Good old 'sense and balance'....? Works!
Asparagus
Certainly won't do any harm to try it if needed. As for the AMA, sounds about right.
ASPARAGUS
A lady had been taking the full-stalk canned style asparagus that she pureed and she took 4 tablespoons in the morning and 4 tablespoons later in the day.
20
She did this for over a month.
She is on chemo pills for Stage 3 lung cancer in the pleural area and her cancer cell count went from 386 down to 125 as of this past week.
Her oncologist said she does not 20
need to see him for 3 months.
THE ARTICLE:
Several years ago,
I had a man seeking asparagus
for a friend who had cancer.
He gave me a photocopied copy
of an article, entitled,
..Asparagus for cancer' printed in Cancer News Journal, December 1979.
I will share it here,
just as it was shared with =2 0 me:
'I am a biochemist,and have specialized in the relation of diet to health
for over 50 years..
Several years ago, I learned of the
discovery of Richard R. Vensal, D.D.S.
that asparagus might cure cancer..
Since then, I have worked
with him on his project.
We have accumulated a
number of favorable case histories.
Here =2 0 are a few examples:
Case No.
1, A man with an almost hopeless case of Hodgkin's disease
(cancer of the lymph glands) who was completely incapacitated.
Within 1 year of starting the asparagus the rapy, his doctors were unable to detect any signs of cancer, and he was back on a schedule of strenuous exercise.
Case No. 2, a successful businessman
68 years old who suffered from
cancer of the bladder for 16 years.
After years of medical treatments, including radiation without improvement, he went on asparagus.
Within 3 months,
examinations revealed that his bladder tumor had disappeared and 20
that his kidneys were normal.
Case No. 3, a man who had lung cancer.
On March 5th 1971, he was put on
the operating table where they found20lung cancer so widely spread that it was inoperable.
The surgeon sewed him up and declared
his case hopeless.
On April 5th he heard about the asparagus therapy and immediately started taking it.
By August, x-ray pictures revealed that all signs of the cancer had disappeared..
He is back at his regular business routine.
Case No.
4, a woman who was troubled for a number of years with skin cancer.
She finally developed different skin cancers which were diagnosed by the acting specialist as advanced.
Within 3 months after starting on
asparagus, her skin specialist said 20
that her skin looked fine and no more skin lesions.
This woman reported that the asparagus therapy also cured her kidney =2 0 disease, which started in 1949.
She had over 10 operations for kidney stones, and was receiving government disability paym ents for an inoperable, terminal, kidney condition.
She attributes the cure of this kidney trouble entirely to the asparagus.
I was not surprised at this result, 20
as ..The elements of materia medica',
edited in 1854 by a Professor at the University of Pennsylvania , stated that
asparagus was used as a popular remedy for kidney stones.
He even referred to experiments, in 1739,
on the power of asparagus in dissolving stones.
Note the dates!
We would have other case histories
but the medical establishment has
interfered with our obtaining some of the =2 0 records.
I am therefore appealing to readers to spread this good news and help us to gather a large number of case histories that will overwhelm the medical skeptics about this unbelievably simple and natural remedy.
For the treatment, asparagus should be cooked before using, and therefore
canned asparagus is just as good as fresh.
I have corresponded with the two leading canners of asparagus, Giant and
Stokely, and I am satisfied that
these brands contain no pesticides or
preservatives.
Place the cooked asparagus in a blender
and liquefy to make a puree, and
store in the refrigerator.
Give the patient 4 full tablespoons
twice daily, morning and evening.
Patients usually show some improvement
in from 2-4 weeks.
It can be diluted with water and used
20
as a cold or hot drink.
This suggested dosage is based on
present experience, but certainly larger amounts can do no harm and may
be needed in some cases.
As a biochemist I am convinced of the old saying that ..
=2 0
what cures can prevent'.
Based on this theory, my wife and I have been using asparagus puree as
a beverage with our meals.
We take 2 tablespoons diluted in
water to suit our taste with breakfast
and with dinner.
I take mine hot and my wife prefers hers cold.
For years we have made it a practice
to have blood surveys taken as part
of our regular checkups.
