Phytate For Prostate Cancer

[ironjustice]

My freee bisphosphonate .. a .. gain .. http://tinyurl.com/2wuhuk

Inositol Hexaphosphate Inhibits Tumor Growth, Vascularity, and
Metabolism in TRAMP Mice: A Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Study.
Raina K, Ravichandran K, Rajamanickam S, Huber K, Serkova NJ, Agarwal
R.
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2012 Dec 4.
Pharmaceutical Science, University of Colorado Denver.

Abstract
Herein, employing anatomical and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), we evaluated non-invasively, the in
vivo, chemopreventive efficacy of inositol hexaphosphate (IP6), a
major constituent of high fiber diets, against prostate tumor growth
and progression in transgenic adenocarcinoma of the mouse prostate
(TRAMP) model.
Male TRAMP mice, beginning 4 weeks of age, were fed with 1, 2 or 4% (w/
v) IP6 in drinking water or only drinking water till 28 weeks of age
and monitored using MRI over the course of study.
Longitudinal assessment of prostate volumes by conventional MRI and
tumor vascularity by gadolinium-based DCE-MRI showed a profound
reduction in tumor size partly due to anti-angiogenic effects by IP6
treatment.
As potential mechanisms of IP6 efficacy, decrease in the expression of
glucose transporter GLUT-4 protein together with an increase in levels
of phospho-AMP-activated kinase (AMPKTh172) were observed in prostate
tissues of mice from IP6 fed-groups, suggesting that IP6 is
interfering with the metabolic events occurring in TRAMP prostate.
Investigative metabolomics study utilizing quantitative high-
resolution 1H-NMR on prostate tissue extracts showed that IP6
significantly decreased glucose metabolism and membrane phospholipid
synthesis, in addition to causing an increase in myo-inositol levels
in the prostate.
Together, these findings show that oral IP6 supplement blocks PCa
growth and angiogenesis in TRAMP model in conjunction with metabolic
events involved in tumor sustenance.
This results in energy deprivation within the tumor, suggesting a
practical and translational potential of IP6 treatment in suppressing
growth and progression of prostate cancer in humans.

PMID:23213071


Who loves ya.
Tom


Jesus Was A Vegetarian!
http://tinyurl.com/634q5a


Man Is A Herbivore!
http://tinyurl.com/4rq595


DEAD PEOPLE WALKING
http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk

[John H. Gohde]

Post by ironjustice
This results in energy deprivation within the tumor, suggesting a
practical and translational potential of IP6 treatment in suppressing
growth and progression of prostate cancer in humans.

Kind of like how IV Vitamin C kills cancer cells, don't you think?

Oh, I am sorry. I confused you with a person that still has an intact
brain. :(

Of course, I am playing fast and loose with the details. The ONLY
thing that really counts is that vitamin C kills cancer cells. :)

[BruceS]

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by ironjustice
This results in energy deprivation within the tumor, suggesting a
practical and translational potential of IP6 treatment in suppressing
growth and progression of prostate cancer in humans.

Kind of like how IV Vitamin C kills cancer cells, don't you think?
Oh, I am sorry. I confused you with a person that still has an intact
brain. :(
Of course, I am playing fast and loose with the details. The ONLY
thing that really counts is that vitamin C kills cancer cells. :)

It looks like my earlier attempt at a reply was swallowed by
Thunderbird, so here goes again.

Has any objective clinical trial ever been done on this? I for one
would welcome a treatment like IV vitamin C if it worked. There seems
to be solid reasoning for it, including why oral ingestion would be
ineffective. I fully realize that the big pharma corps would have no
interest in funding such a study, and they're the ones who fund most
such clinical trials, but surely someone like NIH could do it.
Unfortunately, all I've been able to find so far has been from very
unreliable sources. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it doesn't lend
it any credence, either.

[Bob Officer]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 10:31:08 -0700, in misc.health.alternative,

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by ironjustice
This results in energy deprivation within the tumor, suggesting a
practical and translational potential of IP6 treatment in suppressing
growth and progression of prostate cancer in humans.

Kind of like how IV Vitamin C kills cancer cells, don't you think?
Oh, I am sorry. I confused you with a person that still has an intact
brain. :(
Of course, I am playing fast and loose with the details. The ONLY
thing that really counts is that vitamin C kills cancer cells. :)

It looks like my earlier attempt at a reply was swallowed by
Thunderbird, so here goes again.
Has any objective clinical trial ever been done on this? I for one
would welcome a treatment like IV vitamin C if it worked. There seems
to be solid reasoning for it, including why oral ingestion would be
ineffective. I fully realize that the big pharma corps would have no
interest in funding such a study, and they're the ones who fund most
such clinical trials, but surely someone like NIH could do it.
Unfortunately, all I've been able to find so far has been from very
unreliable sources. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it doesn't lend
it any credence, either.

From my reading the problem is while high concentrations of Vitamin C
kills cancer cells in petri dish tests, it also kills the
non-cancerous cells equally.

Studies also show, in large doses Vitamin C contributes to permanent
and sometimes fatal kidney and heart damages.

There have been a few "miracles recoveries" where are not clinical
studies but more one the line of anecdotal and unsubstantiated
reports of a few cases.

[John H. Gohde]

Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 10:31:08 -0700, in misc.health.alternative,

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by ironjustice
This results in energy deprivation within the tumor, suggesting a
practical and translational potential of IP6 treatment in suppressing
growth and progression of prostate cancer in humans.

Kind of like how IV Vitamin C kills cancer cells, don't you think?
Oh, I am sorry.  I confused you with a person that still has an intact
brain.  :(
Of course, I am playing fast and loose with the details.  The ONLY
thing that really counts is that vitamin C kills cancer cells.  :)

It looks like my earlier attempt at a reply was swallowed by
Thunderbird, so here goes again.
Has any objective clinical trial ever been done on this?  I for one
would welcome a treatment like IV vitamin C if it worked.  There seems
to be solid reasoning for it, including why oral ingestion would be
ineffective.  I fully realize that the big pharma corps would have no
interest in funding such a study, and they're the ones who fund most
such clinical trials, but surely someone like NIH could do it.
Unfortunately, all I've been able to find so far has been from very
unreliable sources.  That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it doesn't lend
it any credence, either.

