Guest guest Posted October 7, 2007 Report Share Posted October 7, 2007 Hi Bill, Thanks for your warning statement here. It's OK to experiment with self-limiting conditions, but not with cancer. Errors can be fatal. Cancer is a fatal disease which we should not get involved without the help of WM " MD " . Practically how many patients can outlive when malignant cancers were found and treated by oncologists, 5-10 out of a 100? Notlikely! How many can survive after 5 years? Less than 1% ! If patients are dying , who are to blamed? Not oncologist, right ????????? RIGHT ! Before treatment, oncologists stated the survival rate is very low and very risky... Taking chance ??????? Sure! we all do. If the survival rates is low, why our medical science still have them in practice and have not developed further or improve their abilities I do not know. But one thing is for sure, they 've never have been the blame. We, TCM , all know this is a fatal disease, a ticket to heaven. We do not know or understand the pathology of cancer thoroughly for we only based on WM as a pedestal and move on along with it. WHy should we base on something that have less than 1% cure in a fatal disease, and we strongly or definitely sure that we can cure, but not them !!!!!!!!! If we touch cancer patients, patients live more than 5 yrs then suddenly die, we are the blame, THE BLAME ! Even though oncologists may claim that a patient may only live for a few weeks, and we TCM touch them, we are the cause.... PLEASE BE CAREFUL ! No one can back us up. Beside, we all criticize among ourselves " He should not do this, that. He knows nothing about .... We should revoke his license and jail him... " Does this sound familiar in our TCM ? I think WM should have different views in cancer pathology and treatments and we all TCM should gather all information from all sources and discriminate them before getting involved. If we are not sure about this, please stay away, watch and study... This is our best bet. AGAIN , I would like to remind all of us. If there is no Qi, there is no life!!!!!!!!!!!!! No matter it is a solid, liquid or gas. In any disease or illness, no matter it is light or serious, we should look, observe and maitain the Qi of our patients. We should make sure their Qi are at top, full and moving freely. If not, we should bring those Qi up to the best we can regardless of illness. If our body Qi ( defense mechanism, immunity system, endocrine system, disgestive system ) is at best, our pathological factors should be subsided........... THIS IS OUR TCM KEY OF LIFE. If we are scare, nervous, and trying to find some kinds of viruses as in WM, we are bound in a small circle. We should break this limit and expand our vision. This will give us some strength and recognition. Thanks Nam Nguyen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2007 Report Share Posted October 8, 2007 In California, the primary treatment of cancer is explicitly outside our scope of practice. Typically, we are seeing patients who are also receiving western treatment. We will sometimes end up being the sole treatment modality if a patient is pronounced beyond treatment by oncologists. - Bill Chinese Medicine , " Gary Wu " <mcmhealth wrote: > > The reason that I have stayed away from cancer patients is simply that > " There are many many factors that contribute to a person getting > cancer. " Many of these factors are out of my control and some of > these factors are not physical but rather mental and in some cases > even spiritual. If you look at people that have made complete > recovery from cancer, many of them have often made drastic changes in > their lives. I am not talking about simply quitting smoking or > staying away from fatty foods and such, but truly magnificent changes > regarding their outlook on life, their own character, their > relationships, work, everything. I am afraid to said that these > changes cannot be brought to them via needles and herbs, it is well > beyond a doctor's powers. Since I have come to this conclusion I have > stayed away from treating cancer patients. I only give them advice on > the possible changes they must make in their lives that will give them > a decent chance for full recovery and only those that " gets it " and > makes that leap of faith, so to speak, then I can aid them with tools > of CM to help them succeed. Otherwise, it is perhaps better to sway > them to the direction of Western Medicine as they are more skilled in > keeping a person technically alive, albeit sick and often times > extremely uncomfortable. > > From my observation of people with breast cancer, there is a strong > connection with anger. It is not just typical anger, but rather > suppressed anger that results from her spouse. People that are > angered easily and often expressing anger will have damage in their > liver. If that angered is suppressed, then the damage will be in > their stomach, often causing stomach ulcers. In the case of a woman, > if the anger is coming someone that she has a love relationship with, > then it may result in breast cancer. Coincidentally (Perhaps not a > coincidence), the stomach meridian actually runs through both nipples, > which may explain the relationship between the illnesses sharing > similar causes. > > In short, it is likely that she is unhappy with her husband/boyfriend, > yet her other half is the dominant one in the relationship, forcing > her to suppress such anger. If this is the case, then my advice would > simply be to resolve this issue with her husband/boyfriend, and then > the healing process can begin. > > Again, these are my own observations, it is perhaps much different > from some of the concepts that people are used to. > > Good Luck > > Gary > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2007 Report Share Posted October 9, 2007 Hi all, I felt a need to back up Nam on this one. We would perhaps all be surprised at the numbers, the total and final statistical analysis of our profession, if we could magically get them. We might be surprised at how effective CM can be, and often is. Unfortunately we don't really have " definitive proofs " , I guess. I can say, however, that we come close, especially to the discerning observer, when we look at things like the China Study (C. Campbell). What Campbell and his group discovered (and of course, they are not the only ones, they just have the biggest, longest sample) was an amazingly healthy and robust population. And guess what? Yeah, their primary care was CM. We need to be VERY careful when handling disease because of OUR OWN prejudices, lack of knowledge, inexperience, limitations, illusions and misunderstandings, NOT because CM isn't up to it. We also need to see