Pork and Dark Field Microscopy

[Guest guest]

I hate to bring this topic up again.

I've been listening to a CD by Getoff of the Price-Pottinger Foundation,

titled Healthy Weigh Loss. When asked about pork, he said that four independent

scientists that didn't know each other have demonstrated that the blood of

healthy people starts to resemble that of cancer patients after eating pork.

Specifically here is the transcript:

=====transcript start

There is enough research on pork, from four different scientists, none of whom

knew each other, that all did different work on what is called dark field

microscopy, that appeared to show, and nobody has ever disproven this, that if

you look at somebody's blood that is very healthy, and then you let that person

eat some pork, even if it is organic free-range and everything is correct, that

within a half an hour to an hour and a half, changes occur in the blood,

visible, that make their blood start to look more like the blood of a cancer

patient. I don't know what's going on with it. I haven't reproduced that myself.

But, I am convinced there is probably a problem and so if somebody said is there

one meat that you would not consume, I would say pork.

========transcript stop

Anybody know anything else about this? I see that there will be a speaker on the

subject of Dark Field Microscopy at the WAPF conference this year. Maybe

somebody can ask!

Kathy

[Guest guest]

Just wondering....

What is meant, first of all, by blood that resembles that of cancer

patients? Is that even a meaningful description? Do cancer patients

all have the same thing going on with their blood? All kinds of

cancer? I'm no expert on cancer so I haven't the foggiest idea whether

this makes any sense or not. Obviously, if there really is something

to this, I'd like to know, but vague warnings from unnamed scientists

are hardly persuasive.

Not meaning to dump on you, Kathy, thanks for taking the time to type

this up and send it. It would be nice to get definitive information

one way or the other on this issue. " Dark field microscopy " is new to

me. I'll try to do some searches on this.

Thanks,

Jeanmarie

On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Kathy Dickson wrote:

> I hate to bring this topic up again.

>

> I've been listening to a CD by Getoff of the Price-Pottinger

> Foundation, titled Healthy Weigh Loss. When asked about pork, he

> said that four independent scientists that didn't know each other

> have demonstrated that the blood of healthy people starts to

> resemble that of cancer patients after eating pork. Specifically

> here is the transcript:

> =====transcript start

> There is enough research on pork, from four different scientists,

> none of whom knew each other, that all did different work on what is

> called dark field microscopy, that appeared to show, and nobody has

> ever disproven this, that if you look at somebody's blood that is

> very healthy, and then you let that person eat some pork, even if it

> is organic free-range and everything is correct, that within a half

> an hour to an hour and a half, changes occur in the blood, visible,

> that make their blood start to look more like the blood of a cancer

> patient. I don't know what's going on with it. I haven't reproduced

> that myself. But, I am convinced there is probably a problem and so

> if somebody said is there one meat that you would not consume, I

> would say pork.

> ========transcript stop

>

> Anybody know anything else about this? I see that there will be a

> speaker on the subject of Dark Field Microscopy at the WAPF

> conference this year. Maybe somebody can ask!

>

> Kathy

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

That's why I transcribed the text, so everyone could give credit to the speaker.

:-)

Mostly I posted this in case someone else had heard of these studies and could

provide more information, and so that if someone is so inclined they can ask at

the conference.

Kathy

---- Jeanmarie Todd <jaytee3@...> wrote:

=============

Just wondering....

What is meant, first of all, by blood that resembles that of cancer

patients? Is that even a meaningful description? Do cancer patients

all have the same thing going on with their blood? All kinds of

cancer? I'm no expert on cancer so I haven't the foggiest idea whether

this makes any sense or not. Obviously, if there really is something

to this, I'd like to know, but vague warnings from unnamed scientists

are hardly persuasive.

Not meaning to dump on you, Kathy, thanks for taking the time to type

this up and send it. It would be nice to get definitive information

one way or the other on this issue. " Dark field microscopy " is new to

me. I'll try to do some searches on this.

Thanks,

Jeanmarie

On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Kathy Dickson wrote:

> I hate to bring this topic up again.

>

> I've been listening to a CD by Getoff of the Price-Pottinger

> Foundation, titled Healthy Weigh Loss. When asked about pork, he

> said that four independent scientists that didn't know each other

> have demonstrated that the blood of healthy people starts to

> resemble that of cancer patients after eating pork. Specifically

> here is the transcript:

> =====transcript start

> There is enough research on pork, from four different scientists,

> none of whom knew each other, that all did different work on what is

> called dark field microscopy, that appeared to show, and nobody has

> ever disproven this, that if you look at somebody's blood that is

> very healthy, and then you let that person eat some pork, even if it

> is organic free-range and everything is correct, that within a half

> an hour to an hour and a half, changes occur in the blood, visible,

> that make their blood start to look more like the blood of a cancer

> patient. I don't know what's going on with it. I haven't reproduced

> that myself. But, I am convinced there is probably a problem and so

> if somebody said is there one meat that you would not consume, I

> would say pork.

> ========transcript stop

>

> Anybody know anything else about this? I see that there will be a

> speaker on the subject of Dark Field Microscopy at the WAPF

> conference this year. Maybe somebody can ask!

>

> Kathy

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

http://www.darkfieldmicroscopy.com/

There is another version of darkfield microscope and is normally what is

thought of when one mentions darkfield microscopy.

It consists of a high power compound light microscope that has been

fitted with an extra powerful illumination source and a special

darkfield condenser. This condenser replaces the normal brightfield

condenser found on all high quality compound light microscopes. It can

be either a dry darkfield condenser or an oil immersion condenser. The

light condenser is the critical component in a darkfield microscopy

system. It takes normal transmitted brightfield illumination and changes

the path of the light so it illuminates the specimen from the sides,

thus creating the black field with brightly lit particles in a drop of

live blood.