From my reading the problem is while high concentrations of Vitamin C
kills cancer cells in petri dish tests, it also kills the
non-cancerous cells equally.
Studies also show, in large doses Vitamin C contributes to permanent
and sometimes fatal kidney and heart damages.
There have been a few "miracles recoveries" where are not clinical
studies but more one the line of anecdotal and unsubstantiated
reports of a few cases.
--
Bob Officer

So, the choice that Bronco Bob is offering is death by Chemo, over
death by Vitamin C? I bet that people who have died from C (if true
at all) went out with a big smile on their face, versus the gut
winching agony of Chemo doing someone in.

[BruceS]

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 10:31:08 -0700, in misc.health.alternative,

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by ironjustice
This results in energy deprivation within the tumor, suggesting a
practical and translational potential of IP6 treatment in suppressing
growth and progression of prostate cancer in humans.

Kind of like how IV Vitamin C kills cancer cells, don't you think?
Oh, I am sorry. I confused you with a person that still has an intact
brain. :(
Of course, I am playing fast and loose with the details. The ONLY
thing that really counts is that vitamin C kills cancer cells. :)

It looks like my earlier attempt at a reply was swallowed by
Thunderbird, so here goes again.
Has any objective clinical trial ever been done on this? I for one
would welcome a treatment like IV vitamin C if it worked. There seems
to be solid reasoning for it, including why oral ingestion would be
ineffective. I fully realize that the big pharma corps would have no
interest in funding such a study, and they're the ones who fund most
such clinical trials, but surely someone like NIH could do it.
Unfortunately, all I've been able to find so far has been from very
unreliable sources. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it doesn't lend
it any credence, either.

From my reading the problem is while high concentrations of Vitamin C
kills cancer cells in petri dish tests, it also kills the
non-cancerous cells equally.
Studies also show, in large doses Vitamin C contributes to permanent
and sometimes fatal kidney and heart damages.
There have been a few "miracles recoveries" where are not clinical
studies but more one the line of anecdotal and unsubstantiated
reports of a few cases.
--
Bob Officer

So, the choice that Bronco Bob is offering is death by Chemo, over
death by Vitamin C? I bet that people who have died from C (if true
at all) went out with a big smile on their face, versus the gut
winching agony of Chemo doing someone in.

I'm one of many who have had chemo, and have not died from it but rather
have been saved by it. Chemo is poison, no doubt about it, but it's
poison that affects cancer cells more than it does healthy cells. If
Bob's right, and vitamin C kills cancer and healthy cells equally, then
it's clearly not suitable as a treatment, and would be not only
deadlier, but also more painful, than conventional chemo. Now I'm not
saying that he *is* right, but you don't seem to be disputing the claim
itself. Can you provide any legitimate support (clinical trials,
scientific testing, etc.) for IV vitamin C treatment being effective and
safe? All I've been able to find so far is a bunch of anecdotal
evidence and hand waving. If it's real, I'm all for it. The "street
value" of my chemo was about a quarter million dollars, and it had some
nasty side effects. If IV vitamin C could do as well (similar or better
improvement in survival and NED rates, with similar or lower harmful
side effects), it would be GREAT! If it's just another crack-pipe dream
from the people who brought us "dilution is power", then no thanks.

[John H. Gohde]

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 10:31:08 -0700, in misc.health.alternative,

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by ironjustice
This results in energy deprivation within the tumor, suggesting a
practical and translational potential of IP6 treatment in suppressing
growth and progression of prostate cancer in humans.

Kind of like how IV Vitamin C kills cancer cells, don't you think?
Oh, I am sorry.  I confused you with a person that still has an intact
brain.  :(
Of course, I am playing fast and loose with the details.  The ONLY
thing that really counts is that vitamin C kills cancer cells.  :)

It looks like my earlier attempt at a reply was swallowed by
Thunderbird, so here goes again.
Has any objective clinical trial ever been done on this?  I for one
would welcome a treatment like IV vitamin C if it worked.  There seems
to be solid reasoning for it, including why oral ingestion would be
ineffective.  I fully realize that the big pharma corps would have no
interest in funding such a study, and they're the ones who fund most
such clinical trials, but surely someone like NIH could do it.
Unfortunately, all I've been able to find so far has been from very
unreliable sources.  That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it doesn't lend
it any credence, either.

 From my reading the problem is while high concentrations of Vitamin C
kills cancer cells in petri dish tests, it also kills the
non-cancerous cells equally.
Studies also show, in large doses Vitamin C contributes to permanent
and sometimes fatal kidney and heart damages.
There have been a few "miracles recoveries" where are not clinical
studies but more one the line of anecdotal and unsubstantiated
reports of a few cases.
--
Bob Officer

So, the choice that Bronco Bob is offering is death by Chemo, over
death by Vitamin C?  I bet that people who have died from C (if true
at all) went out with a big smile on their face, versus the gut
winching agony of Chemo doing someone in.

I'm one of many who have had chemo, and have not died from it but rather
have been saved by it.  Chemo is poison, no doubt about it, but it's
poison that affects cancer cells more than it does healthy cells.  If
Bob's right, and vitamin C kills cancer and healthy cells equally, then
it's clearly not suitable as a treatment, and would be not only
deadlier, but also more painful, than conventional chemo.  Now I'm not
saying that he *is* right, but you don't seem to be disputing the claim
itself.  Can you provide any legitimate support (clinical trials,
scientific testing, etc.) for IV vitamin C treatment being effective and
safe?  All I've been able to find so far is a bunch of anecdotal
evidence and hand waving.  If it's real, I'm all for it.  The "street
value" of my chemo was about a quarter million dollars, and it had some
nasty side effects.  If IV vitamin C could do as well (similar or better
improvement in survival and NED rates, with similar or lower harmful
side effects), it would be GREAT!  If it's just another crack-pipe dream
from the people who brought us "dilution is power", then no thanks.

Avoiding colorectal cancer is so easily, I wouldn't be bragging about
it!

On day, I will knock out an article covering just colorectal cancer.
I have ALREADY written several articles on the topic. So, the new
article will be for the slow people. :(

The "street value" of using IV C to treat cancer is at best a few
thousand dollars, which would be affordable by most. Of curse, that
is primarily why conventional medicine refuses to use IV C to treat
illness.