certain diseases in a realistic light: there is inherent, fundamental danger in advanced conditions (meaning that the condition has had a LOT of time, effort and energy put into it). CM is not a cure all. AND it is a SUPERB medicine. Hugo dr_namnguyen58 <dr_namnguyen58 Chinese Medicine Sunday, 7 October, 2007 8:36:59 AM Re: Cancer/especially of the breast Hi Bill, Thanks for your warning statement here. It's OK to experiment with self-limiting conditions, but not with cancer. Errors can be fatal. Cancer is a fatal disease which we should not get involved without the help of WM " MD " . Practically how many patients can outlive when malignant cancers were found and treated by oncologists, 5-10 out of a 100? Notlikely! How many can survive after 5 years? Less than 1% ! If patients are dying , who are to blamed? Not oncologist, right ????????? RIGHT ! Before treatment, oncologists stated the survival rate is very low and very risky... Taking chance ??????? Sure! we all do. If the survival rates is low, why our medical science still have them in practice and have not developed further or improve their abilities I do not know. But one thing is for sure, they 've never have been the blame. We, TCM , all know this is a fatal disease, a ticket to heaven. We do not know or understand the pathology of cancer thoroughly for we only based on WM as a pedestal and move on along with it. WHy should we base on something that have less than 1% cure in a fatal disease, and we strongly or definitely sure that we can cure, but not them !!!!!!!!! If we touch cancer patients, patients live more than 5 yrs then suddenly die, we are the blame, THE BLAME ! Even though oncologists may claim that a patient may only live for a few weeks, and we TCM touch them, we are the cause.... PLEASE BE CAREFUL ! No one can back us up. Beside, we all criticize among ourselves " He should not do this, that. He knows nothing about .... We should revoke his license and jail him... " Does this sound familiar in our TCM ? I think WM should have different views in cancer pathology and treatments and we all TCM should gather all information from all sources and discriminate them before getting involved. If we are not sure about this, please stay away, watch and study... This is our best bet. AGAIN , I would like to remind all of us. If there is no Qi, there is no life!!!!!!!! !!!!! No matter it is a solid, liquid or gas. In any disease or illness, no matter it is light or serious, we should look, observe and maitain the Qi of our patients. We should make sure their Qi are at top, full and moving freely. If not, we should bring those Qi up to the best we can regardless of illness. If our body Qi ( defense mechanism, immunity system, endocrine system, disgestive system ) is at best, our pathological factors should be subsided.... ....... THIS IS OUR TCM KEY OF LIFE. If we are scare, nervous, and trying to find some kinds of viruses as in WM, we are bound in a small circle. We should break this limit and expand our vision. This will give us some strength and recognition. Thanks Nam Nguyen <!-- #ygrp-mkp{ border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;} #ygrp-mkp hr{ border:1px solid #d8d8d8;} #ygrp-mkp #hd{ color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;} #ygrp-mkp #ads{ margin-bottom:10px;} #ygrp-mkp .ad{ padding:0 0;} #ygrp-mkp .ad a{ color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;} --> <!-- #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{ font-family:Arial;} #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{ margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;} #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{ margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;} --> <!-- #ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;} #ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;} #ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;} #ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;} #ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;} #ygrp-text{ font-family:Georgia; } #ygrp-text p{ margin:0 0 1em 0;} #ygrp-tpmsgs{ font-family:Arial; clear:both;} #ygrp-vitnav{ padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;} #ygrp-vitnav a{ padding:0 1px;} #ygrp-actbar{ clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;} #ygrp-actbar .left{ float:left;white-space:nowrap;} ..bld{font-weight:bold;} #ygrp-grft{ font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;} #ygrp-ft{ font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666; padding:5px 0; } #ygrp-mlmsg #logo{ padding-bottom:10px;} #ygrp-vital{ background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;} #ygrp-vital #vithd{ font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:upp\ ercase;} #ygrp-vital ul{ padding:0;margin:2px 0;} #ygrp-vital ul li{ list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee; } #ygrp-vital ul li .ct{ font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-ri\ ght:.5em;} #ygrp-vital ul li .cat{ font-weight:bold;} #ygrp-vital a{ text-decoration:none;} #ygrp-vital a:hover{ text-decoration:underline;} #ygrp-sponsor #hd{ color:#999;font-size:77%;} #ygrp-sponsor #ov{ padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;} #ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{ padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;} #ygrp-sponsor #ov li{ list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;} #ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{ text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;} #ygrp-sponsor #nc{ background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;} #ygrp-sponsor .ad{ padding:8px 0;} #ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{ font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%\ ;} #ygrp-sponsor .ad a{ text-decoration:none;} #ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{ text-decoration:underline;} #ygrp-sponsor .ad p{ margin:0;} o{font-size:0;} ..MsoNormal{ margin:0 0 0 0;} #ygrp-text tt{ font-size:120%;} blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;} ..replbq{margin:4;} --> _________ Want ideas for reducing your carbon footprint? Visit For Good http://uk.promotions./forgood/environment.