This type of microscope is used by natural health clinics doing live

blood cell analysis. The medical establishment has generally not been

keen to support the concept of viewing live blood as a method of

diagnosing and determining the health of a patient. In many instances,

they completely omit and reject darkfield microscopy as a diagnostic

instrument. This same medical establishment has also been resistant to

natural health including the use of herbs and natural supplements as an

alternative to the pushing of powerful pharmaceutical medical drugs. It

is acknowledged by this author that there are certainly quack doctors

out there that will use whatever instrument they can to make a fast

dollar. *The results from a live blood cell analysis microscope can be

misinterpreted and abused by any " health care professional " .*

Jeanmarie Todd wrote:

>

>

> Just wondering....

> What is meant, first of all, by blood that resembles that of cancer

> patients? Is that even a meaningful description? Do cancer patients

> all have the same thing going on with their blood? All kinds of

> cancer? I'm no expert on cancer so I haven't the foggiest idea whether

> this makes any sense or not. Obviously, if there really is something

> to this, I'd like to know, but vague warnings from unnamed scientists

> are hardly persuasive.

>

> Not meaning to dump on you, Kathy, thanks for taking the time to type

> this up and send it. It would be nice to get definitive information

> one way or the other on this issue. " Dark field microscopy " is new to

> me. I'll try to do some searches on this.

> Thanks,

> Jeanmarie

>

> On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Kathy Dickson wrote:

>

> > I hate to bring this topic up again.

> >

> > I've been listening to a CD by Getoff of the Price-Pottinger

> > Foundation, titled Healthy Weigh Loss. When asked about pork, he

> > said that four independent scientists that didn't know each other

> > have demonstrated that the blood of healthy people starts to

> > resemble that of cancer patients after eating pork. Specifically

> > here is the transcript:

> > =====transcript start

> > There is enough research on pork, from four different scientists,

> > none of whom knew each other, that all did different work on what is

> > called dark field microscopy, that appeared to show, and nobody has

> > ever disproven this, that if you look at somebody's blood that is

> > very healthy, and then you let that person eat some pork, even if it

> > is organic free-range and everything is correct, that within a half

> > an hour to an hour and a half, changes occur in the blood, visible,

> > that make their blood start to look more like the blood of a cancer

> > patient. I don't know what's going on with it. I haven't reproduced

> > that myself. But, I am convinced there is probably a problem and so

> > if somebody said is there one meat that you would not consume, I

> > would say pork.

> > ========transcript stop

> >

> > Anybody know anything else about this? I see that there will be a

> > speaker on the subject of Dark Field Microscopy at the WAPF

> > conference this year. Maybe somebody can ask!

> >

> > Kathy

> >

> >

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

It is hard to disprove something that is only presented to us by

reference with no published studies that we can examine. So far this

whole DFM pork thing amounts to hearsay and nothing more.

Pete

Kathy Dickson wrote:

>

>

> I hate to bring this topic up again.

>

> I've been listening to a CD by Getoff of the Price-Pottinger

> Foundation, titled Healthy Weigh Loss. When asked about pork, he said

> that four independent scientists that didn't know each other have

> demonstrated that the blood of healthy people starts to resemble that

> of cancer patients after eating pork. Specifically here is the transcript:

> =====transcript start

> There is enough research on pork, from four different scientists, none

> of whom knew each other, that all did different work on what is called

> dark field microscopy, that appeared to show, and nobody has ever

> disproven this, that if you look at somebody's blood that is very

> healthy, and then you let that person eat some pork, even if it is

> organic free-range and everything is correct, that within a half an

> hour to an hour and a half, changes occur in the blood, visible, that

> make their blood start to look more like the blood of a cancer

> patient. I don't know what's going on with it. I haven't reproduced

> that myself. But, I am convinced there is probably a problem and so if

> somebody said is there one meat that you would not consume, I would

> say pork.

> ========transcript stop

>

> Anybody know anything else about this? I see that there will be a

> speaker on the subject of Dark Field Microscopy at the WAPF conference

> this year. Maybe somebody can ask!

>

> Kathy

>

>

[Guest guest]

I hear you, Pete. I'm open to being persuaded, but am not persuaded

yet. This blanket statement from the darkfield microscopy website

-- " This same medical establishment has also been resistant to

natural health including the use of herbs and natural supplements as an

alternative to the pushing of powerful pharmaceutical medical drugs.

" -- doesn't impress me much. Because doctors are reluctant to

prescribe herbs, we can throw out all of medicine? I don't think so.

Medical science has its limitations (lack of nutrition training, for

one, and the lingering effects of the fat/cholesterol hypothesis

tainting what little nutrition training they get), but there is still

a huge body of knowledge that can't be dismissed simply for lack of

using darkfield microscopy. There might be good reasons for that, I

just don't know. Looking forward to the report from the WAPF

conference. Wish I could go...

Jeanmarie

On Oct 6, 2009, at 5:26 AM, Gasper Family Farm wrote:

> It is hard to disprove something that is only presented to us by

> reference with no published studies that we can examine. So far this

> whole DFM pork thing amounts to hearsay and nothing more.

>

> Pete

>

> Kathy Dickson wrote:

> >

> >

> > I hate to bring this topic up again.