[BruceS]

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 10:31:08 -0700, in misc.health.alternative,

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by ironjustice
This results in energy deprivation within the tumor, suggesting a
practical and translational potential of IP6 treatment in suppressing
growth and progression of prostate cancer in humans.

Kind of like how IV Vitamin C kills cancer cells, don't you think?
Oh, I am sorry. I confused you with a person that still has an intact
brain. :(
Of course, I am playing fast and loose with the details. The ONLY
thing that really counts is that vitamin C kills cancer cells. :)

It looks like my earlier attempt at a reply was swallowed by
Thunderbird, so here goes again.
Has any objective clinical trial ever been done on this? I for one
would welcome a treatment like IV vitamin C if it worked. There seems
to be solid reasoning for it, including why oral ingestion would be
ineffective. I fully realize that the big pharma corps would have no
interest in funding such a study, and they're the ones who fund most
such clinical trials, but surely someone like NIH could do it.
Unfortunately, all I've been able to find so far has been from very
unreliable sources. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it doesn't lend
it any credence, either.

From my reading the problem is while high concentrations of Vitamin C
kills cancer cells in petri dish tests, it also kills the
non-cancerous cells equally.
Studies also show, in large doses Vitamin C contributes to permanent
and sometimes fatal kidney and heart damages.
There have been a few "miracles recoveries" where are not clinical
studies but more one the line of anecdotal and unsubstantiated
reports of a few cases.
--
Bob Officer

So, the choice that Bronco Bob is offering is death by Chemo, over
death by Vitamin C? I bet that people who have died from C (if true
at all) went out with a big smile on their face, versus the gut
winching agony of Chemo doing someone in.

I'm one of many who have had chemo, and have not died from it but rather
have been saved by it. Chemo is poison, no doubt about it, but it's
poison that affects cancer cells more than it does healthy cells. If
Bob's right, and vitamin C kills cancer and healthy cells equally, then
it's clearly not suitable as a treatment, and would be not only
deadlier, but also more painful, than conventional chemo. Now I'm not
saying that he *is* right, but you don't seem to be disputing the claim
itself. Can you provide any legitimate support (clinical trials,
scientific testing, etc.) for IV vitamin C treatment being effective and
safe? All I've been able to find so far is a bunch of anecdotal
evidence and hand waving. If it's real, I'm all for it. The "street
value" of my chemo was about a quarter million dollars, and it had some
nasty side effects. If IV vitamin C could do as well (similar or better
improvement in survival and NED rates, with similar or lower harmful
side effects), it would be GREAT! If it's just another crack-pipe dream
from the people who brought us "dilution is power", then no thanks.

Avoiding colorectal cancer is so easily, I wouldn't be bragging about
it!
On day, I will knock out an article covering just colorectal cancer.
I have ALREADY written several articles on the topic. So, the new
article will be for the slow people. :(

The fact that you make such claims makes anything else you say look suspect.

Post by John H. Gohde
The "street value" of using IV C to treat cancer is at best a few
thousand dollars, which would be affordable by most.

Yes, that's just part of the reason I'd be very happy to see any solid
evidence that it works, and is safe.

Post by John H. Gohde
Of curse, that
is primarily why conventional medicine refuses to use IV C to treat
illness.

And now you're back into conspiracy-theorist land. My GP, and my
oncologist, both use older, less expensive meds when possible. My GP
explained that it wasn't even just to save money (which it obviously
does), but also to have a better set of data on side effects. Rather
than prescribe the latest-and-greatest drugs, which are still under
patent and make lots of money for the big pharma guys, they prescribe
ones that are long out of patent, and available as generic. They also
avoid prescribing meds at all if they can achieve the desired result
with lifestyle changes.

[John H. Gohde]

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 10:31:08 -0700, in misc.health.alternative,

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by ironjustice
This results in energy deprivation within the tumor, suggesting a
practical and translational potential of IP6 treatment in suppressing
growth and progression of prostate cancer in humans.

Kind of like how IV Vitamin C kills cancer cells, don't you think?
Oh, I am sorry.  I confused you with a person that still has an intact
brain.  :(
Of course, I am playing fast and loose with the details.  The ONLY
thing that really counts is that vitamin C kills cancer cells.  :)

It looks like my earlier attempt at a reply was swallowed by
Thunderbird, so here goes again.
Has any objective clinical trial ever been done on this?  I for one
would welcome a treatment like IV vitamin C if it worked.  There seems
to be solid reasoning for it, including why oral ingestion would be
ineffective.  I fully realize that the big pharma corps would have no
interest in funding such a study, and they're the ones who fund most
such clinical trials, but surely someone like NIH could do it.
Unfortunately, all I've been able to find so far has been from very
unreliable sources.  That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it doesn't lend
it any credence, either.

  From my reading the problem is while high concentrations of Vitamin C
kills cancer cells in petri dish tests, it also kills the
non-cancerous cells equally.
Studies also show, in large doses Vitamin C contributes to permanent
and sometimes fatal kidney and heart damages.
There have been a few "miracles recoveries" where are not clinical
studies but more one the line of anecdotal and unsubstantiated
reports of a few cases.
--
Bob Officer

So, the choice that Bronco Bob is offering is death by Chemo, over
death by Vitamin C?  I bet that people who have died from C (if true
at all) went out with a big smile on their face, versus the gut
winching agony of Chemo doing someone in.

I'm one of many who have had chemo, and have not died from it but rather
have been saved by it.  Chemo is poison, no doubt about it, but it's
poison that affects cancer cells more than it does healthy cells.  If
Bob's right, and vitamin C kills cancer and healthy cells equally, then
it's clearly not suitable as a treatment, and would be not only
deadlier, but also more painful, than conventional chemo.  Now I'm not
saying that he *is* right, but you don't seem to be disputing the claim
itself.  Can you provide any legitimate support (clinical trials,
scientific testing, etc.) for IV vitamin C treatment being effective and
safe?  All I've been able to find so far is a bunch of anecdotal
evidence and hand waving.  If it's real, I'm all for it.  The "street
value" of my chemo was about a quarter million dollars, and it had some
nasty side effects.  If IV vitamin C could do as well (similar or better
improvement in survival and NED rates, with similar or lower harmful
side effects), it would be GREAT!  If it's just another crack-pipe dream
from the people who brought us "dilution is power", then no thanks.