The last blood survey, taken by a medical doctor who specializes in the
nutritional approach to health, showed substantial improvements in all
categories over the last one, and we can attribute these improvements to nothing but the asparagus drink...
As a biochemist, I have made an extensive study of all aspects of cancer,
and all of the proposed cures.
As a result, I am convinced that
asparagus fits in better with the
latest theories about cancer.
Asparagus contains a good supply of protein called histones, which are
believed to be active in controlling cell growth.
For that reason,
I believe asparagus can be said 20 to
contain a substance that I call cell growth normalizer.
That accounts for its action on cancer
and in acting as a general body tonic.
In any event, regardless of theory, asparagus used as we suggest, is a
harmless substance.
The FDA cannot prevent you from using it and it may do you much good.
It has been reported by the US National Cancer Institute, that asparagus is =2 0 the
highest tested food containing glutathione, which is considered
20
one of the body's most potent anticarcinogens and antioxidants.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Longtime Property Owners; The Yearsley's in White Rock Won Over The City of White Rock Council.
Forward an article from Vancouver Sun, Vancouver BC Canada
Judge orders council to approve unpopular condo complex
By Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver SunMay 31, 2009 9:01 PM
A B.C. Supreme Court judge has ordered White Rock city council to issue a development permit for a six-storey building after finding the city unlawfully rejected the project because of public opposition.
Justice Janice Dillon ruled Friday the city acted “in excess of its jurisdiction” when it refused to give Jacqueline and Robert Yearsley permission to build a condominium and commercial project on Victoria Avenue in the city’s waterfront business district.
The Yearsleys, who own Sausalito Bed and Breakfast, said they have been trying since 2005 to get city approval to redevelop the land.
Their plan met all the city’s bylaw and zoning requirements. But the city rejected the application, citing its design — saying it was too high and out of character with the neighbourhood — and public opposition to the project.
But the judge found the city went far beyond its scope in considering the project and didn’t give adequate reasons for rejecting it, noting “reliance on public opinion is not a relevant consideration if it is not linked to legitimate factors within the zoning bylaw or the [Official Community Plan].
“Council acted to refuse the application because of unspecified, vague stated concerns that are not referenced in the OCP, including implied concern about height, regardless that the proposed building was within the height requirements of zoning and OCP guidelines...,” the judge stated.
The Yearsleys said Sunday they were elated by the judgment, which wraps up a suit filed in June last year. City council will discuss the judgment in a closed meeting today, said Coun. Mary-Wade Anderson, who refused to comment on the court finding.
The city has, however, issued a statement saying a development permit will soon be issued for the property, which is set one block back from Marine Drive and is zoned commercial/residential.
“I’m feeling pretty vindicated,” said Robert Yearsley, a realtor who has owned the Victoria Avenue property for 20 years. “It’s a pretty major thing ... I had no idea, having zoned property, that I’d face this kind of obstruction and unlawfulness. All my rights were trampled on.”
Yearsley claims that prior to the suit being filed, the city, which passed its Official Community Plan last September, tried to change the law and develop new guidelines in hopes of preventing the project. He said the city owns the property next door.
“What the councillors wanted to do was to try and override the bylaw by imposing their personal likes and dislikes,” he said. “This is hopefully going to be able to lead to a standard where developers and municipalities have no excuses when they evaluate a project.”
The proposed development would replace the existing bed-and-breakfast, which is two storeys.
Although the building is within the allowable height, most nearby buildings are three to four storeys. The project is allowable, however, because the property slopes upwards from the front street side toward the back. The development would consist of 804 square feet of commercial space with 19 residential units.
ksinoski@vancouversun.com"
Compliments of www.Whiterockreporter.com
Judge orders council to approve unpopular condo complex
By Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver SunMay 31, 2009 9:01 PM
A B.C. Supreme Court judge has ordered White Rock city council to issue a development permit for a six-storey building after finding the city unlawfully rejected the project because of public opposition.
Justice Janice Dillon ruled Friday the city acted “in excess of its jurisdiction” when it refused to give Jacqueline and Robert Yearsley permission to build a condominium and commercial project on Victoria Avenue in the city’s waterfront business district.
