Amazoniac
Member
This is the first time that a reply came before a comment.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
Or maybe their form as a salt too? My chemistry understanding is sorely lacking, but could it also be their combined form as salt that is at least part of the issue? Sodium and chloride in other forms might be more available for other uses? And maybe something similar with other minerals. It's not just about how readily they are absorbed into the bloodstream, but whether the liver and the rest of the body can put them to good use in the form they arrive in.Do you think the negative effects of sodium chloride attribute to the sodium, or the chloride? Or both?
Which might be a really good reason for not overdoing the refined sucrose etc - ie not making it a major fuel source too much of the time, since it displaces potassium(etc)-containing fruits and roots, and for some people milk?Ray's official response is that salt's negative effects are simply the manifestations of a lack of enough potassium, magnesium and calcium.
As i've said many times, Ray dosn't really have a cancer cure plan.
Except anecdotal bits and pieces here and there, like personal accounts of cures (leukemia cured by egg noggs, etc...)
I believe he actually avoids the subject of cancer cure like the pest ( )....
That's why i reckon it's a missed opportunity by him not to comment on the Gerson diet, which, let's recognize, cures people without really explaining how, and hasn't been further developed since it appeared in the 1950's.
As far as cured cancer patients needing to remain on the diet for tens of years; yes, but it's a modified therapy, sort of half normal and half Gerson.
It's explained in the books.
burtlan, if that's the case, then he could reconsider it because you need a protocol for emergencies; there's not enough time available. Just like there's a protocol for first aid, primary immunity, etc. How are you supposed to involve a person on the treatment of an advanced cancer considering that perhaps they never had the chance to develop self-awareness in the first place?Oh, and one more thing that might explain his sort of neglect regarding these authors, could be that he finds more value in individualized treatment, instead of generalized protocols.
Here is the video that inspired me to start using potassium bicarbonate.
How much potassium do you supplement per dose?
burtlan, if that's the case, then he could reconsider it because you need a protocol for emergencies; there's not enough time available. Just like there's a protocol for first aid, primary immunity, etc. How are you supposed to involve a person on the treatment of an advanced cancer considering that perhaps they never had the chance to develop self-awareness in the first place?
But Ray, on his latest interview (Generative Energy, Food), explained that when the situation was risky (suicidal was the case), he would not let the person be in charge of the situation, he would rather tell them immediately what to do. I guess that the same applies here..
How is he supposed to develop Max's ideas without positioning himself and running into legal problems? Because by development it's implied that you criticize what you disagree and improve it.Ray would go straight to prison if he started writing and speaking about what people should do if they had cancer. Only doctors can speak about cancer cures.
But on the other hand, he could cite Gerson's scientific arguments and develop them further, without actually stating point blank it's a cure for cancer.
He was talking about persons being suicidal from hypothyroidism; a completely different matter from cancer. You can dose yourself with pregnenolone, progesterone or thyroid, and feel the amelioration in a matter of hours.
Cancer takes years to treat; some people compare it to diabetes type 2; you can control it, but never cure it for certain.
How is he supposed to develop Max's ideas without positioning himself and running into legal problems?
.
Then the next month he's in court being sued by someone's family, who tried his suggestions, because Max's protocol wasn't working as expected." I think Gerson's protocol could be improved by doing this...and this...."
See.
How hard is it?
Then the next month he's in court being sued by someone's family, who tried his suggestions, because Max's protocol wasn't working as expected.
as soon as he gives suggestions, he's modifying the treatment and it becomes A Cancer Therapy 2.0.
It's the way out then: pointing out whatever is inconsistent." A review of the scientific content of the Gerson therapy, in light of contemporary advancements in physiology"
Where's the beef?
He can even add a disclaimer about "his work not constituting medical advice, bla bla...", something that nearly every cancer book does.
It's the way out then: pointing out whatever is inconsistent.
Their views conflict on some points. How to concile? One has to give in, so one of the views is inconsistent on those circumstances..Inconsistent?
Just because he can't cure everybody?