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2007 Report Share Posted October 9, 2007 Hugo, I'd add that WM is also not a cure-all. One of our disadvantages practicing in the West is that we do not have CM hospitals/facilities for in-patient care, with nursing available. Private practitioners are ill-equipped for emergency situations, and the surgeries and advanced technologies associated with biomedicine can be very helpful in those situations. However, WM also does not have a cure for most cancers. Immunomodulating therapies for cancer patients are long overdue, the chemo/radiation/surgery protocols are getting long in the tooth, along with their great toxicity. Oncologists need to open up to the wisdom of traditional medical systems on the treatment of cancer patients, and not just 'lock in' their patients to the old protocols. Not only Chinese medicine, but Tibetan, Ayuvedic and Homeopathic medicines show great promise in cancer treatment. On Oct 9, 2007, at 3:36 PM, Hugo Ramiro wrote: > We need to be VERY careful when handling disease because of OUR OWN > prejudices, lack of knowledge, inexperience, limitations, illusions > and misunderstandings, NOT because CM isn't up to it. We also need > to see certain diseases in a realistic light: there is inherent, > fundamental danger in advanced conditions (meaning that the > condition has had a LOT of time, effort and energy put into it). CM > is not a cure all. AND it is a SUPERB medicine. Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 I am still wondering about the Chen and Chen book. If I could get some more input about this book in regards to cancer treatment. If everything is says is true than thousands of years of traditional herbal treatment needs to be changed. They say that huang qi, and dang gui feed the cancer but is this only alone, in a laboratory environment. Don't the other herbs mitagate any of their negative effects. Also doesn't DG promote a good kind of estrogen to be produced. A little weird that estrogen has become such a maligned hormone, seeing as it also has a lot to do with us being female. More input and opinion would be appreciated. Thank you, Petra Buchanan. --- Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: > Hi all, I felt a need to back up Nam on this one. > We would perhaps all be surprised at the numbers, > the total and final statistical analysis of our > profession, if we could magically get them. We might > be surprised at how effective CM can be, and often > is. > Unfortunately we don't really have " definitive > proofs " , I guess. I can say, however, that we come > close, especially to the discerning observer, when > we look at things like the China Study (C. > Campbell). What Campbell and his group discovered > (and of course, they are not the only ones, they > just have the biggest, longest sample) was an > amazingly healthy and robust population. And guess > what? Yeah, their primary care was CM. > We need to be VERY careful when handling disease > because of OUR OWN prejudices, lack of knowledge, > inexperience, limitations, illusions and > misunderstandings, NOT because CM isn't up to it. We > also need to see certain diseases in a realistic > light: there is inherent, fundamental danger in > advanced conditions (meaning that the condition has > had a LOT of time, effort and energy put into it). > CM is not a cure all. AND it is a SUPERB medicine. > Hugo > > > dr_namnguyen58 <dr_namnguyen58 > Chinese Medicine > Sunday, 7 October, 2007 8:36:59 AM > Re: Cancer/especially of the breast > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > Thanks for your warning statement here. It's OK to > experiment with > > self-limiting conditions, but not with cancer. > Errors can be fatal. > > Cancer is a fatal disease which we should not get > involved without > > the help of WM " MD " . Practically how many patients > can outlive when > > malignant cancers were found and treated by > oncologists, 5-10 out of a > > 100? Notlikely! > > How many can survive after 5 years? Less than 1% ! > If patients are > > dying , who are to blamed? Not oncologist, right > ????????? RIGHT ! > > Before treatment, oncologists stated the survival > rate is very low > > and very risky... Taking chance ??????? Sure! we all > do. If the > > survival rates is low, why our medical science still > have them in > > practice and have not developed further or improve > their abilities I > > do not know. But one thing is for sure, they 've > never have been the > > blame. > > We, TCM , all know this is a fatal disease, a > ticket to heaven. We > > do not know or understand the pathology of cancer > thoroughly for we > > only based on WM as a pedestal and move on along > with it. WHy should > > we base on something that have less than 1% cure in > a fatal disease, > > and we strongly or definitely sure that we can cure, > but not them > > !!!!!!!!! If we touch cancer patients, patients live > more than 5 yrs > > then suddenly die, we are the blame, THE BLAME ! > Even though > > oncologists may claim that a patient may only live > for a few weeks, > > and we TCM touch them, we are the cause.... PLEASE > BE CAREFUL ! No one > > can back us up. Beside, we all criticize among > ourselves " He should > > not do this, that. He knows nothing about .... We > should revoke his > > license and jail him... " Does this sound familiar > in our TCM ? > > I think WM should have different views in cancer > pathology and > > treatments and we all TCM should gather all > information from all > > sources and discriminate them before getting > involved. If we are not > > sure about this, please stay away, watch and > study... This is our best > > bet. > > AGAIN , I would like to remind all of us. If there > is no Qi, there > > is no life!!!!!!!! !!!!! No matter it is a solid, > liquid or gas. > > In any disease or illness, no matter it is light > or serious, we > > should look, observe and maitain the Qi of our > patients. We should > > make sure their Qi are at top, full and moving > freely. If not, we > > should bring those Qi up to the best we can > regardless of illness. > > If our body Qi ( defense mechanism, immunity > system, endocrine > > system, disgestive system ) is at best, our > pathological factors > > should be subsided.... ....... THIS IS OUR TCM KEY > OF LIFE. > > If we are scare, nervous, and trying to find some > kinds of viruses > > as in WM, we are bound in a small circle. We should > break this limit > > and expand our vision. This will give us some > strength and recognition. > > > > Thanks > > > > Nam Nguyen > > > > > > > > <!-- > > #ygrp-mkp{ > border:1px solid > #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px > 0px;padding:0px 14px;} > #ygrp-mkp hr{ > border:1px solid #d8d8d8;} > === message truncated === ______________________________\ ____ Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Autos. http://autos./new_cars.