The Yearsleys, who own Sausalito Bed and Breakfast, said they have been trying since 2005 to get city approval to redevelop the land.
Their plan met all the city’s bylaw and zoning requirements. But the city rejected the application, citing its design — saying it was too high and out of character with the neighbourhood — and public opposition to the project.
But the judge found the city went far beyond its scope in considering the project and didn’t give adequate reasons for rejecting it, noting “reliance on public opinion is not a relevant consideration if it is not linked to legitimate factors within the zoning bylaw or the [Official Community Plan].
“Council acted to refuse the application because of unspecified, vague stated concerns that are not referenced in the OCP, including implied concern about height, regardless that the proposed building was within the height requirements of zoning and OCP guidelines...,” the judge stated.
The Yearsleys said Sunday they were elated by the judgment, which wraps up a suit filed in June last year. City council will discuss the judgment in a closed meeting today, said Coun. Mary-Wade Anderson, who refused to comment on the court finding.
The city has, however, issued a statement saying a development permit will soon be issued for the property, which is set one block back from Marine Drive and is zoned commercial/residential.
“I’m feeling pretty vindicated,” said Robert Yearsley, a realtor who has owned the Victoria Avenue property for 20 years. “It’s a pretty major thing ... I had no idea, having zoned property, that I’d face this kind of obstruction and unlawfulness. All my rights were trampled on.”
Yearsley claims that prior to the suit being filed, the city, which passed its Official Community Plan last September, tried to change the law and develop new guidelines in hopes of preventing the project. He said the city owns the property next door.
“What the councillors wanted to do was to try and override the bylaw by imposing their personal likes and dislikes,” he said. “This is hopefully going to be able to lead to a standard where developers and municipalities have no excuses when they evaluate a project.”
The proposed development would replace the existing bed-and-breakfast, which is two storeys.
Although the building is within the allowable height, most nearby buildings are three to four storeys. The project is allowable, however, because the property slopes upwards from the front street side toward the back. The development would consist of 804 square feet of commercial space with 19 residential units.
ksinoski@vancouversun.com"
Compliments of www.Whiterockreporter.com
Monday, May 25, 2009
Non-Smoking By-Law in White Rock a 'Paper Tiger'
My Letter to the Mayor of White Rock, BC and its Council, dated 24th May 2009.
Why can some establishments on Marine Drive get away with 'allowing smoking' on their patios?
Time for change to the most sensible solution!
Who is in Charge of the implementation of and enforcing of the 'non-smoking' by-law for White Rock proper??
Today it is May 24 Sun. 2009
By-Laws, per se, are 'Paper Tigers' if they are not enforced and practiced, adhered to, by the public or property
owners and by those hospitality establishments they [by-laws] are also to govern.
The Smoking By-Laws as proposed initially [by some overly purist and zealous councilor] and now in effect and to be duly enforced is getting a 'failing grade'. There are too many parts of the City of White Rock that many, many laugh at.
As sensational it was from the get go that White Rock boosted its [legal actions against smokers] being the most stringent in our BC Province and ranking as a first to limit freedom for a populous group of smokers [nicotine addicts] as ridiculous is it to realize there is no enforcement in place [to harvest fines, dole out warning tickets or whatever].
To the Mayor and city Council I must say: 'What's this all about? Was your decision 'election goodies for the few in the pew' or were you thinking only half way of the practical implications and education needed to be in place to further your lecturing ambitions for our seemingly so far healthy society of citizens of White Rock..
You should know that 'Smoking is out! and that 'Not to Smoke' is very much IN by most of our population.
Months after this crucial attempt on the part of the White Rock Council and its former Mayor to 'educate and restrict the public [including the visiting tourists] on health issues' the writer of this can only conclude the bylaw and its lack of 'power to be enforced' is redundant, failed and is a 'Paper Tiger' merely as is adding to the increase in costs for the taxpayers and a nuisance to the public at large.
If enforced I am of the opinion the non-smoking by-law should apply to all and not just those establishments who have selected to abide by the laws of our community. For instance and only as an example, let me point to the ridiculous inconsistency in formulation of the mentioned by-law as pertaining to the health of non-smokers or smokers and their infants and teen age children.
