Re: feedback about The Beautiful Truth movie...

[Guest guest]

Kelvin,

In the past 1 1/2 years I have been reading about nutrition based therapies.

Googling Max Gerson , Ann Wigmore, and Carey Reams will give you alot of

material to support the idea that we get sick because we are lacking proper

nutrition. Our foods just don't have the mineral content we need. If we also

have problems digesting our foods, then we are getting even less nutrition.

Reams measured each persons body chemistry by using urine and saliva tests that

can be performed by anyone with equipment costing about $300. He then suggested

a diet that would bring the body chemistry closer to the levels that he found

would return people to good health.

Juicing the fruits and vegetables, like Gerson and Wigmore suggest, seems like a

good way to get the most nutrition from our food in a form that is more

available to our bodies. I have read that it is benefiting the body in about 20

minutes with nutrients being absorbed by the stomach and not requiring any

heavey work to be done by the intestines.

The following articles will tell you how to MEASURE the quality of fruits and

vegetables by measuring the Brix of the juice with simple device called a

refractometer.

USING A REFRACTOMETER TO TEST THE QUALITY OF FRUITS & VEGETABLES

http://crossroads.ws/brixbook/BBook.htm

The Quest for Nutrient Density

By Jon C.

http://www.highbrixgardens.com/foods/quest.html

The Quest for Nutrient-Dense Food--High-Brix Farming and Gardening

An Interview with Rex Harrill by Suze Fisher

http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/nutrient-dense.html

take care,

Greg

>

> For anyone who's seen the documentary... y'know that scene where they do the

> energy radiating photography on veggies and fruits? It just occurred to me

> recently... had anyone considered the FRESHNESS of the produce that was

> taken in the photography?? I suspect that the freshness of the produce has

> a HUGE impact on whether you see the energy radiating from the produce in

> the pix or not... and less likely to do with the fact it's organic or not.

>

> while i'm a big fan of organic, I only question the slant some of these

> types of " documentaries " have when putting out a documentary with a hidden

> agenda. either side has to be watched with a critical eye and not to take

> things for granted what each side is accurate OR necessarily the full fact

> under the right context!

> the recent controversy over whether organic is truly more nutritious than

> conventional produce got me thinking. just by plain observation.. assuming

> the seeds of produce are not GMO... shouldn't one be able get a clue the

> health of a fruit/veggie by the external characteristics - appearance to

> feel to smell, etc? afterall, how can produce have similar outward

> characteristics from another if it's " not as healthy " b/c of " fake

> nutrients " from the process of man-made science? of course, i haven't

> looked into any research to back this observation... but some independent

> thinking made me wonder. granted, we CAN measure nutritional content of

> what we can measure... and apparently, that's what these 160+ science papers

> did in coming to a consensus that organics have not been shown to be more

> nutritionally superior to conventional produce.

>

> for example, a tomato of the same type... if a conventional tomatoe looks as

> deep red as an organic... as plump... as .. . " vivacious " and as fragrant (or

> even more so)... can't we come to a common sense assumption that the

> conventional tomatos is prolly just as nutritious as the organic tomato?

> afterall... it's not a GMO seed. just as we are what we eat... and symptoms

> can manifest from the wrong /malnutritious nutrients or deficient quantities

> in our bodies...so can it be seen for produce.

>

> HOWEVER, that said, independent thinking would lead to believe that a more

> nutritious soil source (organic) free of contaminants and chemicals and

> other man-made elements in the soil would produce/sustain a more healthy

> produce than conventional soil. the article did no take into account

> pesticides and other toxins... AND our current technology can only track

> known elements in produce... there's so much more to understand from nature

> about the intricate details of enzymes, antioxidants, and who knows what

> other or how many nutrients in produce!

>

> btw, just looked up the recent controversy and found it here:

> http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18702.cfm

>

> --

> to your optimal health, wealth, and happiness,

>

> Kelvin

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I would hope there is no person on this list that doesn't realize the value of

nutrition for overall good health including, of course, cancer.

That being said, we must not make the mistake of thinking it is 'all nutrition'

because it isn't. There are many people stricken with cancer that eat fairly

well. According to some Alternative practitioners, those people would not

benefit as much from adhering to a strict dietary protocol.

We should not make the mistake of thinking cancer is only caused by a poor diet,

or lack of nutrition and we do not even know that most of it is caused because

of that.

That kind of thinking precludes the other potential causes or contributing

factors of pesticides and other chemical exposures along with toxemia from a

faulty metabolic system (elimination). Some might say that these causative

factors would be lessened by proper nutrition and that may be so but it probably

cannot account for full protection against these other exposures. I did not

even touch on the mental/psychological events that some strongly believe have a

relationship to cancer development.

Again, none of what I write is meant to denigrate the importance of nutrition

because that would be foolish.

Another subject is the suggestion by people that because some they are involved

with have been 'cured' because they seem to have had their cancer 'turned

around'. My neighbor who was diagnosed with SCLC (Small Cell Lung Cancer) has

had quite a decent five years, if one calls a year of chemo/radiation good. He

has amazed me how well he recovered and again taking up tennis and bike riding.

Until yesterday that is. Apparently there are two 'hot spots' that showed up

during a scan. One is on his colon and the other near his prostate. We do

not know cancer has re-surfaced, but for all intents and purposes, he thought he

was fine. From time to time this list sees people that are involved with

'treating people' come and go and eventually we find the 'old reliables'

continue on with their reasonable and time-tested results.

I suppose what I am saying is, do not jump into the arms of someone simply

because they 'say' they are doing such and such or 'curing' so and so. Where

is the evidence? Where are the years of experience dealing with cancer

patients, patients with a disease that is multi-faceted not simply one cause one

cure fits all.

Joe C.