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 I am not sure how important one single herb's lab test report is in the context of cancer treatment. What if some day, someone comes up with a test that injects concentrated grain (let's say, rice) and finds it exacerbates cancer in some animals? Chinese medicine's strength is best demonstrated in its formulation disipline, or Pei Wu in Chinese. I happened to meet Prof Cheng, Yung-chi (http://info.med.yale.edu/pharm/faculty/index.php?bioID=6) of Yale university last year. As one of the accomplished researchers in chemotherapy, he has turned to Chinese medicine to look for inspiration. For the last 5 or 6 years his team has put in a lot of time to research a classical formula consisting of only 4 herbs, where its effects against different types of cancers have been researched very methodically. In his experience, the variation in the content of the same herb among different lots can be quite significant, leading me to think twice of the validity of the reports Chen & Chen's book references. At any rate, having witnessed my late teacher's ability to help many patients survive from cancers, and seeing teams like Prof. Cheng's " proving " CM herbal formula's benefit, I am optimistic that CM's good days has yet to come. For now, I'll just keep my heads down and focusing on polishing my clinical skills. In peace, Mike L. Petra Buchanan <petrabuchanan wrote: I am still wondering about the Chen and Chen book. If I could get some more input about this book in regards to cancer treatment. If everything is says is true than thousands of years of traditional herbal treatment needs to be changed. They say that huang qi, and dang gui feed the cancer but is this only alone, in a laboratory environment. Don't the other herbs mitagate any of their negative effects. Also doesn't DG promote a good kind of estrogen to be produced. A little weird that estrogen has become such a maligned hormone, seeing as it also has a lot to do with us being female. More input and opinion would be appreciated. Thank you, Petra Buchanan. --- Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: > Hi all, I felt a need to back up Nam on this one. > We would perhaps all be surprised at the numbers, > the total and final statistical analysis of our > profession, if we could magically get them. We might > be surprised at how effective CM can be, and often > is. > Unfortunately we don't really have " definitive > proofs " , I guess. I can say, however, that we come > close, especially to the discerning observer, when > we look at things like the China Study (C. > Campbell). What Campbell and his group discovered > (and of course, they are not the only ones, they > just have the biggest, longest sample) was an > amazingly healthy and robust population. And guess > what? Yeah, their primary care was CM. > We need to be VERY careful when handling disease > because of OUR OWN prejudices, lack of knowledge, > inexperience, limitations, illusions and > misunderstandings, NOT because CM isn't up to it. We > also need to see certain diseases in a realistic > light: there is inherent, fundamental danger in > advanced conditions (meaning that the condition has > had a LOT of time, effort and energy put into it). > CM is not a cure all. AND it is a SUPERB medicine. > Hugo > > > dr_namnguyen58 <dr_namnguyen58 > Chinese Medicine > Sunday, 7 October, 2007 8:36:59 AM > Re: Cancer/especially of the breast > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > Thanks for your warning statement here. It's OK to > experiment with > > self-limiting conditions, but not with cancer. > Errors can be fatal. > > Cancer is a fatal disease which we should not get > involved without > > the help of WM " MD " . Practically how many patients > can outlive when > > malignant cancers were found and treated by > oncologists, 5-10 out of a > > 100? Notlikely! > > How many can survive after 5 years? Less than 1% ! > If patients are > > dying , who are to blamed? Not oncologist, right > ????????? RIGHT ! > > Before treatment, oncologists stated the survival > rate is very low > > and very risky... Taking chance ??????? Sure! we all > do. If the > > survival rates is low, why our medical science still > have them in > > practice and have not developed further or improve > their abilities I > > do not know. But one thing is for sure, they 've > never have been the > > blame. > > We, TCM , all know this is a fatal disease, a > ticket to heaven. We > > do not know or understand the pathology of cancer > thoroughly for we > > only based on WM as a pedestal and move on along > with it. WHy should > > we base on something that have less than 1% cure in > a fatal disease, > > and we strongly or definitely sure that we can cure, > but not them > > !!!!!!!!! If we touch cancer patients, patients live > more than 5 yrs > > then suddenly die, we are the blame, THE BLAME ! > Even though > > oncologists may claim that a patient may only live > for a few weeks, > > and we TCM touch them, we are the cause.... PLEASE > BE CAREFUL ! No one > > can back us up. Beside, we all criticize among > ourselves " He should > > not do this, that. He knows nothing about .... We > should revoke his > > license and jail him... " Does this sound familiar > in our TCM ? > > I think WM should have different views in cancer > pathology and > > treatments and we all TCM should gather all > information from all > > sources and discriminate them before getting > involved. If we are not > > sure about this, please stay away, watch and > study... This is our best > > bet. > > AGAIN , I would like to remind all of us. If there > is no Qi, there > > is no life!!!!!!!! !!!!! No matter it is a solid, > liquid or gas. > > In any disease or illness, no matter it is light > or serious, we > > should look, observe and maitain the Qi of our > patients. We should > > make sure their Qi are at top, full and moving > freely. If not, we > > should bring those Qi up to the best we can > regardless of illness. > > If our body Qi ( defense mechanism, immunity > system, endocrine > > system, disgestive system ) is at best, our > pathological factors > > should be subsided.... ....... THIS IS OUR TCM KEY > OF LIFE. > > If we are scare, nervous, and trying to find some > kinds of viruses > > as in WM, we are bound in a small circle. We should > break this limit > > and expand our vision. This will give us some > strength and recognition. > > > > Thanks > > > > Nam Nguyen > > > > > > > > <!