Avoiding colorectal cancer is so easily, I wouldn't be bragging about
it!
On day, I will knock out an article covering just colorectal cancer.
I have ALREADY  written several articles on the topic.  So, the new
article will be for the slow people.  :(

The fact that you make such claims makes anything else you say look suspect.

Post by John H. Gohde
The "street value" of using IV C to treat cancer is at best a few
thousand dollars, which would be affordable by most.

Yes, that's just part of the reason I'd be very happy to see any solid
evidence that it works, and is safe.
 >  Of curse, that

Post by John H. Gohde
is primarily why conventional medicine refuses to use IV C to treat
illness.

And now you're back into conspiracy-theorist land.  My GP, and my
oncologist, both use older, less expensive meds when possible.  My GP
explained that it wasn't even just to save money (which it obviously
does), but also to have a better set of data on side effects.  Rather
than prescribe the latest-and-greatest drugs, which are still under
patent and make lots of money for the big pharma guys, they prescribe
ones that are long out of patent, and available as generic.  They also
avoid prescribing meds at all if they can achieve the desired result
with lifestyle changes.

Len Saputo, MD recently reported that as much as 65% of the income of
Oncologists comes from chemotherapy.

http://tinyurl.com/bgbtg79

See his section on "Do oncologists make a profit from the chemotherapy
they prescribe?" near the end of this 12/31/2012 audio presentation.

It is NOT about you, or your GP. Your oncologist has done an
excellent job of blowing smoke up your ass. :(

[BruceS]

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 10:31:08 -0700, in misc.health.alternative,

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by ironjustice
This results in energy deprivation within the tumor, suggesting a
practical and translational potential of IP6 treatment in suppressing
growth and progression of prostate cancer in humans.

Kind of like how IV Vitamin C kills cancer cells, don't you think?
Oh, I am sorry. I confused you with a person that still has an intact
brain. :(
Of course, I am playing fast and loose with the details. The ONLY
thing that really counts is that vitamin C kills cancer cells. :)

It looks like my earlier attempt at a reply was swallowed by
Thunderbird, so here goes again.
Has any objective clinical trial ever been done on this? I for one
would welcome a treatment like IV vitamin C if it worked. There seems
to be solid reasoning for it, including why oral ingestion would be
ineffective. I fully realize that the big pharma corps would have no
interest in funding such a study, and they're the ones who fund most
such clinical trials, but surely someone like NIH could do it.
Unfortunately, all I've been able to find so far has been from very
unreliable sources. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it doesn't lend
it any credence, either.

From my reading the problem is while high concentrations of Vitamin C
kills cancer cells in petri dish tests, it also kills the
non-cancerous cells equally.
Studies also show, in large doses Vitamin C contributes to permanent
and sometimes fatal kidney and heart damages.
There have been a few "miracles recoveries" where are not clinical
studies but more one the line of anecdotal and unsubstantiated
reports of a few cases.
--
Bob Officer

So, the choice that Bronco Bob is offering is death by Chemo, over
death by Vitamin C? I bet that people who have died from C (if true
at all) went out with a big smile on their face, versus the gut
winching agony of Chemo doing someone in.

I'm one of many who have had chemo, and have not died from it but rather
have been saved by it. Chemo is poison, no doubt about it, but it's
poison that affects cancer cells more than it does healthy cells. If
Bob's right, and vitamin C kills cancer and healthy cells equally, then
it's clearly not suitable as a treatment, and would be not only
deadlier, but also more painful, than conventional chemo. Now I'm not
saying that he *is* right, but you don't seem to be disputing the claim
itself. Can you provide any legitimate support (clinical trials,
scientific testing, etc.) for IV vitamin C treatment being effective and
safe? All I've been able to find so far is a bunch of anecdotal
evidence and hand waving. If it's real, I'm all for it. The "street
value" of my chemo was about a quarter million dollars, and it had some
nasty side effects. If IV vitamin C could do as well (similar or better
improvement in survival and NED rates, with similar or lower harmful
side effects), it would be GREAT! If it's just another crack-pipe dream
from the people who brought us "dilution is power", then no thanks.

Avoiding colorectal cancer is so easily, I wouldn't be bragging about
it!
On day, I will knock out an article covering just colorectal cancer.
I have ALREADY written several articles on the topic. So, the new
article will be for the slow people. :(

The fact that you make such claims makes anything else you say look suspect.

Post by John H. Gohde
The "street value" of using IV C to treat cancer is at best a few
thousand dollars, which would be affordable by most.

Yes, that's just part of the reason I'd be very happy to see any solid
evidence that it works, and is safe.

Post by John H. Gohde
Of curse, that
is primarily why conventional medicine refuses to use IV C to treat
illness.

And now you're back into conspiracy-theorist land. My GP, and my
oncologist, both use older, less expensive meds when possible. My GP
explained that it wasn't even just to save money (which it obviously
does), but also to have a better set of data on side effects. Rather
than prescribe the latest-and-greatest drugs, which are still under
patent and make lots of money for the big pharma guys, they prescribe
ones that are long out of patent, and available as generic. They also
avoid prescribing meds at all if they can achieve the desired result
with lifestyle changes.

Len Saputo, MD recently reported that as much as 65% of the income of
Oncologists comes from chemotherapy.
http://tinyurl.com/bgbtg79
See his section on "Do oncologists make a profit from the chemotherapy
they prescribe?" near the end of this 12/31/2012 audio presentation.
It is NOT about you, or your GP. Your oncologist has done an
excellent job of blowing smoke up your ass. :(

I can't get that to play (seems to be a fault on my machine), but is
that really a Gary Null site? Is that what you're using as a source of
information on health care?

I was able to find some information and a video from Dr. Saputo. He
seems generally sensible. I'll check around some more to see if there's
another source for his claims about profit motive on chemo.

