questions (was: Doctoring to death)

[Guest guest]

Frank wrote:

 

> Curiously, his Majesty’s strength seemed to wane after all these

interventions and

> as the end of his life seemed imminent, his doctors tried a last ditch

attempt by forcing more Raleigh’s mixture, pearl

>julep and ammonia down the dying King’s throat. Further treatment was

rendered more difficult by the king’s death.” [3]

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Hehe....that gave me a chuckle. I can just imagine the worried

" doctors " standing around the King's bed, wishing he

hadn't upped and died so they could try just a little more poison...

 

 

> As far back as 1976, the American Cancer Society itself and its

government colleague the National Cancer Institute

>terminated the routine use of mammography for women under the age of 50

because of its “detrimental” (carcinogenic)

>effects.

 

Whaaaaat? It did? What happened? It seems to be a given in our

society that women should get mammograms every year,

especially as they get older. So what happened between 1976 & now that

routine use was no longer terminated?

 

Oh, and speaking of which, does anyone know what time of the cycle

you're supposed to check and not check yourself? I had

a lump the size of a marble a few months ago - it scared the sh*t out of

me though I tried to keep a cool head. I didn't

do anything about it other than checking on it each day, and it

eventually went away after about a week, and then I

remember that there are times in a cycle when a lump will show up &

you're not supposed to check at that time.

 

> He points out that the $5-13 billion per year generated by mammograms

controls the information that women get.

 

5 BILLION a year? Cheese and rice!

 

> On the contrary, the painful compression of breast tissue during the

procedure itself can increase the possibility of

>metastasis by as much as 80%!

 

Now I'm really mad....infuriated.

 

> Personally speaking, critical debate should commence as soon as

possible with regard to those ‘helping’ therapies that

>only temporarily distract the seriously ill.

 

I don't know....*sigh* There are some people you just can't debate

with. The other side of the coin. As stubborn as you

& I are about our alternative therapies, we all know people who are

equally stubborn about allopathy. My MIL for

example...*gulp* She had a pre-cancerous mole removed from her back 4

weeks ago, and when she went in for her checkup,

the doctor said it was neither benign nor malignant - just pre-cancer.

(That confused me, but she couldn't explain any

further because she didn't know either. Does anyone know what the

difference is between a regular mole, a pre-cancerous

mole, and a benign mole? *confused*) She has tons of skin cancer in

her family line, so she was actually surprised that

it wasn't cancer. Well anyway. She is very, very, VERY

allopathic-minded and would never ever consider other treatments.

So on this one I feel like I can't open my mouth or she will look at me

like I'm nuts. (I don't think books would work

well, either.)

 

This is just the start, my friends. Her daughter, mark my words, will

have serious problems before long. It is already serious - for

example, she's suffered the same sinus infection for 4-5 weeks. Does

that seem unusual to anyone else? Because I've

never had one last for longer than a day, seriously. (I'm not trying to

brag on my own health or anything, because it

isn't that great -- I'm only using myself as a comparisn. If I consider

myself to be only halfway well and I can kick a

sinus infection in a day, then how sick is she? Know what I mean?) Her

doctor, bless his heart, refused to prescribe an

antibiotic until she'd been sick for 10 days. So finally after 10 days,

she received an antibiotic, but it didn't take.

She's on her 2nd antibiotic - Zy-something - and it seems to be working

okay for her, but my heart is torn 'cause I know

it'll only make things worse in the long run. She is only 12 years old

but takes about a billion pills every day (for

things like asthma and can't remember what else). Zero vitamins. Blah

blah blah. We all know people like this. Some of us have been there

ourselves and we don't

always feel like we have room to judge or speak.....right?

 

> “Upon investigating the diet of these people, we found that the seed

of the apricot was prized as a delicacy and that

>every part of the apricot was utilized.” [27]

 

 

Hmmm....exactly which part of the apricot seed did they eat? If I

remember correctly from my little-girl-bug-smashing

days, when I cracked open an apricot seed to see what was inside, I saw

what looked curiously enough like an almond. I

think. So was that it, that " almond " ? Or did they just eat the hard

pit shell? Can't imagine why it would be a

delicacy...what does it taste like?

 

Mindy