore. I never used the drugs they gave me, because they made me feel worse, but I can honestly say I don't need them ever again. I really think that going 80% raw and cutting out all pasteurized dairy and cleansing every year are key. Make sure you're getting enough omega 3's and a good coral calcium/ magnesium supplement since it is a inflammation problem. I have also messed around with many different herbs and I found some to be really effective. But the raw food diet and consuming no pasteurized dairy where the key for me.

I couldn't agree more. If I'm in a car crash, then drugs are great for crisis management. But the way things are going with cancer and disease, things will get worse before they get better. This video is just a fine example of how they make threats towards politicians in office because it's only about their greed.

I don't know man. The raw diet has been addictive to me lately!!!

That is so true. The key is not convincing people, but showing people. That way they won't feel as if it is being forced down their throat. What really made me sick was the fact that the senator became a lobbyist for a drug company and later came down with stomach cancer. He was "treated"-maybe I should say cured- with a new drug that was not yet released to the general public! This is absolute madness. And after I saw him up there with the president smiling like they're doing it for the health of Americans. Give me a break. This is exactly why I do not vote anymore. Looks like those "conspiracy theorists" need to be given a little credit.

I agree. I'm evern more shocked they aired this on 60 minutes! The funny thing is that they aired it at 3AM instead of 9 or 10PM, so less people would watch it. I remember four years ago how KT was getting flamed for preaching about this. Now, four years later, even the greedy media is exposing it for what it is. In the end, they can pass any bill they want, but if we get just 10% of the population learning about health and nutrition, their profits will crash.

http://v.mercola.com/blogs/public_blog/Trillion-Dollar-Health-Scam-19438.aspx This video will blow your mind.

"It acts as a stimulant and agitates the kidneys and adrenal glands." All I saw was claims that chocolate was somehow "toxic" to the liver. How does it act like a stimulant to the adrenal glands? There isn't much caffeine at all in raw cocao. MAYBE too much might pose some threat, but through my research I have not seen this. Where is this scientific evidence proving these claims? Through my research choclolate is a true health food and is the highest in antioxidants. The structure of chocolate is the most complex, but the fat enzyme, "lipase', is still present in raw cocoa, so I don't see how it would burden the body to digest the fat. I could, however, see it posing a problem if cooked chocolate were eaten. How is it toxic to the liver? I love your articles, but this one seems to make claims without any science or theory as to why it causes liver toxicity, adrenal problems, etc.

Lol, burgers these days aren't mostly meat. That is so true when it comes to fast food.

Hey all, If you like Ambient/ melodic, industiral, or fast-paced/breakcore music, add my myspace project "Darkest Deep". I like rock/metal music as well, but am already in one of those bands, so that is why I started this project, since I like many styles of music. Thanks guys http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=201021053 Cheers, Stephen

http://www.laetrilesupply.com/

For it to be sold in America it has to be labled as "supplement". That is why when you buy stevia at GNC it says "supplement facts" on the back. It really isn't a supplement, but it has to be labled as one so it can be sold. It still cannot be added to foods.

That really is sad, but they're probably protecting the profits of splenda too, if it can only be used as a supplement. Thats all they're about. England is a mess when it comes to cancer treatment too. The people over their are unhappy with the system.

That is so true. For example, there is even direct evidence now that shows that drug companies give doctors profits for prescribing their drug. I'm just waiting for the evidence to show the same with the FDA, after the former FDA Commissioner, Herbert lay, admitted that they protect the profits of the drug companies before he died.

It was stated in the PDF linked in the first post. Along with other uncredible statements such as, "Fruits and vegetables do not protect against cancer." Maybe he's right with the whole "lack of oxygen causing cancer" thing, but I think you'd have to be an imbecile in order to take what he's saying without an entire ocean of salt, seeing as he promotes one of those wacko Weston A. Price-esque diets that we KNOW cause all sorts of chronic and life-threatening diseases. I do agree you. That guy does sound like a quack. Some people get so over-indulged in what they believe in, they start to go crazy. Some people are so close-minded that that only look at their theory as a whole and do not except or study other theories. Lack of oxygen is part of the puzzle, but it is not the prime cause of cancer.