[John H. Gohde]

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 10:31:08 -0700, in misc.health.alternative,

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by ironjustice
This results in energy deprivation within the tumor, suggesting a
practical and translational potential of IP6 treatment in suppressing
growth and progression of prostate cancer in humans.

Kind of like how IV Vitamin C kills cancer cells, don't you think?
Oh, I am sorry.  I confused you with a person that still has an intact
brain.  :(
Of course, I am playing fast and loose with the details.  The ONLY
thing that really counts is that vitamin C kills cancer cells.  :)

It looks like my earlier attempt at a reply was swallowed by
Thunderbird, so here goes again.
Has any objective clinical trial ever been done on this?  I for one
would welcome a treatment like IV vitamin C if it worked.  There seems
to be solid reasoning for it, including why oral ingestion would be
ineffective.  I fully realize that the big pharma corps would have no
interest in funding such a study, and they're the ones who fund most
such clinical trials, but surely someone like NIH could do it.
Unfortunately, all I've been able to find so far has been from very
unreliable sources.  That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it doesn't lend
it any credence, either.

   From my reading the problem is while high concentrations of Vitamin C
kills cancer cells in petri dish tests, it also kills the
non-cancerous cells equally.
Studies also show, in large doses Vitamin C contributes to permanent
and sometimes fatal kidney and heart damages.
There have been a few "miracles recoveries" where are not clinical
studies but more one the line of anecdotal and unsubstantiated
reports of a few cases.
--
Bob Officer

So, the choice that Bronco Bob is offering is death by Chemo, over
death by Vitamin C?  I bet that people who have died from C (if true
at all) went out with a big smile on their face, versus the gut
winching agony of Chemo doing someone in.

I'm one of many who have had chemo, and have not died from it but rather
have been saved by it.  Chemo is poison, no doubt about it, but it's
poison that affects cancer cells more than it does healthy cells.  If
Bob's right, and vitamin C kills cancer and healthy cells equally, then
it's clearly not suitable as a treatment, and would be not only
deadlier, but also more painful, than conventional chemo.  Now I'm not
saying that he *is* right, but you don't seem to be disputing the claim
itself.  Can you provide any legitimate support (clinical trials,
scientific testing, etc.) for IV vitamin C treatment being effective and
safe?  All I've been able to find so far is a bunch of anecdotal
evidence and hand waving.  If it's real, I'm all for it.  The "street
value" of my chemo was about a quarter million dollars, and it had some
nasty side effects.  If IV vitamin C could do as well (similar or better
improvement in survival and NED rates, with similar or lower harmful
side effects), it would be GREAT!  If it's just another crack-pipe dream
from the people who brought us "dilution is power", then no thanks.

Avoiding colorectal cancer is so easily, I wouldn't be bragging about
it!
On day, I will knock out an article covering just colorectal cancer.
I have ALREADY  written several articles on the topic.  So, the new
article will be for the slow people.  :(

The fact that you make such claims makes anything else you say look suspect.

Post by John H. Gohde
The "street value" of using IV C to treat cancer is at best a few
thousand dollars, which would be affordable by most.

Yes, that's just part of the reason I'd be very happy to see any solid
evidence that it works, and is safe.
  >  Of curse, that

Post by John H. Gohde
is primarily why conventional medicine refuses to use IV C to treat
illness.

And now you're back into conspiracy-theorist land.  My GP, and my
oncologist, both use older, less expensive meds when possible.  My GP
explained that it wasn't even just to save money (which it obviously
does), but also to have a better set of data on side effects.  Rather
than prescribe the latest-and-greatest drugs, which are still under
patent and make lots of money for the big pharma guys, they prescribe
ones that are long out of patent, and available as generic.  They also
avoid prescribing meds at all if they can achieve the desired result
with lifestyle changes.

Len Saputo, MD recently reported that as much as 65% of the income of
Oncologists comes from chemotherapy.
http://tinyurl.com/bgbtg79
See his section on "Do oncologists make a profit from the chemotherapy
they prescribe?" near the end of this 12/31/2012 audio presentation.
It is NOT about you, or your GP.   Your oncologist has done an
excellent job of blowing smoke up your ass.  :(

I can't get that to play (seems to be a fault on my machine), but is
that really a Gary Null site?  Is that what you're using as a source of
information on health care?
I was able to find some information and a video from Dr. Saputo.  He
seems generally sensible.  I'll check around some more to see if there's
another source for his claims about profit motive on chemo.

Try playing it on Internet Explorer, or on another different Web
Browser.

[John H. Gohde]

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 10:31:08 -0700, in misc.health.alternative,

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by ironjustice
This results in energy deprivation within the tumor, suggesting a
practical and translational potential of IP6 treatment in suppressing
growth and progression of prostate cancer in humans.

Kind of like how IV Vitamin C kills cancer cells, don't you think?
Oh, I am sorry.  I confused you with a person that still has an intact
brain.  :(
Of course, I am playing fast and loose with the details.  The ONLY
thing that really counts is that vitamin C kills cancer cells.  :)

It looks like my earlier attempt at a reply was swallowed by
Thunderbird, so here goes again.
Has any objective clinical trial ever been done on this?  I for one
would welcome a treatment like IV vitamin C if it worked.  There seems
to be solid reasoning for it, including why oral ingestion would be
ineffective.  I fully realize that the big pharma corps would have no
interest in funding such a study, and they're the ones who fund most
such clinical trials, but surely someone like NIH could do it.
Unfortunately, all I've been able to find so far has been from very
unreliable sources.  That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it doesn't lend
it any credence, either.

   From my reading the problem is while high concentrations of Vitamin C
kills cancer cells in petri dish tests, it also kills the
non-cancerous cells equally.
Studies also show, in large doses Vitamin C contributes to permanent
and sometimes fatal kidney and heart damages.
There have been a few "miracles recoveries" where are not clinical
studies but more one the line of anecdotal and unsubstantiated
reports of a few cases.
--
Bob Officer

So, the choice that Bronco Bob is offering is death by Chemo, over
death by Vitamin C?  I bet that people who have died from C (if true
at all) went out with a big smile on their face, versus the gut
winching agony of Chemo doing someone in.