-- > > #ygrp-mkp{ > border:1px solid > #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px > 0px;padding:0px 14px;} > #ygrp-mkp hr{ > border:1px solid #d8d8d8;} > === message truncated === ________ Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Autos. http://autos./new_cars.html Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Answers - Check it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 Hi Petra, Although I am not an expert, I think the danger with oestrogens lies, amongst others, in the wide prevalence of xeno-oestrogens. They compete with natural oestrogens in many ways. Secondly, some 80% of breast cancers are hormone-sensitive. This means that they feed on, yes, oestrogen. Tamoxifen was used as an oestrogen-blocker, although they now use other drugs as well. So the danger that oestrogens feed cancer is very real. But there seems to be no scientific agreement as to how dangerous or beneficial different types of oestrogens are, including phyto-oestrogens like those found in dang gui. Sorry to be of no real help, Tom. ---- Petra Buchanan 10/10/2007 2:50:22 Chinese Medicine Re: Re: Cancer/especially of the breast I am still wondering about the Chen and Chen book. If I could get some more input about this book in regards to cancer treatment. If everything is says is true than thousands of years of traditional herbal treatment needs to be changed. They say that huang qi, and dang gui feed the cancer but is this only alone, in a laboratory environment. Don't the other herbs mitagate any of their negative effects. Also doesn't DG promote a good kind of estrogen to be produced. A little weird that estrogen has become such a maligned hormone, seeing as it also has a lot to do with us being female. More input and opinion would be appreciated. Thank you, Petra Buchanan. ---Recent Activity 10New Members Visit Your Group Healthy Eating on A place for parents to share their ideas. Moderator Central An online resource for moderators of . Get info and support on Samsung HDTVs and devices.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 I am right there with you. I hear both sides and am still not sure which way I want to go. I am old fashioned, I believe in two thousand years worth of research and that certain estrogens are benificial and others not. As opposed to the blanket statment that all estrogen is bad. I just would not want to procede with what I believe and find out that I am direly wrong. Thanks for the input. --- Tom Verhaeghe <tom.verhaeghe wrote: > > Hi Petra, > > Although I am not an expert, I think the danger with > oestrogens lies, > amongst others, in the wide prevalence of > xeno-oestrogens. They compete with > natural oestrogens in many ways. > Secondly, some 80% of breast cancers are > hormone-sensitive. This means that > they feed on, yes, oestrogen. Tamoxifen was used as > an oestrogen-blocker, > although they now use other drugs as well. > > So the danger that oestrogens feed cancer is very > real. But there seems to > be no scientific agreement as to how dangerous or > beneficial different types > of oestrogens are, including phyto-oestrogens like > those found in dang gui. > > Sorry to be of no real help, > > Tom. > > > ---- > > Petra Buchanan > 10/10/2007 2:50:22 > Chinese Medicine > Re: Re: Cancer/especially of the > breast > > I am still wondering about the Chen and Chen book. > If > I could get some more input about this book in > regards > to cancer treatment. If everything is says is true > than thousands of years of traditional herbal > treatment needs to be changed. They say that huang > qi, > and dang gui feed the cancer but is this only alone, > in a laboratory environment. Don't the other herbs > mitagate any of their negative effects. Also doesn't > DG promote a good kind of estrogen to be produced. A > little weird that estrogen has become such a > maligned > hormone, seeing as it also has a lot to do with us > being female. More input and opinion would be > appreciated. Thank you, Petra Buchanan. > ---Recent Activity > 10New Members > Visit Your Group > Healthy Eating > on > A place for parents > to share their ideas. > Moderator Central > An online resource > for moderators > of . > > Get info and support > on Samsung HDTVs > and devices.. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > ______________________________\ ____ oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 I will look up that that research, it looks very interesting. Thank you. --- Mike Liaw <mikeliaw wrote: > > I am not sure how important one single herb's lab > test report is in the context of cancer treatment. > What if some day, someone comes up with a test that > injects concentrated grain (let's say, rice) and > finds it exacerbates cancer in some animals? Chinese > medicine's strength is best demonstrated in its > formulation disipline, or Pei Wu in Chinese. I > happened to meet Prof Cheng, Yung-chi > (http://info.med.yale.edu/pharm/faculty/index.php?bioID=6) > of Yale university last year. As one of the > accomplished researchers in chemotherapy, he has > turned to Chinese medicine to look for inspiration. > For the last 5 or 6 years his team has put in a lot > of time to research a classical formula consisting > of only 4 herbs, where its effects against different > types of cancers have been researched very > methodically. In his experience, the variation in > the content of the same herb among different lots > can be quite significant, leading me to think twice > of the validity of the reports Chen & > Chen's book references. > > At any rate, having witnessed my late teacher's > ability to help many patients survive from cancers, > and seeing teams like Prof. Cheng's " proving " CM > herbal formula's benefit, I am optimistic that CM's > good days has yet to come. For now, I'll just keep > my heads down and focusing on polishing my clinical > skills. > > In peace, > > > Mike L. > > > Petra Buchanan <petrabuchanan wrote: > I am still wondering about the Chen and > Chen book. If > I could get some more input about this book in > regards > to cancer treatment. If everything is says is true > than thousands of years of traditional herbal > treatment needs to be changed. They say that huang > qi, > and dang gui feed the cancer but is this only alone, > in a laboratory environment. Don't the other herbs > mitagate any of their negative effects. Also doesn't > DG promote a good kind of estrogen to be produced. A > little weird that estrogen has become such a > maligned > hormone, seeing as it also has a lot to do with us > being female. More input and opinion would be > appreciated. Thank you, Petra Buchanan. > --- Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: > > > Hi all, I felt a need to back up Nam on this one. > > We would perhaps all be surprised at the numbers, > > the total and final statistical analysis of our > > profession, if we could magically get them. We > might > > be surprised at how effective CM can be, and often > > is. > > Unfortunately we don't really have " definitive > > proofs " , I guess. I can say, however, that we come > > close, especially to the discerning observer, when > > we look at things like the China Study (C. > > Campbell). What Campbell and his group discovered > > (and of course, they are not the only ones, they > > just have the biggest, longest sample) was an > > amazingly healthy and robust population. And guess > > what? Yeah, their primary care was CM. > > We need to be VERY careful when handling disease > > because of OUR OWN prejudices, lack of knowledge, > > inexperience, limitations, illusions and > > misunderstandings, NOT because CM isn't up to it. > We > > also need to see certain diseases in a realistic > > light: there is inherent, fundamental danger in > > advanced conditions (meaning that the condition > has > > had a LOT of time, effort and energy put into it). > > CM is not a cure all. AND it is a SUPERB medicine. > > Hugo > > > > > > dr_namnguyen58 <dr_namnguyen58 > > Chinese Medicine > > Sunday, 7 October, 2007 8:36:59 AM > > Re: Cancer/especially of the breast > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > Thanks for your warning statement here. It's OK to > > experiment with > > > > self-limiting conditions, but not with cancer. > > Errors can be fatal. > > > > Cancer is a fatal disease which we should not get > > involved without > > > > the help of WM " MD " . Practically how many > patients > > can outlive when > > > > malignant cancers were found and treated by > > oncologists, 5-10 out of a > > > > 100? Notlikely! > > > > How many can survive after 5 years? Less than 1% ! > > > If patients are > > > > dying , who are to blamed? Not oncologist, right > > ????????? RIGHT ! > > > > Before treatment, oncologists stated the survival > > rate is very low > > > > and very risky... Taking chance ??????? Sure! we > all > > do. If the > > > > survival rates is low, why our medical science > still > > have them in > > > > practice and have not developed further or improve > > their abilities I > > > > do not know. But one thing is for sure, they 've > > never have been the > > > > blame. > > > > We, TCM , all know this is a fatal disease, a > > ticket to heaven. We > > > > do not know or understand the pathology of cancer > > thoroughly for we > > > > only based on WM as a pedestal and move on along > > with it. WHy should > > > > we base on something that have less than 1% cure > in > > a fatal disease, > > > > and we strongly or definitely sure that we can > cure, > > but not them > > > > !!!!!!!!! If we touch cancer patients, patients > live > > more than 5 yrs > > > > then suddenly die, we are the blame, THE BLAME ! > > Even though > > > > oncologists may claim that a patient may only live > > for a few weeks, > > > > and we TCM touch them, we are the cause.... PLEASE > > BE CAREFUL ! No one > > > > can back us up. Beside, we all criticize among > > ourselves " He should > > > > not do this, that. He knows nothing about .... We > > should revoke his > > > > license and jail him... " Does this sound familiar > > in our TCM ? > > > > I think WM should have different views in cancer > > pathology and > > > > treatments and we all TCM should gather all > > information from all > > > > sources and discriminate them before getting > > involved. If we are not > > > > sure about this, please stay away, watch and > > study... This is our best > > > === message truncated === ______________________________\ ____ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 Is there anyone on this forum that is pro Chen and Chen. I would really like to hear both sides. Devils advocate and all. --- Mike Liaw <mikeliaw wrote: > > I am not sure how important one single herb's lab > test report is in the context of cancer treatment. > What if some day, someone comes up with a test that > injects concentrated grain (let's say, rice) and > finds it exacerbates cancer in some animals? Chinese > medicine's strength is best demonstrated in its > formulation disipline, or Pei Wu in Chinese. I > happened to meet Prof Cheng, Yung-chi > (http://info.med.yale.edu/pharm/faculty/index.php?bioID=6) > of Yale university last year. As one of the > accomplished researchers in chemotherapy, he has > turned to Chinese medicine to look for inspiration. > For the last 5 or 6 years his team has put in a lot > of time to research a classical formula consisting > of only 4 herbs, where its effects against different > types of cancers have been researched very > methodically. In his experience, the variation in > the content of the same herb among different lots > can be quite significant, leading me to think twice > of the validity of the reports Chen & > Chen's book references. > > At any rate, having witnessed my late teacher's > ability to help many patients survive from cancers, > and seeing teams like Prof. Cheng's " proving " CM > herbal formula's benefit, I am optimistic that CM's > good days has yet to come. For now, I'll just keep > my heads down and focusing on polishing my clinical > skills. > > In peace, > > > Mike L. > > > Petra Buchanan <petrabuchanan wrote: > I am still wondering about the Chen and > Chen book. If > I could get some more input about this book in > regards > to cancer treatment. If everything is says is true > than thousands of years of traditional herbal > treatment needs to be changed. They say that huang > qi, > and dang gui feed the cancer but is this only alone, > in a laboratory environment. Don't the other herbs > mitagate any of their negative effects. Also doesn't > DG promote a good kind of estrogen to be produced. A > little weird that estrogen has become such a > maligned > hormone, seeing as it also has a lot to do with us > being female. More input and opinion would be > appreciated. Thank you, Petra Buchanan. > --- Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: > > > Hi all, I felt a need to back up Nam on this one. > > We would perhaps all be surprised at the numbers, > > the total and final statistical analysis of our > > profession, if we could magically get them. We > might > > be surprised at how effective CM can be, and often > > is. > > Unfortunately we don't really have " definitive > > proofs " , I guess. I can say, however, that we come > > close, especially to the discerning observer, when > > we look at things like the China Study (C. > > Campbell). What Campbell and his group discovered > > (and of course, they are not the only ones, they > > just have the biggest, longest sample) was an > > amazingly healthy and robust population. And guess > > what? Yeah, their primary care was CM. > > We need to be VERY careful when handling disease > > because of OUR OWN prejudices, lack of knowledge, > > inexperience, limitations, illusions and > > misunderstandings, NOT because CM isn't up to it. > We > > also need to see certain diseases in a realistic > > light: there is inherent, fundamental danger in > > advanced conditions (meaning that the condition > has > > had a LOT of time, effort and energy