> >

> > I've been listening to a CD by Getoff of the Price-Pottinger

> > Foundation, titled Healthy Weigh Loss. When asked about pork, he

> said

> > that four independent scientists that didn't know each other have

> > demonstrated that the blood of healthy people starts to resemble

> that

> > of cancer patients after eating pork. Specifically here is the

> transcript:

> > =====transcript start

> > There is enough research on pork, from four different scientists,

> none

> > of whom knew each other, that all did different work on what is

> called

> > dark field microscopy, that appeared to show, and nobody has ever

> > disproven this, that if you look at somebody's blood that is very

> > healthy, and then you let that person eat some pork, even if it is

> > organic free-range and everything is correct, that within a half an

> > hour to an hour and a half, changes occur in the blood, visible,

> that

> > make their blood start to look more like the blood of a cancer

> > patient. I don't know what's going on with it. I haven't reproduced

> > that myself. But, I am convinced there is probably a problem and

> so if

> > somebody said is there one meat that you would not consume, I would

> > say pork.

> > ========transcript stop

> >

> > Anybody know anything else about this? I see that there will be a

> > speaker on the subject of Dark Field Microscopy at the WAPF

> conference

> > this year. Maybe somebody can ask!

> >

> > Kathy

>

[Guest guest]

Hmmm, I'm looking at this website and it doesn't persuade me there are

any actual scientists involved with it. It reads like a bad

translation from another language. In the " about us " page what passes

for credentials is this mention: " Our team is made of these well

taught professional writers, editors as well as researchers that offer

complete concern to their work, to give our respected readers a

satisfying as well as dependable reference material for your research.

" I also glanced at the articles, which read very much like someone

trying to impress with big words that they really don't know how to

use. The only comments on the articles are spam that should have been

removed by the admin. I doubt very much that whoever wrote this site

has ever worked as a writer or editor in any respected news

organization and I see no evidence of actual science here. The ads are

all Google ads, i.e., automatically generated by keywords, not that

there are scientific equipment manufacturers buying space here

intentionally. It seems to be just another bad marketing site.

Jeanmarie

On Oct 6, 2009, at 5:05 AM, Gasper Family Farm wrote:

> http://www.darkfieldmicroscopy.com/

>

> There is another version of darkfield microscope and is normally

> what is

> thought of when one mentions darkfield microscopy.

>

> It consists of a high power compound light microscope that has been

> fitted with an extra powerful illumination source and a special

> darkfield condenser. This condenser replaces the normal brightfield

> condenser found on all high quality compound light microscopes. It can

> be either a dry darkfield condenser or an oil immersion condenser. The

> light condenser is the critical component in a darkfield microscopy

> system. It takes normal transmitted brightfield illumination and

> changes

> the path of the light so it illuminates the specimen from the sides,

> thus creating the black field with brightly lit particles in a drop of

> live blood.

>

> This type of microscope is used by natural health clinics doing live

> blood cell analysis. The medical establishment has generally not been

> keen to support the concept of viewing live blood as a method of

> diagnosing and determining the health of a patient. In many instances,

> they completely omit and reject darkfield microscopy as a diagnostic

> instrument. This same medical establishment has also been resistant to

> natural health including the use of herbs and natural supplements as

> an

> alternative to the pushing of powerful pharmaceutical medical drugs.

> It

> is acknowledged by this author that there are certainly quack doctors

> out there that will use whatever instrument they can to make a fast

> dollar. *The results from a live blood cell analysis microscope can be

> misinterpreted and abused by any " health care professional " .*

[Guest guest]

If you go to pubmed and search for " blood cancer pork " you get 11 hits.

Some of the studies are just horribly designed and make completely unjustified

conclusions...

===============

Prostate. 2009 Apr 1;69(5):548-58.

Dietary fatty acid quality affects AR and PPARgamma levels and prostate

growth.

CONCLUSION: Lard makes prostates larger.

But they're testing far more than lard. They're testing confinement raised,

pesticide fed, antibiotic fed, hormone injected, high heat processed, possibly

has transfat vegetable oil and BHT/BHQ lard.

=================

Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2008 Jan-Mar;9(1):71-5.

Lifestyle-related risk factors for stomach cancer in northeast Thailand.

CONCLUSION: Our study confirmed protective effects of a high intake of fruits

and vegetables against stomach cancer development and showed a high intake of

sauces to increase risk of stomach cancer as in other countries in Asia. (Pork

oil was one sauce).

But this is a large population study that only controlled for a tiny fraction of

risk factors and behaviours that could contribute to stomach cancer. And again,

what's in the pork oil? Pesticide or antibiotic residue, BHQ/BHT or other

preservatives, transfat, etc? Or maybe it's something simple like the pork oil

is used for frying or is rubbed on pork before BBQing. There simply aren't

enough controls in this study to make it meaningful.

==============

Int J Cancer. 2005 Jul 1;115(4):648-52.

Prospective study of N-acetyltransferase-2 genotypes, meat intake, smoking

and risk of colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSION: Red meat causes colon cancer.

This is another analysis of Nurses Health Study data which is fraught with

problems because it uses dietary recall as a primary data collection method. And

again, are they really studying red meat or read meat plus a raft load of novel

molecules many of which are known carcinogens? Like why don't they use organic

and pastured meat as a control? (Answer: cause truth doesn't really matter--read

" Manufacture of Consent " by Chomsky to find out why)

There were two other studies also investigating Heterocyclic amines (HAs) which

are produced when you cook meat. So maybe it's not the meat, but the cooking.

It's just amazing how much tunnel vision is involved in people's analysis of a

problem. Eating raw meat is unthinkable in their minds so it never becomes a

factor in the study.

(I'm not a pro 100% raw meat person BTW, I'm just a regular WAPF-style eat some

raw meat person)

==============

I did find two studies investigating Ochratoxin A (OTA) which is a widespread

mycotoxin present in pork meat, organs and blood:

J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2000 Apr;23(2):91-8.