I'm one of many who have had chemo, and have not died from it but rather
have been saved by it.  Chemo is poison, no doubt about it, but it's
poison that affects cancer cells more than it does healthy cells.  If
Bob's right, and vitamin C kills cancer and healthy cells equally, then
it's clearly not suitable as a treatment, and would be not only
deadlier, but also more painful, than conventional chemo.  Now I'm not
saying that he *is* right, but you don't seem to be disputing the claim
itself.  Can you provide any legitimate support (clinical trials,
scientific testing, etc.) for IV vitamin C treatment being effective and
safe?  All I've been able to find so far is a bunch of anecdotal
evidence and hand waving.  If it's real, I'm all for it.  The "street
value" of my chemo was about a quarter million dollars, and it had some
nasty side effects.  If IV vitamin C could do as well (similar or better
improvement in survival and NED rates, with similar or lower harmful
side effects), it would be GREAT!  If it's just another crack-pipe dream
from the people who brought us "dilution is power", then no thanks.

Avoiding colorectal cancer is so easily, I wouldn't be bragging about
it!
On day, I will knock out an article covering just colorectal cancer.
I have ALREADY  written several articles on the topic.  So, the new
article will be for the slow people.  :(

The fact that you make such claims makes anything else you say look suspect.

Post by John H. Gohde
The "street value" of using IV C to treat cancer is at best a few
thousand dollars, which would be affordable by most.

Yes, that's just part of the reason I'd be very happy to see any solid
evidence that it works, and is safe.
  >  Of curse, that

Post by John H. Gohde
is primarily why conventional medicine refuses to use IV C to treat
illness.

And now you're back into conspiracy-theorist land.  My GP, and my
oncologist, both use older, less expensive meds when possible.  My GP
explained that it wasn't even just to save money (which it obviously
does), but also to have a better set of data on side effects.  Rather
than prescribe the latest-and-greatest drugs, which are still under
patent and make lots of money for the big pharma guys, they prescribe
ones that are long out of patent, and available as generic.  They also
avoid prescribing meds at all if they can achieve the desired result
with lifestyle changes.

Len Saputo, MD recently reported that as much as 65% of the income of
Oncologists comes from chemotherapy.
http://tinyurl.com/bgbtg79
See his section on "Do oncologists make a profit from the chemotherapy
they prescribe?" near the end of this 12/31/2012 audio presentation.
It is NOT about you, or your GP.   Your oncologist has done an
excellent job of blowing smoke up your ass.  :(

I can't get that to play (seems to be a fault on my machine), but is
that really a Gary Null site?  Is that what you're using as a source of
information on health care?
I was able to find some information and a video from Dr. Saputo.  He
seems generally sensible.  I'll check around some more to see if there's
another source for his claims about profit motive on chemo.

Try playing it on Internet Explorer, or on another different Web
Browser.

It truly amazing to me, how such a major commercial Web site, as The
Progressive Radio Network, could possibly employ such a joke of a
Webmaster. Even I can can see that their HTML set up for listening to
their Internet radio broadcasts does NOT work on many different
commonly used Web browsers. :(

[John H. Gohde]

Post by BruceS
evidence and hand waving.  If it's real, I'm all for it.  The "street
value" of my chemo was about a quarter million dollars, and it had some
nasty side effects.

Bingo!

Your cancer along made your oncologist a very wealthy doctor. :(

65% of a quarter million dollars is NOT bad compensation, for
torturing some clueless wonder with chemo.

[BruceS]

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS
evidence and hand waving. If it's real, I'm all for it. The "street
value" of my chemo was about a quarter million dollars, and it had some
nasty side effects.

Bingo!
Your cancer along made your oncologist a very wealthy doctor. :(
65% of a quarter million dollars is NOT bad compensation, for
torturing some clueless wonder with chemo.

And where do you get the idea that the oncologist gets, as profit, 65%
of the "street value" of the chemo? I can tell you that you are
categorically wrong about that. Unfortunately, that's the sort of false
math and bad logic that seems pervasive in the alternative medicine
world. It's really more like "alternative reality".

[John H. Gohde]

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS
evidence and hand waving.  If it's real, I'm all for it.  The "street
value" of my chemo was about a quarter million dollars, and it had some
nasty side effects.

Bingo!
Your cancer along made your oncologist a very wealthy doctor.  :(
65% of a quarter million dollars is NOT bad compensation, for
torturing some clueless wonder with chemo.

And where do you get the idea that the oncologist gets, as profit, 65%
of the "street value" of the chemo?  I can tell you that you are
categorically wrong about that.  Unfortunately, that's the sort of false
math and bad logic that seems pervasive in the alternative medicine
world.  It's really more like "alternative reality".

Your oncologist has done an excellent job of blowing smoke up your
ass. :(

Under any standard, oncology is the most corrupt money grubbing branch
of conventional medicine.

They even got the SAPs that are their cancer patients worshiping them
for totally taking advantage of their predicament.
.
You have my condolences, SAP.

[BruceS]

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS
evidence and hand waving. If it's real, I'm all for it. The "street
value" of my chemo was about a quarter million dollars, and it had some
nasty side effects.

Bingo!
Your cancer along made your oncologist a very wealthy doctor. :(
65% of a quarter million dollars is NOT bad compensation, for
torturing some clueless wonder with chemo.

And where do you get the idea that the oncologist gets, as profit, 65%
of the "street value" of the chemo? I can tell you that you are
categorically wrong about that. Unfortunately, that's the sort of false
math and bad logic that seems pervasive in the alternative medicine
world. It's really more like "alternative reality".

Your oncologist has done an excellent job of blowing smoke up your
ass. :(
Under any standard, oncology is the most corrupt money grubbing branch
of conventional medicine.
They even got the SAPs that are their cancer patients worshiping them
for totally taking advantage of their predicament.
.
You have my condolences, SAP.

In other words, you didn't get the 65% idea from anywhere; you just
pulled it out of your ass. Usually, conspiracy theorists have at least
some thin framework they get their ideas from. It's a shame you lack
even that.

[John H. Gohde]

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS
evidence and hand waving.  If it's real, I'm all for it.  The "street
value" of my chemo was about a quarter million dollars, and it had some
nasty side effects.