There is no 'rhyme and reason' in a by-law being enforced outside the premises of any hospitality and restaurant or entertaining establishment which businesses need both rely upon its capacity to cater to both non-smokers and smokers as a visiting guest group. And this to maintain service to all and thus is a business establishment to cater to a guest clientele which now by the by-law is inconvenienced.
It doesn't call for a rocket scientist or a degree as a PhD in social sciences to figure out the obvious character of the environment the by-law should be adequately functioning within and the environments realistic to serve best in; i.e. inside facilities, the interior of buildings of any category.
Consider the street level concentrations of the 'volatile organic gases', carbon-dioxide and many more pollutants from the exhausts delivered by motor driven vehicles coasting back and forth on streets like Marine Drive, 152nd Street and from cars and truck traffic on any other of our Avenues, uptown or on the seaside of White Rock.
Consequently [unless the City is going to ban cars on our main drags] I beg to differ with those in the city who approved the non-smoking by-law to apply to patios, and decided it was and is an intelligent decision to include the 'last resort' for smokers; the patios, verandas also being 'off-limits' for smokers
[What about the beverages consumed on same patios attached to the pub buildings and restaurant building envelopes?
Beer and booze may be 'healthy organic' source but still it's not less addictive than smoking. Of course this is in a general perspective of the issues touched upon here. but requires another chapter.]
In Europe and in North America I have seen signs reading:
"Welcome to our restaurant, pub and grill. For health and comfort concerns for all our guests & employees we ask you and your party not to smoke inside our premises. Thank you" Signed: The Management.
Pretty smart idea, eh? It's all about marketing!!
Compliance need to start with education for cooperation.
And by the way. Who is assigned the responsibility of making sure no smoking takes place on the patio of the Sandpiper Pub, as an example? Some smokers drew my attention to this popular venue.
Or for that matter on any patio like .... Wings, Giraffe, Cielo, Italian Touch, Frond's Bistro, Iquana, The Pier, the BoatHouse, West Beach Bistro and Cosmos to mention a few??
I attach no photos for proof.
Go and see for yourselves.
Really, it looks ridiculous.
The work and good public relations desired on the part of all is taking a beating and is challenged by your lack of experience to have insight in this issue and situation.
Did you ask any of the patio owners before you decided to include compliance also for patios? Are there exceptions to the rule?
Make White Rock famous for 'the good things' that are, or to come. And not for the 'negatives'. Since you have no designated authority to whome should be enfocing the by-law
Of course, this only if you wish to polish and improve your somewhat dented or tampered with and roughed up image, caused by other organizations and events pertaining to the businesses of White Rock, your involvement and its public and merchants.
Respectfully I am hoping to notice some tangible results and action on your part after you've read the above.
Johan Sandstrom, -non-smoker- White Rock [I quit smoking April 1, 1997]
Why can some establishments on Marine Drive get away with 'allowing smoking' on their patios?
Time for change to the most sensible solution!
Who is in Charge of the implementation of and enforcing of the 'non-smoking' by-law for White Rock proper??
Today it is May 24 Sun. 2009
By-Laws, per se, are 'Paper Tigers' if they are not enforced and practiced, adhered to, by the public or property
owners and by those hospitality establishments they [by-laws] are also to govern.
The Smoking By-Laws as proposed initially [by some overly purist and zealous councilor] and now in effect and to be duly enforced is getting a 'failing grade'. There are too many parts of the City of White Rock that many, many laugh at.
As sensational it was from the get go that White Rock boosted its [legal actions against smokers] being the most stringent in our BC Province and ranking as a first to limit freedom for a populous group of smokers [nicotine addicts] as ridiculous is it to realize there is no enforcement in place [to harvest fines, dole out warning tickets or whatever].
To the Mayor and city Council I must say: 'What's this all about? Was your decision 'election goodies for the few in the pew' or were you thinking only half way of the practical implications and education needed to be in place to further your lecturing ambitions for our seemingly so far healthy society of citizens of White Rock..
You should know that 'Smoking is out! and that 'Not to Smoke' is very much IN by most of our population.