Ochratoxin A from a toxicological perspective.

Food Chem Toxicol. 2003 Aug;41(8):1133-40.

New data on the occurrence of ochratoxin A in human sera from patients

affected or not by renal diseases in Tunisia.

But if this is causing what they are seeing, they should also see it in any meat

and from cereal grains as well. Mycotoxins, and OTA, are not exclusive to pork.

OTA is produced mainly by the mould fungi Aspergillus ochraceus and Penicillum

verrucosum commonly found on cereal grains. But again, maybe it's all the

fungicides that they put in the food to help stop these molds that are causing

the problems. Do these people have any clue how to design a study with controls?

I don't think this is what they are seeing--if they are seeing anything at all.

So out of the 11 studies, none even remotely sounded like " pork makes your blood

look cancerous " . And if they were onto something, they haven't been able to get

it published or haven't tried.

Considering pork has been a traditional food for probably like 1-2 million

years I wouldn't stop eating organic pastured pork. I would definitely suggest

that you don't eat conventional, industrial, fecal farm, concentration camp

pork. (Sorry I started to channel Salatin)

Cheers,

> > >

> > >

> > > I hate to bring this topic up again.

> > >

> > > I've been listening to a CD by Getoff of the Price-Pottinger

> > > Foundation, titled Healthy Weigh Loss. When asked about pork, he

> > said

> > > that four independent scientists that didn't know each other have

> > > demonstrated that the blood of healthy people starts to resemble

> > that

> > > of cancer patients after eating pork. Specifically here is the

> > transcript:

> > > =====transcript start

> > > There is enough research on pork, from four different scientists,

> > none

> > > of whom knew each other, that all did different work on what is

> > called

> > > dark field microscopy, that appeared to show, and nobody has ever

> > > disproven this, that if you look at somebody's blood that is very

> > > healthy, and then you let that person eat some pork, even if it is

> > > organic free-range and everything is correct, that within a half an

> > > hour to an hour and a half, changes occur in the blood, visible,

> > that

> > > make their blood start to look more like the blood of a cancer

> > > patient. I don't know what's going on with it. I haven't reproduced

> > > that myself. But, I am convinced there is probably a problem and

> > so if

> > > somebody said is there one meat that you would not consume, I would

> > > say pork.

> > > ========transcript stop

> > >

> > > Anybody know anything else about this? I see that there will be a

> > > speaker on the subject of Dark Field Microscopy at the WAPF

> > conference

> > > this year. Maybe somebody can ask!

> > >

> > > Kathy

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks, . =)

I'm finding more and more of these published studies are garbage.

The vaccine studies used for placebos... thimersol or a Hep B vaccine. Nice

huh?

And of course we all know the lipid hypothesis.

But I still use PubMed when needed!

Dawn

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of paulsonntagericson

Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 11:59 PM

Subject: Re: Pork and Dark Field Microscopy

If you go to pubmed and search for " blood cancer pork " you get 11 hits.

Some of the studies are just horribly designed and make completely

unjustified conclusions...

===============

Prostate. 2009 Apr 1;69(5):548-58.

Dietary fatty acid quality affects AR and PPARgamma levels and prostate

growth.

CONCLUSION: Lard makes prostates larger.

But they're testing far more than lard. They're testing confinement raised,

pesticide fed, antibiotic fed, hormone injected, high heat processed,

possibly has transfat vegetable oil and BHT/BHQ lard.

=================

Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2008 Jan-Mar;9(1):71-5.

Lifestyle-related risk factors for stomach cancer in northeast Thailand.

CONCLUSION: Our study confirmed protective effects of a high intake of

fruits and vegetables against stomach cancer development and showed a high

intake of sauces to increase risk of stomach cancer as in other countries in

Asia. (Pork oil was one sauce).

But this is a large population study that only controlled for a tiny

fraction of risk factors and behaviours that could contribute to stomach

cancer. And again, what's in the pork oil? Pesticide or antibiotic residue,

BHQ/BHT or other preservatives, transfat, etc? Or maybe it's something

simple like the pork oil is used for frying or is rubbed on pork before

BBQing. There simply aren't enough controls in this study to make it

meaningful.

==============

Int J Cancer. 2005 Jul 1;115(4):648-52.

Prospective study of N-acetyltransferase-2 genotypes, meat intake, smoking

and risk of colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSION: Red meat causes colon cancer.

This is another analysis of Nurses Health Study data which is fraught with

problems because it uses dietary recall as a primary data collection method.

And again, are they really studying red meat or read meat plus a raft load

of novel molecules many of which are known carcinogens? Like why don't they

use organic and pastured meat as a control? (Answer: cause truth doesn't

really matter--read " Manufacture of Consent " by Chomsky to find out why)

There were two other studies also investigating Heterocyclic amines (HAs)

which are produced when you cook meat. So maybe it's not the meat, but the

cooking. It's just amazing how much tunnel vision is involved in people's

analysis of a problem. Eating raw meat is unthinkable in their minds so it

never becomes a factor in the study.

(I'm not a pro 100% raw meat person BTW, I'm just a regular WAPF-style eat

some raw meat person)

==============

I did find two studies investigating Ochratoxin A (OTA) which is a

widespread mycotoxin present in pork meat, organs and blood:

J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2000 Apr;23(2):91-8.

Ochratoxin A from a toxicological perspective.

Food Chem Toxicol. 2003 Aug;41(8):1133-40.

New data on the occurrence of ochratoxin A in human sera from patients

affected or not by renal diseases in Tunisia.