Bingo!
Your cancer along made your oncologist a very wealthy doctor.  :(
65% of a quarter million dollars is NOT bad compensation, for
torturing some clueless wonder with chemo.

And where do you get the idea that the oncologist gets, as profit, 65%
of the "street value" of the chemo?  I can tell you that you are
categorically wrong about that.  Unfortunately, that's the sort of false
math and bad logic that seems pervasive in the alternative medicine
world.  It's really more like "alternative reality".

Your oncologist has done an excellent job of blowing smoke up your
ass.  :(
Under any standard, oncology is the most corrupt money grubbing branch
of conventional medicine.
They even got the SAPs that are their cancer patients worshiping them
for totally taking advantage of their predicament.
.
You have my condolences, SAP.

In other words, you didn't get the 65% idea from anywhere; you just
pulled it out of your ass.  Usually, conspiracy theorists have at least
some thin framework they get their ideas from.  It's a shame you lack
even that.

Hey Moron.

I am SORRY that you do NOT have brains enough to surf the Web and play
audio files on Web sites.

That is YOUR problem, Jack, NOT mine.

Read what I had posted, again. It is shocking just how stupid YOU
truly are, Geek!

I had absolutely no problems playing the audio.

[BruceS]

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS
evidence and hand waving. If it's real, I'm all for it. The "street
value" of my chemo was about a quarter million dollars, and it had some
nasty side effects.

Bingo!
Your cancer along made your oncologist a very wealthy doctor. :(
65% of a quarter million dollars is NOT bad compensation, for
torturing some clueless wonder with chemo.

And where do you get the idea that the oncologist gets, as profit, 65%
of the "street value" of the chemo? I can tell you that you are
categorically wrong about that. Unfortunately, that's the sort of false
math and bad logic that seems pervasive in the alternative medicine
world. It's really more like "alternative reality".

Your oncologist has done an excellent job of blowing smoke up your
ass. :(
Under any standard, oncology is the most corrupt money grubbing branch
of conventional medicine.
They even got the SAPs that are their cancer patients worshiping them
for totally taking advantage of their predicament.
.
You have my condolences, SAP.

In other words, you didn't get the 65% idea from anywhere; you just
pulled it out of your ass. Usually, conspiracy theorists have at least
some thin framework they get their ideas from. It's a shame you lack
even that.

Hey Moron.
I am SORRY that you do NOT have brains enough to surf the Web and play
audio files on Web sites.
That is YOUR problem, Jack, NOT mine.
Read what I had posted, again. It is shocking just how stupid YOU
truly are, Geek!
I had absolutely no problems playing the audio.

Actually, John, you are the one behaving as a moron. I asked you a
simple question, and rather than answering it, became abusive. I'll go
ahead and ask you again. Do you have *anything* to back up your claim
that the oncologist gets, as profit, 65% of the "street value" of the
chemo prescribed? I am quite sure that he doesn't, and can back that up
with facts. All you seem to have are conspiracy theories and insults.

I do quite a bit of surfing the web and playing audio files. I don't
know what gave you the impression that I can't, especially given that I
*told* you I'd found another video by that doctor and watched it.

[John H. Gohde]

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS
evidence and hand waving.  If it's real, I'm all for it.  The "street
value" of my chemo was about a quarter million dollars, and it had some
nasty side effects.

Bingo!
Your cancer along made your oncologist a very wealthy doctor.  :(
65% of a quarter million dollars is NOT bad compensation, for
torturing some clueless wonder with chemo.

And where do you get the idea that the oncologist gets, as profit, 65%
of the "street value" of the chemo?  I can tell you that you are
categorically wrong about that.  Unfortunately, that's the sort of false
math and bad logic that seems pervasive in the alternative medicine
world.  It's really more like "alternative reality".

Your oncologist has done an excellent job of blowing smoke up your
ass.  :(
Under any standard, oncology is the most corrupt money grubbing branch
of conventional medicine.
They even got the SAPs that are their cancer patients worshiping them
for totally taking advantage of their predicament.
.
You have my condolences, SAP.

In other words, you didn't get the 65% idea from anywhere; you just
pulled it out of your ass.  Usually, conspiracy theorists have at least
some thin framework they get their ideas from.  It's a shame you lack
even that.

Hey Moron.
I am SORRY that you do NOT have brains enough to surf the Web and play
audio files on Web sites.
That is YOUR problem, Jack, NOT mine.
Read what I had posted, again.  It is shocking just how stupid YOU
truly are, Geek!
I had absolutely no problems playing the audio.

Actually, John, you are the one behaving as a moron.  I asked you a
simple question, and rather than answering it, became abusive.  I'll go
ahead and ask you again.  Do you have *anything* to back up your claim
that the oncologist gets, as profit, 65% of the "street value" of the
chemo prescribed?  I am quite sure that he doesn't, and can back that up
with facts.  All you seem to have are conspiracy theories and insults.
I do quite a bit of surfing the web and playing audio files.  I don't
know what gave you the impression that I can't, especially given that I
*told* you I'd found another video by that doctor and watched it.

AGAIN!

Read what I had posted, again. It is shocking just how stupid YOU
truly are, Geek!

Here, why don't I repeat I clearly wrote above, one more time.

Len Saputo, MD recently reported that as much as 65% of the income of
Oncologists comes from chemotherapy.

http://tinyurl.com/bgbtg79

See his section on "Do oncologists make a profit from the chemotherapy
they prescribe?" near the end of this 12/31/2012 audio presentation.
It is NOT about you, or your GP. Your oncologist has done an
excellent job of blowing smoke up your ass. :(

Do NOT like the way I wrote my reply, then you know where you can
shove it. I do NOT care if I rounded the profits up, a bit. They are
still ALL corrupt, as you can get in my book. :)

Quibbling over whether somebody stole 100,000 or a 1,000,000 is
irrelevant as far as the point that I am making goes. They are all
unethical toads, taking advantage of extremely vulnerable people.

I am very tired of replying to @#$%^&*

Don't like my grammar, or the way I dot my "i"s. Then go to HELL, and
twice as far as with a chocolate bar.

You wont see me getting colorectal cancer in my lifetime. :)

[BruceS]

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS
evidence and hand waving. If it's real, I'm all for it. The "street
value" of my chemo was about a quarter million dollars, and it had some
nasty side effects.