put into it). > > CM is not a cure all. AND it is a SUPERB medicine. > > Hugo > > > > > > dr_namnguyen58 <dr_namnguyen58 > > Chinese Medicine > > Sunday, 7 October, 2007 8:36:59 AM > > Re: Cancer/especially of the breast > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > Thanks for your warning statement here. It's OK to > > experiment with > > > > self-limiting conditions, but not with cancer. > > Errors can be fatal. > > > > Cancer is a fatal disease which we should not get > > involved without > > > > the help of WM " MD " . Practically how many > patients > > can outlive when > > > > malignant cancers were found and treated by > > oncologists, 5-10 out of a > > > > 100? Notlikely! > > > > How many can survive after 5 years? Less than 1% ! > > > If patients are > > > > dying , who are to blamed? Not oncologist, right > > ????????? RIGHT ! > > > > Before treatment, oncologists stated the survival > > rate is very low > > > > and very risky... Taking chance ??????? Sure! we > all > > do. If the > > > > survival rates is low, why our medical science > still > > have them in > > > > practice and have not developed further or improve > > their abilities I > > > > do not know. But one thing is for sure, they 've > > never have been the > > > > blame. > > > > We, TCM , all know this is a fatal disease, a > > ticket to heaven. We > > > > do not know or understand the pathology of cancer > > thoroughly for we > > > > only based on WM as a pedestal and move on along > > with it. WHy should > > > > we base on something that have less than 1% cure > in > > a fatal disease, > > > > and we strongly or definitely sure that we can > cure, > > but not them > > > > !!!!!!!!! If we touch cancer patients, patients > live > > more than 5 yrs > > > > then suddenly die, we are the blame, THE BLAME ! > > Even though > > > > oncologists may claim that a patient may only live > > for a few weeks, > > > > and we TCM touch them, we are the cause.... PLEASE > > BE CAREFUL ! No one > > > > can back us up. Beside, we all criticize among > > ourselves " He should > > > > not do this, that. He knows nothing about .... We > > should revoke his > > > > license and jail him... " Does this sound familiar > > in our TCM ? > > > > I think WM should have different views in cancer > > pathology and > > > > treatments and we all TCM should gather all > > information from all > > > > sources and discriminate them before getting > > involved. If we are not > > > > sure about this, please stay away, watch and > > study... This is our best > > > === message truncated === ______________________________\ ____ Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on TV. http://tv./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 Hi Petra, not sure if anyone on the list has mentioned yet. But John R. Lee, M.D.'s famous book " What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Breast Cancer " is a great book with clear explanation about the different roles of estrone, estrodial, and estriol, how these interact with other hormones like progesterone, DHEA, thyroid hormones, etc.. i highly recommend reading it as part of your quest to understand why not all estrogens are bad, and how hormone BALANCE is crucial to preventing (and healing) breast cancer. ~edith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 Thank you Edith, I will check it out. I have read quite a bit about the different estrogens and how they are not all bad. I still wondering though becouse there are definitely two camps. One saying Dang gui, etc is absolutely not to be used and the other saying that Dang gui produces the positive type of estrogen. --- " Edith Chan, L.Ac. " <chineseherbs wrote: > Hi Petra, not sure if anyone on the list has > mentioned yet. But John R. Lee, > M.D.'s famous book " What Your Doctor May Not Tell > You About Breast Cancer " > is a great book with clear explanation about the > different roles of estrone, > estrodial, and estriol, how these interact with > other hormones like > progesterone, DHEA, thyroid hormones, etc.. i highly > recommend reading it as > part of your quest to understand why not all > estrogens are bad, and how > hormone BALANCE is crucial to preventing (and > healing) breast cancer. > ~edith > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > ______________________________\ ____ Shape in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?a=7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 I don't think Lee's book is based on good evidence; it's just his personal opinion. Some tumors are estrogen driven, and I don't think it makes any difference if the estrogen is natural or not. Actually some research clearly contradicts his assumptions. Just because someone has letters behind there name doesn't mean they are right. I stopped recommending this book to my clients because they treat it like it presents facts and it doesn't. The evidence about " balanced " hormone approaches is very slim right now, it's premature to assume that this is really important or that it bestows the advantages Lee claims. Regards, Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. angela.pf Phone: 503 364 3022 - Edith Chan, L.Ac. Chinese Medicine Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:38 PM Re: Re: Cancer/especially of the breast Hi Petra, not sure if anyone on the list has mentioned yet. But John R. Lee, M.D.'s famous book " What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Breast Cancer " is a great book with clear explanation about the different roles of estrone, estrodial, and estriol, how these interact with other hormones like progesterone, DHEA, thyroid hormones, etc.. i highly recommend reading it as part of your quest to understand why not all estrogens are bad, and how hormone BALANCE is crucial to preventing (and healing) breast cancer. ~edith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 Thank you Angela, that is what I want, is both sides and facts. --- " Angela Pfaffenberger, PH.D. " <angela.pf wrote: > I don't think Lee's book is based on good evidence; > it's just his personal opinion. Some tumors are > estrogen driven, and I don't think it makes any > difference if the estrogen is natural or not. > Actually some research clearly contradicts his > assumptions. Just because someone has letters behind > there name doesn't mean they are right. > I stopped recommending this book to my clients > because they treat it like it presents facts and it > doesn't. > The evidence about " balanced " hormone approaches is > very slim right now, it's premature to assume that > this is really important or that it bestows the > advantages Lee claims. > > Regards, > Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. > > angela.pf > Phone: 