But if this is causing what they are seeing, they should also see it in any

meat and from cereal grains as well. Mycotoxins, and OTA, are not exclusive

to pork. OTA is produced mainly by the mould fungi Aspergillus ochraceus and

Penicillum verrucosum commonly found on cereal grains. But again, maybe it's

all the fungicides that they put in the food to help stop these molds that

are causing the problems. Do these people have any clue how to design a

study with controls?

I don't think this is what they are seeing--if they are seeing anything at

all.

So out of the 11 studies, none even remotely sounded like " pork makes your

blood look cancerous " . And if they were onto something, they haven't been

able to get it published or haven't tried.

Considering pork has been a traditional food for probably like 1-2 million

years I wouldn't stop eating organic pastured pork. I would definitely

suggest that you don't eat conventional, industrial, fecal farm,

concentration camp pork. (Sorry I started to channel Salatin)

Cheers,

> > >

> > >

> > > I hate to bring this topic up again.

> > >

> > > I've been listening to a CD by Getoff of the Price-Pottinger

> > > Foundation, titled Healthy Weigh Loss. When asked about pork, he

> > said

> > > that four independent scientists that didn't know each other have

> > > demonstrated that the blood of healthy people starts to resemble

> > that

> > > of cancer patients after eating pork. Specifically here is the

> > transcript:

> > > =====transcript start

> > > There is enough research on pork, from four different scientists,

> > none

> > > of whom knew each other, that all did different work on what is

> > called

> > > dark field microscopy, that appeared to show, and nobody has ever

> > > disproven this, that if you look at somebody's blood that is very

> > > healthy, and then you let that person eat some pork, even if it is

> > > organic free-range and everything is correct, that within a half an

> > > hour to an hour and a half, changes occur in the blood, visible,

> > that

> > > make their blood start to look more like the blood of a cancer

> > > patient. I don't know what's going on with it. I haven't reproduced

> > > that myself. But, I am convinced there is probably a problem and

> > so if

> > > somebody said is there one meat that you would not consume, I would

> > > say pork.

> > > ========transcript stop

> > >

> > > Anybody know anything else about this? I see that there will be a

> > > speaker on the subject of Dark Field Microscopy at the WAPF

> > conference

> > > this year. Maybe somebody can ask!

> > >

> > > Kathy

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

'Kathy' mentioned a speaker on dark-field microsopy at next month's WAPF conf

.... this is neat to read just now b/c just this evening I saw Beverly Rubik's

presentation at her office in Emeryville. There were a dozen of us. She'll do

close to the same presentation at WAPF in Chicago. She did qualitative blood

analysis of people who have been on the WAPF diet for quite some time (can't

recall if she mentioned the length of time). The slides showed very clean blood.

Beverly is a friend and colleague, super bright/knowledgeable ..... so, I hope

you'll all get a chance to hear her/meet her. She's the one to go to have a good

thorough look at your blood, arteries, HRV, and more. I bought the Jupitor

Melody water filter from her a couple of years ago. and love it. Oh boy, this is

becoming an infomercial... well, here's the blurb for her talk tonight... i

think you'll be interested ....

Studies on nutrition and drinking water in relation to health and

wellness have been done using life blood analysis, in which the blood

is magnified and visualized under a special microscope 8,000x. Exciting

visual data in the form of photographs and videos of live human blood

as seen under the microscope will be shown and explained. Witness the

remarkable effects of certain dietary supplements and other factors on

health and wellness at the cellular level.

Beverly Rubik, Ph.D.,

is internationally recognized for her research at the cutting edge of

science and medicine. She is also a faculty member in Integrative

Health both at California Inst. of Integral Studies and Saybrook. She

also maintains a holistic educational practice advising clients about

nutrition, drinking water, exercise, stress reduction, and more, to

enhance performance and well-being.

RSVP to Beverly to reserve now, as space is limited.

510-428-4084 or brubik@...

Institute for Frontier Science, 4067 Watts Street, Emeryville, CA

Joni

[Guest guest]

Sounds interesting! I wish we could have been at the conference this year.

Dawn

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Joni Sare

Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 1:02 AM

Subject: Re: Pork and Dark Field Microscopy

'Kathy' mentioned a speaker on dark-field microsopy at next month's WAPF

conf ... this is neat to read just now b/c just this evening I saw Beverly

Rubik's presentation at her office in Emeryville. There were a dozen of us.

She'll do close to the same presentation at WAPF in Chicago. She did

qualitative blood analysis of people who have been on the WAPF diet for

quite some time (can't recall if she mentioned the length of time). The

slides showed very clean blood. Beverly is a friend and colleague, super

bright/knowledgeable ..... so, I hope you'll all get a chance to hear

her/meet her. She's the one to go to have a good thorough look at your

blood, arteries, HRV, and more. I bought the Jupitor Melody water filter

from her a couple of years ago. and love it. Oh boy, this is becoming an

infomercial... well, here's the blurb for her talk tonight... i think you'll

be interested ....

Studies on nutrition and drinking water in relation to health and

wellness have been done using life blood analysis, in which the blood

is magnified and visualized under a special microscope 8,000x. Exciting

visual data in the form of photographs and videos of live human blood

as seen under the microscope will be shown and explained. Witness the

remarkable effects of certain dietary supplements and other factors on

health and wellness at the cellular level.

Beverly Rubik, Ph.D.,

is internationally recognized for her research at the cutting edge of

science and medicine. She is also a faculty member in Integrative

Health both at California Inst. of Integral Studies and Saybrook. She

also maintains a holistic educational practice advising clients about

nutrition, drinking water, exercise, stress reduction, and more, to

enhance performance and well-being.

RSVP to Beverly to reserve now, as space is limited.