Bingo!
Your cancer along made your oncologist a very wealthy doctor. :(
65% of a quarter million dollars is NOT bad compensation, for
torturing some clueless wonder with chemo.

And where do you get the idea that the oncologist gets, as profit, 65%
of the "street value" of the chemo? I can tell you that you are
categorically wrong about that. Unfortunately, that's the sort of false
math and bad logic that seems pervasive in the alternative medicine
world. It's really more like "alternative reality".

Your oncologist has done an excellent job of blowing smoke up your
ass. :(
Under any standard, oncology is the most corrupt money grubbing branch
of conventional medicine.
They even got the SAPs that are their cancer patients worshiping them
for totally taking advantage of their predicament.
.
You have my condolences, SAP.

In other words, you didn't get the 65% idea from anywhere; you just
pulled it out of your ass. Usually, conspiracy theorists have at least
some thin framework they get their ideas from. It's a shame you lack
even that.

Hey Moron.
I am SORRY that you do NOT have brains enough to surf the Web and play
audio files on Web sites.
That is YOUR problem, Jack, NOT mine.
Read what I had posted, again. It is shocking just how stupid YOU
truly are, Geek!
I had absolutely no problems playing the audio.

Actually, John, you are the one behaving as a moron. I asked you a
simple question, and rather than answering it, became abusive. I'll go
ahead and ask you again. Do you have *anything* to back up your claim
that the oncologist gets, as profit, 65% of the "street value" of the
chemo prescribed? I am quite sure that he doesn't, and can back that up
with facts. All you seem to have are conspiracy theories and insults.
I do quite a bit of surfing the web and playing audio files. I don't
know what gave you the impression that I can't, especially given that I
*told* you I'd found another video by that doctor and watched it.

AGAIN!
Read what I had posted, again. It is shocking just how stupid YOU
truly are, Geek!

I did read it. You wrote "65% of a quarter million dollars is NOT bad
compensation, for torturing some clueless wonder with chemo." The
quarter million dollars was what I told you the "street value" of my
chemo drugs was. I asked you where you got the idea that the oncologist
profited by 65% of the "street value" of the drugs. You still have not
addressed that. At all.

Post by John H. Gohde
Here, why don't I repeat I clearly wrote above, one more time.
Len Saputo, MD recently reported that as much as 65% of the income of
Oncologists comes from chemotherapy.

That's a completely different measure. The fact that you can't
understand that is just depressing. Here, I'll spell it out for you.
Imagine an oncologist prescribes drugs for a patient, and the "street
value" of those drugs is $250K. Imagine further that he has 100 such
patients, so the total street value of all those drugs is $2.5M. Now
imagine that his total earnings for the year are $150K. The argument
you made would claim that the oncologist made 65% * $2.5M, or $1.625M on
the drugs. The claim that Dr. Saputo makes is that 65% * $150K, or
$97.5K, is what the oncologist made from the drugs. These are
completely different, and nearly unrelated, arguments. The fact that
you confuse the two goes a long way to explaining your other statements.

Post by John H. Gohde
http://tinyurl.com/bgbtg79
See his section on "Do oncologists make a profit from the chemotherapy
they prescribe?" near the end of this 12/31/2012 audio presentation.
It is NOT about you, or your GP. Your oncologist has done an
excellent job of blowing smoke up your ass. :(

Once again, you are confused. You aren't paying attention to what Dr.
Saputo says, but rather pulling a word from one part, a number from
another, and assembling them into a tortured and inane claim.

Post by John H. Gohde
Do NOT like the way I wrote my reply, then you know where you can
shove it. I do NOT care if I rounded the profits up, a bit. They are
still ALL corrupt, as you can get in my book. :)

You aren't just rounding up a bit, you're completely misreading the
situation.

Post by John H. Gohde
Quibbling over whether somebody stole 100,000 or a 1,000,000 is
irrelevant as far as the point that I am making goes. They are all
unethical toads, taking advantage of extremely vulnerable people.

Complete side issues don't apply to the question at all.

Post by John H. Gohde
Don't like my grammar, or the way I dot my "i"s. Then go to HELL, and
twice as far as with a chocolate bar.

Your grammar isn't at issue. Your critical thinking skills are the
problem. If you cannot understand why your claim is completely
unfounded, then it probably isn't worth reading anything you write. You
simply don't have the mental capacity to put together a meaningful
statement.

Post by John H. Gohde
You wont see me getting colorectal cancer in my lifetime. :)

I hope you're right, but you provide no evidence that you have any lower
risk than anyone else.

I hope someone with more mental health than John here can come up with
something supportive of the original topic. To restate that, is there
*any* rational evidence showing effectiveness and safety of intravenous
vitamin C therapy for treating cancer?

[John H. Gohde]

Your grammar isn't at issue.  Your critical thinking skills are the
problem.

No actually, the problem is the asshole that I am talking to. :(

After all, YOU are the fool that caught cancer in the first place,
rather than moi.

My critical thinking skills or no, that make me a success story, and
YOU a failure in my book. End of story. :)

[BruceS]

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by BruceS
Your grammar isn't at issue. Your critical thinking skills are the
problem.

No actually, the problem is the asshole that I am talking to. :(

*out of
There, I fixed it for you.

Post by John H. Gohde
After all, YOU are the fool that caught cancer in the first place,
rather than moi.

Yes, you seem to have chosen severe mental illness instead.
Congratulations!

Post by John H. Gohde
My critical thinking skills or no, that make me a success story, and
YOU a failure in my book. End of story. :)

Your "book" is one of fantasy if it paints you as a success.

[John H. Gohde]

Post by BruceS

Your grammar isn't at issue.  Your critical thinking skills are the
problem.

No actually, the problem is the asshole that I am talking to.  :(

*out of
There, I fixed it for you.

After all, YOU are the fool that caught cancer in the first place,
rather than moi.

Yes, you seem to have chosen severe mental illness instead.
Congratulations!

My critical thinking skills or no, that make me a success story, and
YOU a failure in my book.  End of story. :)

Your "book" is one of fantasy if it paints you as a success.

Bye!

I am going to let the dead, bury the dead on this thread. :(