Remember that the drug companies are the ones who fund the studies and basically put doctors through Medical School. A lot of doctors today are actually starting to somewhat rebel against the Conventional dogma because they know that what they've been taught-to use drugs- is not making their patients better in the long run. Most independent studies are much more credible than those that are funded by drug companies. Keep in mind that the first series of these indepentent studies were conducted in the 1950's and the 1960's. This was at a time where supplement companies weren't as greedy. They were also conducted by the founder of laetrile, who is a doctor, so that says a lot. It's not like the study was funded only 10 or 20 years ago by some snake oil drug or supplement pusher. In fact, no doctor who studied laetrile has ever tried selling the supplement. They often got it as a cancer treatment for their patients from Mexico, etc.

Who said that a a high fiber intake increases the incidence of colorectal cancer?

Sure there are scientists that avocate the Aktins diet, but they're usually on their pay roll, much like the scientists that work for drug companies. Thats was also over thrity years ago. Science changes so much. Anyone who knows anything about science will know that the Atkins not is not for optimal health anyway. But dying of a heart attack at the age of 60 is normal in this country, so I want more than optimal health. The first studies were indepent studies on laetrile. They were not funded by any big company that sells drugs or supplements. There was no company selling a product. The Video was held at a conference of over 80 people. In fact, those large stock holder meeting is where the lies are. Those quite conferences that people go to from all around the world is usually where you'll find the truth, since you won't find it on TV or on the radio. G. Edward Griffin holds conferences every year and he is an advocate for health freedom. He is not selling anything. He writes his own books on health care and laetrile. Anyone who grew up in the 1950's, 60's, or even the 70's usually know who he is. He has been doing this for over 50 years and is not some hippy quack. He is very well respected in medical communites all around the world and has been invited to teach his theory at the best hospitals, including hospitals that use laetrile, with much success. There is no way to modify the truth with lies. Studies can be twisted around, like most are all the time. But when something like laetrile is being used all around the world in clinics like the one in Mexico that I posted about, with very much success, facts speak for themselves. Nevertheless, we are at a time where people will argue with even someone who has studied the subject their whole life and facts will be the only way of showing people the truth in true healthcare. I will, however, continue to spread the information and believe in it because it makes perfect sense scientifically, but more importantly, I 've seen what it does first hand. Do some research on Nobel Prize winners and you'll find most of them are called "quacks". That just tells me that those "quacks" are smarter and don't have drugs to always sell. By the way, if you think I am coming across to you as someone who thinks you are a idiot, I am not. It sounds like you're very smart and open minded.

If you want to talk about quack, that website is probably the closest to it. It makes up fake Science/Biochemistry with the most idiotic terms. Half of the stuff in there that is written doesn't even grasp the relm of science. It makes no sense whatsoever. Anyone who studies science and health will know that the website is a load of B.S. It just does not make sense. It's full of fake terms, like 40% cancer remission, when there is no such thing. It blows my mind. If anyone who used the freedom of information act to look at the actualy study- there was only one study they twisted- they would see that it was modifed and falsifed. It is not real science, but pseudoscience. But I don't care though. Cancer is higher than ever and most people are puppets and follow the Big Pharma. Well, obviously when millions of people are dying more than ever, you go and do something different because what they're doing is not working. Drugs have failed. Period. More people are dying not just from disease more then ever, but from the drugs they take too. No. DO NOT eat the pit that guards the apricot seed. You break that open with a nutcracker, a rock, or a hammer. Then you'll see a soft, bitter tasting seed inside. Same goes for peaches and plums. You can eat the apricot seeds and apple seeds. All the seeds of the fruit is healthy for you. As for the dose, you need to eat around 5 apricot seeds and 2 whole apples with the seeds everyday for best results. Personally, I am a BIG fruit lover, so I eat a lot of apples and apricots per day. I eat as much as 15 apricot seeds and 3 sets of apple seeds a day and as little as 5 apricot seeds and 2 sets of apple seeds per day. You can also eat peach seeds, plum seeds, etc. All berries contain of smaller amounts Vitamin B-17 too. You can also eat the skin of the watermelon. Just make sure you wash it, lol.