510-428-4084 or brubik@... <mailto:brubik%40earthlink.net>

Institute for Frontier Science, 4067 Watts Street, Emeryville, CA

Joni

[Guest guest]

If you eat a moderately healthy diet and have no illnesses your blood should

look fine.  However, you have to eat the pork within 24 hours for the effects of

it to show in the blood according to Sally Fallon's sources even for healthy

people.

It would be nice to test people that consumed grassfed pastured pork.  To

seperate the people that consumed no pork that day, people that consumed only

raw pork fat that day, people that consumed rendered pork fat that day, and

people that consumed the pork lean tissue that day.

From: Joni Sare <jonisare@...>

Subject: Re: Pork and Dark Field Microscopy

Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2009, 11:01 PM

 

'Kathy' mentioned a speaker on dark-field microsopy at next

month's WAPF conf ... this is neat to read just now b/c just this evening I saw

Beverly Rubik's presentation at her office in Emeryville. There were a dozen of

us. She'll do close to the same presentation at WAPF in Chicago. She did

qualitative blood analysis of people who have been on the WAPF diet for quite

some time (can't recall if she mentioned the length of time). The slides showed

very clean blood. Beverly is a friend and colleague, super bright/knowledgeabl e

...... so, I hope you'll all get a chance to hear her/meet her. She's the one to

go to have a good thorough look at your blood, arteries, HRV, and more. I bought

the Jupitor Melody water filter from her a couple of years ago. and love it. Oh

boy, this is becoming an infomercial. .. well, here's the blurb for her talk

tonight... i think you'll be interested ....

Studies on nutrition and drinking water in relation to health and

wellness have been done using life blood analysis, in which the blood

is magnified and visualized under a special microscope 8,000x. Exciting

visual data in the form of photographs and videos of live human blood

as seen under the microscope will be shown and explained. Witness the

remarkable effects of certain dietary supplements and other factors on

health and wellness at the cellular level.

Beverly Rubik, Ph.D.,

is internationally recognized for her research at the cutting edge of

science and medicine. She is also a faculty member in Integrative

Health both at California Inst. of Integral Studies and Saybrook. She

also maintains a holistic educational practice advising clients about

nutrition, drinking water, exercise, stress reduction, and more, to

enhance performance and well-being.

RSVP to Beverly to reserve now, as space is limited.

510-428-4084 or brubikearthlink (DOT) net

Institute for Frontier Science, 4067 Watts Street, Emeryville, CA

Joni

[Guest guest]

Actually, I don't think she said 24 hours.  She said several hours.  I don't

know why I have that number stuck in my head.  So you'll have to consume the

pork a couple hours before getting the blood checked.

From: Joni Sare <jonisare (DOT) com>

Subject: Re: Pork and Dark Field Microscopy

Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2009, 11:01 PM

 

'Kathy' mentioned a speaker on dark-field microsopy at next month's WAPF conf

.... this is neat to read just now b/c just this evening I saw Beverly Rubik's

presentation at her office in Emeryville. There were a dozen of us. She'll do

close to the same presentation at WAPF in Chicago. She did qualitative blood

analysis of people who have been on the WAPF diet for quite some time (can't

recall if she mentioned the length of time). The slides showed very clean blood.

Beverly is a friend and colleague, super bright/knowledgeabl e ..... so, I hope

you'll all get a chance to hear her/meet her. She's the one to go to have a good

thorough look at your blood, arteries, HRV, and more. I bought the Jupitor

Melody water filter from her a couple of years ago. and love it. Oh boy, this is

becoming an infomercial. .. well, here's the blurb for her talk tonight... i

think you'll be interested ....

Studies on nutrition and drinking water in relation to health and

wellness have been done using life blood analysis, in which the blood

is magnified and visualized under a special microscope 8,000x. Exciting

visual data in the form of photographs and videos of live human blood

as seen under the microscope will be shown and explained. Witness the

remarkable effects of certain dietary supplements and other factors on

health and wellness at the cellular level.

Beverly Rubik, Ph.D.,

is internationally recognized for her research at the cutting edge of

science and medicine. She is also a faculty member in Integrative

Health both at California Inst. of Integral Studies and Saybrook. She

also maintains a holistic educational practice advising clients about

nutrition, drinking water, exercise, stress reduction, and more, to

enhance performance and well-being.

RSVP to Beverly to reserve now, as space is limited.

510-428-4084 or brubikearthlink (DOT) net

Institute for Frontier Science, 4067 Watts Street, Emeryville, CA

Joni

[Guest guest]

Researchers, even though honest and competent, are limited, as we all

are, by what they know or can imagine. If they have no idea that

confinement farming makes a difference (most people probably haven't

ever thought about how food animals are raised), it wouldn't occur to

them to consider that a factor in study design. Thanks for finding this.

Jeanmarie

On Oct 6, 2009, at 9:59 PM, paulsonntagericson wrote:

> If you go to pubmed and search for " blood cancer pork " you get 11

> hits.

>

> Some of the studies are just horribly designed and make completely

> unjustified conclusions...

>

> ===============

> Prostate. 2009 Apr 1;69(5):548-58.

> Dietary fatty acid quality affects AR and PPARgamma levels and

> prostate growth.

>

> CONCLUSION: Lard makes prostates larger.

>

> But they're testing far more than lard. They're testing confinement

> raised, pesticide fed, antibiotic fed, hormone injected, high heat

> processed, possibly has transfat vegetable oil and BHT/BHQ lard.

>

> =================

> Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2008 Jan-Mar;9(1):71-5.

> Lifestyle-related risk factors for stomach cancer in northeast

> Thailand.