503 364 3022 > - > Edith Chan, L.Ac. > Chinese Medicine > Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:38 PM > Re: Re: Cancer/especially of the > breast > > > Hi Petra, not sure if anyone on the list has > mentioned yet. But John R. Lee, > M.D.'s famous book " What Your Doctor May Not Tell > You About Breast Cancer " > is a great book with clear explanation about the > different roles of estrone, > estrodial, and estriol, how these interact with > other hormones like > progesterone, DHEA, thyroid hormones, etc.. i > highly recommend reading it as > part of your quest to understand why not all > estrogens are bad, and how > hormone BALANCE is crucial to preventing (and > healing) breast cancer. > ~edith > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > ______________________________\ ____ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Answers - Check it out. http://answers./dir/?link=list & sid=396545469 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 Just remember that Angela is not necessarily talking about the facts, but rather her own opinion. Not that I agree with Lee. If you want my opinion, saying that a tumour is fed by yin can make sense, and just keep in mind that the body is naturally producing yin all the time. A tumour fed by estrogen in a female body especially...hmmmm... The problem with cancer, in my view, is not really understanding the basic energetics of it, which can be very straight-forward, but rather finding a way to dissolve the decades of inertia / force/ intent that are creating the cancer vector in that patient. As far as it being " premature " to talk about balance, well that's a matter of personal judgment. Hugo Petra Buchanan <petrabuchanan Chinese Medicine Thursday, 11 October, 2007 5:45:07 PM Re: Re: Cancer/especially of the breast Thank you Angela, that is what I want, is both sides and facts. --- " Angela Pfaffenberger, PH.D. " <angela.pf (AT) netzero (DOT) net> wrote: > I don't think Lee's book is based on good evidence; > it's just his personal opinion. Some tumors are > estrogen driven, and I don't think it makes any > difference if the estrogen is natural or not. > Actually some research clearly contradicts his > assumptions. Just because someone has letters behind > there name doesn't mean they are right. > I stopped recommending this book to my clients > because they treat it like it presents facts and it > doesn't. > The evidence about " balanced " hormone approaches is > very slim right now, it's premature to assume that > this is really important or that it bestows the > advantages Lee claims. > > Regards, > Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. > > angela.pf (AT) netzero (DOT) com > Phone: 503 364 3022 > - > Edith Chan, L.Ac. > > Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:38 PM > Re: Re: Cancer/especially of the > breast > > > Hi Petra, not sure if anyone on the list has > mentioned yet. But John R. Lee, > M.D.'s famous book " What Your Doctor May Not Tell > You About Breast Cancer " > is a great book with clear explanation about the > different roles of estrone, > estrodial, and estriol, how these interact with > other hormones like > progesterone, DHEA, thyroid hormones, etc.. i > highly recommend reading it as > part of your quest to understand why not all > estrogens are bad, and how > hormone BALANCE is crucial to preventing (and > healing) breast cancer. > ~edith > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Answers - Check it out. http://answers. / dir/?link= list & sid= 396545469 <!-- #ygrp-mkp{ border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;} #ygrp-mkp hr{ border:1px solid #d8d8d8;} #ygrp-mkp #hd{ color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;} #ygrp-mkp #ads{ margin-bottom:10px;} #ygrp-mkp .ad{ padding:0 0;} #ygrp-mkp .ad a{ color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;} --> <!-- #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{ font-family:Arial;} #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{ margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;} #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{ margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;} --> <!-- #ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;} #ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;} #ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;} #ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;} #ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;} #ygrp-text{ font-family:Georgia; } #ygrp-text p{ margin:0 0 1em 0;} #ygrp-tpmsgs{ font-family:Arial; clear:both;} #ygrp-vitnav{ padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;} #ygrp-vitnav a{ padding:0 1px;} #ygrp-actbar{ clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;} #ygrp-actbar .left{ float:left;white-space:nowrap;} ..bld{font-weight:bold;} #ygrp-grft{ font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;} #ygrp-ft{ font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666; padding:5px 0; } #ygrp-mlmsg #logo{ padding-bottom:10px;} #ygrp-vital{ background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;} #ygrp-vital #vithd{ font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:upp\ ercase;} #ygrp-vital ul{ padding:0;margin:2px 0;} #ygrp-vital ul li{ list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee; } #ygrp-vital ul li .ct{ font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-ri\ ght:.5em;} #ygrp-vital ul li .cat{ font-weight:bold;} #ygrp-vital a{ text-decoration:none;} #ygrp-vital a:hover{ text-decoration:underline;} #ygrp-sponsor #hd{ color:#999;font-size:77%;} #ygrp-sponsor #ov{ padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;} #ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{ padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;} #ygrp-sponsor #ov li{ list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;} #ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{ text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;} #ygrp-sponsor #nc{ background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;} #ygrp-sponsor .ad{ padding:8px 0;} #ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{ font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%\ ;} #ygrp-sponsor .ad a{ text-decoration:none;} #ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{ text-decoration:underline;} #ygrp-sponsor .ad p{ margin:0;} o{font-size:0;} ..MsoNormal{ margin:0 0 0 0;} #ygrp-text tt{ font-size:120%;} blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;} ..replbq{margin:4;} --> _________ Want ideas for reducing your carbon footprint? Visit For Good http://uk.promotions./forgood/environment.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.