I don't remember ever seeing any videos of people saying fish and green tea cures cancer, although Omega 3's do play a VERY important roll in cancer prevention and does help for those who are fighting it. This video isn't some quack video. It is a real video, with real science, real doctors, real biochemists, and real studies. No doubt you can push cancer into remission with Chemo and Radiation. Thats all it does. Like I stated above, it doesn't cure their cancer. It leaves them with retarded cell structure, a weak immune system, and a mass suicide of healthy cells. More people die from Chemotherapy than cancer itself. In fact, over 60% of cancer patients, who take chemotherapy, die from opportunistic illnesses like pneumonia, the common cold, etc. instead of the cancer itself because, like I said earlier, they have no immune system left to fight anything. First of all, G. Edward Griffin was referring to a healthy, modern man's diet: Someone who doesn't smoke and do drugs, obviously. Obviously, smoking causes cancer. We all know this. But smoking is unatural and shouldn't be either. Same goes for drugs, smoke, x rays, etc. It's not smoking itself that actually causes cancer, but the Carcinogens in the cigarettes- although not everyone who smokes gets cancer either. Carcinogens cause damage to our DNA, or cause cells to divide faster than their normal rate, thus causing cancer. But more importantly, it more like determins where the cancer will end up. That is what Carcinogens do. All of the science and proof was provided on Vitamin B-17. It is up to people if they want to apply the science to their life. My Mothers cancer was in stage 3 too. The doctors told her she has a good chance of it returning. Ever since her laetrile treatment and taking Vitamin B-17 every single day, over eight years later, it has not returned. Anyway, like I said, the proof is there. It's up to people if they want to apply that knowledge.

The site has had that unwarranted criticism numerous times. However, if you actually visit it you will discover that it is run by volunteers from different science and medical fields - not the FDA or pharmaceutical companies. I understand that you are a big believer in laetrile because you believe it has helped your mother. I hope that she stays well. However, there are many reasons for cancer to go into remission, to re-emerge and to disappear - and they're most likely too complex for us to understand at this time, indeed if ever. I wouldn't trumpet laetrile or vitamin B17 as a cure any more than I would call chemotherapy a cure. They're all just options and they're all of dubious worth. Cancer just doesn't go into "remission". My Mothers cancer did not just go into remission either. There is not a trace of cancer in here body and it has been that way for over eight years. Now, if you want to talk about remission, that is probably what chemotherapy does. It doesn't cure cancer, nor does it get to the root-cause of cancer. It ends up killing your healthier cells and your immune system, leaving you open to developing cancer again. People may live after chemotherapy, but that doesn't mean they get better. It means they die longer. Cancer is not too complex for us to never understand it. I've been in school studying it for the last four years. I think I'd know that. I am a big believer in Laetrile because I have both studied the science behind it and have seen it first hand how it works. Alternative Medicine has a higher success rate in curing cancer. That is a fact. I am not saying Vitamin B-17 is a cure all for all. But it is effective, otherwise other countries would not be using it. It's that simple. The science behind cancer is complex, but, as I stated earlier, it is not as complex as the politics behind medicine.

While it is true that light sun burn isn't going to hurt you, or a darker tan, severe sun burn will cause skin to peel after it has been burned. There is a difference between developing a tan and severe sun burn. Severe sun burn will also radiate and be very red. A tan will not be very red, but will slowly darken, nor will it radiate or cause the skin to peel. If you have fair skin, the key is to slowly build up the melanin so that you don't burn so easily after only being in the sun for a short amount of time. That way they'll develope more of a tan.