>

> CONCLUSION: Our study confirmed protective effects of a high intake

> of fruits and vegetables against stomach cancer development and

> showed a high intake of sauces to increase risk of stomach cancer as

> in other countries in Asia. (Pork oil was one sauce).

>

> But this is a large population study that only controlled for a tiny

> fraction of risk factors and behaviours that could contribute to

> stomach cancer. And again, what's in the pork oil? Pesticide or

> antibiotic residue, BHQ/BHT or other preservatives, transfat, etc?

> Or maybe it's something simple like the pork oil is used for frying

> or is rubbed on pork before BBQing. There simply aren't enough

> controls in this study to make it meaningful.

>

> ==============

> Int J Cancer. 2005 Jul 1;115(4):648-52.

> Prospective study of N-acetyltransferase-2 genotypes, meat intake,

> smoking and risk of colorectal cancer.

>

> CONCLUSION: Red meat causes colon cancer.

>

> This is another analysis of Nurses Health Study data which is

> fraught with problems because it uses dietary recall as a primary

> data collection method. And again, are they really studying red meat

> or read meat plus a raft load of novel molecules many of which are

> known carcinogens? Like why don't they use organic and pastured meat

> as a control? (Answer: cause truth doesn't really matter--read

> " Manufacture of Consent " by Chomsky to find out why)

>

> There were two other studies also investigating Heterocyclic amines

> (HAs) which are produced when you cook meat. So maybe it's not the

> meat, but the cooking. It's just amazing how much tunnel vision is

> involved in people's analysis of a problem. Eating raw meat is

> unthinkable in their minds so it never becomes a factor in the study.

> (I'm not a pro 100% raw meat person BTW, I'm just a regular WAPF-

> style eat some raw meat person)

>

> ==============

> I did find two studies investigating Ochratoxin A (OTA) which is a

> widespread mycotoxin present in pork meat, organs and blood:

>

> J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2000 Apr;23(2):91-8.

> Ochratoxin A from a toxicological perspective.

>

> Food Chem Toxicol. 2003 Aug;41(8):1133-40.

> New data on the occurrence of ochratoxin A in human sera from

> patients affected or not by renal diseases in Tunisia.

>

> But if this is causing what they are seeing, they should also see it

> in any meat and from cereal grains as well. Mycotoxins, and OTA, are

> not exclusive to pork. OTA is produced mainly by the mould fungi

> Aspergillus ochraceus and Penicillum verrucosum commonly found on

> cereal grains. But again, maybe it's all the fungicides that they

> put in the food to help stop these molds that are causing the

> problems. Do these people have any clue how to design a study with

> controls?

>

> I don't think this is what they are seeing--if they are seeing

> anything at all.

>

> So out of the 11 studies, none even remotely sounded like " pork

> makes your blood look cancerous " . And if they were onto something,

> they haven't been able to get it published or haven't tried.

>

> Considering pork has been a traditional food for probably like 1-2

> million years I wouldn't stop eating organic pastured pork. I would

> definitely suggest that you don't eat conventional, industrial,

> fecal farm, concentration camp pork. (Sorry I started to channel

> Salatin)

>

> Cheers,

>

>

>

>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I hate to bring this topic up again.

> > > >

> > > > I've been listening to a CD by Getoff of the Price-

> Pottinger

> > > > Foundation, titled Healthy Weigh Loss. When asked about pork, he

> > > said

> > > > that four independent scientists that didn't know each other

> have

> > > > demonstrated that the blood of healthy people starts to resemble

> > > that

> > > > of cancer patients after eating pork. Specifically here is the

> > > transcript:

> > > > =====transcript start

> > > > There is enough research on pork, from four different

> scientists,

> > > none

> > > > of whom knew each other, that all did different work on what is

> > > called

> > > > dark field microscopy, that appeared to show, and nobody has

> ever

> > > > disproven this, that if you look at somebody's blood that is

> very

> > > > healthy, and then you let that person eat some pork, even if

> it is

> > > > organic free-range and everything is correct, that within a

> half an

> > > > hour to an hour and a half, changes occur in the blood, visible,

> > > that

> > > > make their blood start to look more like the blood of a cancer

> > > > patient. I don't know what's going on with it. I haven't

> reproduced

> > > > that myself. But, I am convinced there is probably a problem and

> > > so if

> > > > somebody said is there one meat that you would not consume, I

> would

> > > > say pork.

> > > > ========transcript stop

> > > >

> > > > Anybody know anything else about this? I see that there will

> be a

> > > > speaker on the subject of Dark Field Microscopy at the WAPF

> > > conference

> > > > this year. Maybe somebody can ask!

> > > >

> > > > Kathy

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

What is meant by " live human blood " as opposed to how any lab does

blood analysis? A sample is drawn and stored in tubes, right? A bit is

put on a slide to put under the microscope right? What's the

difference here? Are preservatives or fixatives normally used but not

used here? I'm just trying to understand what is meant by the

terminology, what exactly is different about this procedure. If

anybody knows, thanks.

Jeanmarie

On Oct 6, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Joni Sare wrote:

> 'Kathy' mentioned a speaker on dark-field microsopy at next month's

> WAPF conf ... this is neat to read just now b/c just this evening I

> saw Beverly Rubik's presentation at her office in Emeryville. There

> were a dozen of us. She'll do close to the same presentation at WAPF

> in Chicago. She did qualitative blood analysis of people who have

> been on the WAPF diet for quite some time (can't recall if she

> mentioned the length of time). The slides showed very clean blood.

> Beverly is a friend and colleague, super bright/knowledgeable .....

