Joanne ThomasonThanks Joanne, I was having the same reservations about Torres. We'll see! Regards: Robert Bartell ----- Original Message ----- From: Joanne To: silver-list Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 10:18 PM Subject: CS>Diabetes vaccine and fructose
I sent Dr. Torres message regarding a vaccine for diabetes to a f friend
who speaks spanish and was able to read his links. I also asked him the
question regarding fructose. His responses follow. He is very knowledgable
abourt nutrition.
Joanne
Dear Joanne
Since diabetes type II is not insulin-dependent (that is, the person's
pancreas
produces
insulin normally), but insulin-resistant (that is, the insulin does not
produce
the expected
results), it is clearly a bodily dysfunction that can be restored with proper
care. I know
that aerobic exercise, weight loss and proper food will do the trick.
Other things might work too.
Now, the way Alex Torres introduced his "vaccine" is quite suspicious. Firstly
with some irresponsible declaration about eating habits (in his previous
message);
secondly, with so many useless references to the doctor who invented the
vaccine.
It does not add value to know that he taught "Che" Guevara or that his
father's bone are in the "Rotunda".
The immunization process he mentions is very well known. It has been used
to treat a bunch of diseases, from acne and pustule to cancer and several
other degenerative diseases. The results have always been more or less
inconclusive.
Now, I want to be very careful about this because altough I find everything
here very suspect, I still think it might be worthwhile to do some additional
research.
It is a well-known fact that the tradional labs do not support medical
research
that leads to cheaper treatments, especially of those diseases that force the
patient to take medicine for the rest of theirs lives. This represents
trillions
of dollars a year and no lab wants to lose this.
Also, researches conducted outside the US are not readily accepted by American
authorities.
I read one of the articles mentioned by Alex Torres. Unfortunately, it is not
a good document. It is emotional. It mentions 600 patients cured of several
diseases, especially diabetes. But the way they "prove" the cure it by
quoting the patients themselves. No blind test, no double blind, no lab tests
are referred to. It still may work, but the articles are not acceptable.
So, I am NOT saying this auto-vaccine can not work or will not work.
What I am saying is that
it requires further investigation before someone decides to take the risk of
having manipulated blood re-injected in his/her body. Since the blood is
his/her own, risk is minimum, but still exists. Especially because flasks can
be
intermixed, etc.
Also, good eating habits plus exercise will not only control diabetes but also
bring other benefits. So, the most conservative and the safest decision
is try this first.
The general tone of Alex' messages coincides with the tone I found in the
articles and papers he mentions: the cure does exist, but Mexican authorities
are not interested in acknowledging it; American authorities will not
recognize
his merits; ...
Nothing he says is necessarly wrong, but suspicious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion people should not eat any form of "purified" or "refined"
sugar. This includes
fructose. In fact, sucrose, saccharose, glucose, maltose and the several
other "ose" are
all "empty" calorie. What this means is very serious. Let's say you eat 100g
of any of
these sugars. You'll get 400 calories, but no vitamins, no minerals, no
proteins, no fat.
You still need such nutrients, so you'll have to eat additional food to get
those elements.
What is worse: your body can not process sugar without consuming enzymes,
vitamins
and minerals, so you'll have to eat MORE in order to compensate for the
nutrients
the empty calorie food used up.
So, you have two good reasons NOT to eat any form of sugar: a) excess
calories;
b) nutrients depletion.
Now, fructose, in a sense is better than all the other sugars, the reason
being it has
a low glycemic index, which means it does not play havoc with your
insulin/glucagon
production, as the other sugars do.
So, from the point of view of insulin resistance, fructose is better. >From
the point of
view of nutrition, it is the same.
There is another little factor in favor of fructose: since is it 1.5 times
sweeter than
sucrose (table sugar), you would take less to have the same effect, so you
tend to
end up with a little less empty calories.
Now, there is a situation where you should NOT be affraid of fructose: when
you eat
fresh fruits, like apples. In this case you'll be ingesting little fructose
(maybe 15 g)
and it will be accompanied by very important vitamins, minerals, fiber,
enzymes, pectin,
etc. So, go for it!
Again, once fructose is synthesized or "extracted" from the fruits it is not
good
anymore. Now, if you MUST have something sweet, among the bad stuff,
fructose is the least dangerous.
Joanne Thomason
[email protected]
This is my Beautiful Sami Jo
Click on me to send my mommy mail :-)
<<samismlstat100.JPG>>