> so, I hope you'll all get a chance to hear her/meet her. She's the

> one to go to have a good thorough look at your blood, arteries, HRV,

> and more. I bought the Jupitor Melody water filter from her a couple

> of years ago. and love it. Oh boy, this is becoming an

> infomercial... well, here's the blurb for her talk tonight... i

> think you'll be interested ....

>

> Studies on nutrition and drinking water in relation to health and

> wellness have been done using life blood analysis, in which the blood

> is magnified and visualized under a special microscope 8,000x.

> Exciting

> visual data in the form of photographs and videos of live human blood

> as seen under the microscope will be shown and explained. Witness the

> remarkable effects of certain dietary supplements and other factors on

> health and wellness at the cellular level.

>

> Beverly Rubik, Ph.D.,

> is internationally recognized for her research at the cutting edge of

> science and medicine. She is also a faculty member in Integrative

> Health both at California Inst. of Integral Studies and Saybrook. She

> also maintains a holistic educational practice advising clients about

> nutrition, drinking water, exercise, stress reduction, and more, to

> enhance performance and well-being.

> RSVP to Beverly to reserve now, as space is limited.

> 510-428-4084 or brubik@...

> Institute for Frontier Science, 4067 Watts Street, Emeryville, CA

> Joni

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sounds like the job of a hematologist.

> 'Kathy' mentioned a speaker on dark-field microsopy at next month's

> WAPF conf ... this is neat to read just now b/c just this evening I

> saw Beverly Rubik's presentation at her office in Emeryville. There

> were a dozen of us. She'll do close to the same presentation at WAPF

> in Chicago. She did qualitative blood analysis of people who have

> been on the WAPF diet for quite some time (can't recall if she

> mentioned the length of time). The slides showed very clean blood.

> Beverly is a friend and colleague, super bright/knowledgeabl e .....

> so, I hope you'll all get a chance to hear her/meet her. She's the

> one to go to have a good thorough look at your blood, arteries, HRV,

> and more. I bought the Jupitor Melody water filter from her a couple

> of years ago. and love it. Oh boy, this is becoming an

> infomercial. .. well, here's the blurb for her talk tonight... i

> think you'll be interested ....

>

> Studies on nutrition and drinking water in relation to health and

> wellness have been done using life blood analysis, in which the blood

> is magnified and visualized under a special microscope 8,000x.

> Exciting

> visual data in the form of photographs and videos of live human blood

> as seen under the microscope will be shown and explained. Witness the

> remarkable effects of certain dietary supplements and other factors on

> health and wellness at the cellular level.

>

> Beverly Rubik, Ph.D.,

> is internationally recognized for her research at the cutting edge of

> science and medicine. She is also a faculty member in Integrative

> Health both at California Inst. of Integral Studies and Saybrook. She

> also maintains a holistic educational practice advising clients about

> nutrition, drinking water, exercise, stress reduction, and more, to

> enhance performance and well-being.

> RSVP to Beverly to reserve now, as space is limited.

> 510-428-4084 or brubikearthlink (DOT) net

> Institute for Frontier Science, 4067 Watts Street, Emeryville, CA

> Joni

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

if I recall, there is a session at the upcoming Wise Traditions....

-jennifer

On Oct 7, 2009, at 5:20 PM, Holt wrote:

> Sounds like the job of a hematologist.

>

>

>

> From: Jeanmarie Todd <jaytee3@...>

> Subject: Re: Re: Pork and Dark Field Microscopy

>

> Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2009, 9:19 AM

>

>

>

> What is meant by " live human blood " as opposed to how any lab does

>

> blood analysis?

>

> .

>

>

[Guest guest]

A couple of notes on the mycotoxin thing. First, this can be tested for

in grain and often is because it can be harmful to livestock and not

just humans. Second, there is a study I read a while back from the EU

which showed feeding apple cores to hogs counteracted the affects of the

mycotoxins. Besides the applicability to this issue this speaks strongly

to the healthfulness of a diverse diet in feeding your animals and not

relying on traditional corn/soy rations.

But again, we're down to a problem with production practices and not the

product itself.

Pete

paulsonntagericson wrote:

>

>

> If you go to pubmed and search for " blood cancer pork " you get 11 hits.

>

> Some of the studies are just horribly designed and make completely

> unjustified conclusions...

>

> I did find two studies investigating Ochratoxin A (OTA) which is a

> widespread mycotoxin present in pork meat, organs and blood:

>

> J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2000 Apr;23(2):91-8.

> Ochratoxin A from a toxicological perspective.

>

> Food Chem Toxicol. 2003 Aug;41(8):1133-40.

> New data on the occurrence of ochratoxin A in human sera from patients

> affected or not by renal diseases in Tunisia.

>

> But if this is causing what they are seeing, they should also see it

> in any meat and from cereal grains as well. Mycotoxins, and OTA, are

> not exclusive to pork. OTA is produced mainly by the mould fungi

> Aspergillus ochraceus and Penicillum verrucosum commonly found on

> cereal grains. But again, maybe it's all the fungicides that they put

> in the food to help stop these molds that are causing the problems. Do

> these people have any clue how to design a study with controls?

>

> I don't think this is what they are seeing--if they are seeing

> anything at all.

>

> So out of the 11 studies, none even remotely sounded like " pork makes

> your blood look cancerous " . And if they were onto something, they

> haven't been able to get it published or haven't tried.

>

> Considering pork has been a traditional food for probably like 1-2

> million years I wouldn't stop eating organic pastured pork. I would

> definitely suggest that you don't eat conventional, industrial, fecal

> farm, concentration camp pork. (Sorry I started to channel Salatin)

>

> Cheers,

>

>

>

> .

>

>