Months after this crucial attempt on the part of the White Rock Council and its former Mayor to 'educate and restrict the public [including the visiting tourists] on health issues' the writer of this can only conclude the bylaw and its lack of 'power to be enforced' is redundant, failed and is a 'Paper Tiger' merely as is adding to the increase in costs for the taxpayers and a nuisance to the public at large.
If enforced I am of the opinion the non-smoking by-law should apply to all and not just those establishments who have selected to abide by the laws of our community. For instance and only as an example, let me point to the ridiculous inconsistency in formulation of the mentioned by-law as pertaining to the health of non-smokers or smokers and their infants and teen age children.
There is no 'rhyme and reason' in a by-law being enforced outside the premises of any hospitality and restaurant or entertaining establishment which businesses need both rely upon its capacity to cater to both non-smokers and smokers as a visiting guest group. And this to maintain service to all and thus is a business establishment to cater to a guest clientele which now by the by-law is inconvenienced.
It doesn't call for a rocket scientist or a degree as a PhD in social sciences to figure out the obvious character of the environment the by-law should be adequately functioning within and the environments realistic to serve best in; i.e. inside facilities, the interior of buildings of any category.
Consider the street level concentrations of the 'volatile organic gases', carbon-dioxide and many more pollutants from the exhausts delivered by motor driven vehicles coasting back and forth on streets like Marine Drive, 152nd Street and from cars and truck traffic on any other of our Avenues, uptown or on the seaside of White Rock.
Consequently [unless the City is going to ban cars on our main drags] I beg to differ with those in the city who approved the non-smoking by-law to apply to patios, and decided it was and is an intelligent decision to include the 'last resort' for smokers; the patios, verandas also being 'off-limits' for smokers
[What about the beverages consumed on same patios attached to the pub buildings and restaurant building envelopes?
Beer and booze may be 'healthy organic' source but still it's not less addictive than smoking. Of course this is in a general perspective of the issues touched upon here. but requires another chapter.]
In Europe and in North America I have seen signs reading:
"Welcome to our restaurant, pub and grill. For health and comfort concerns for all our guests & employees we ask you and your party not to smoke inside our premises. Thank you" Signed: The Management.
Pretty smart idea, eh? It's all about marketing!!
Compliance need to start with education for cooperation.
And by the way. Who is assigned the responsibility of making sure no smoking takes place on the patio of the Sandpiper Pub, as an example? Some smokers drew my attention to this popular venue.
Or for that matter on any patio like .... Wings, Giraffe, Cielo, Italian Touch, Frond's Bistro, Iquana, The Pier, the BoatHouse, West Beach Bistro and Cosmos to mention a few??
I attach no photos for proof.
Go and see for yourselves.
Really, it looks ridiculous.
The work and good public relations desired on the part of all is taking a beating and is challenged by your lack of experience to have insight in this issue and situation.
Did you ask any of the patio owners before you decided to include compliance also for patios? Are there exceptions to the rule?
Make White Rock famous for 'the good things' that are, or to come. And not for the 'negatives'. Since you have no designated authority to whome should be enfocing the by-law
Of course, this only if you wish to polish and improve your somewhat dented or tampered with and roughed up image, caused by other organizations and events pertaining to the businesses of White Rock, your involvement and its public and merchants.
Respectfully I am hoping to notice some tangible results and action on your part after you've read the above.
Johan Sandstrom, -non-smoker- White Rock [I quit smoking April 1, 1997]
Friday, April 3, 2009
Don't You Worry About YouTube Owned by Google!
In the midst of global financial economic crisis one can read:
" Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) could lose nearly half a billion dollars operating online video site YouTube Inc. over the course of 2009, according to a research report issued by Credit Suisse ."
Conclusively and against all sense and balance I wrote this, the following, to an influential friend of mine. This with the hope he would respond and tell me he too shared my more optimistic agenda than what Banque Credit Suisse claim to be theirs.
I'm now looking for more tea leaves to be able to complete my 'fortune-sigh' for YouTube.
I guess what I'm saying is that it's anybody's guess what may be in the cards for YouTube.
Subject: YouTube in the tank already? No, not so, not at all. Monetizing process underway..will gain revenues in billions 2010. Rich, super rich, mega rich parent footing the bills.
Hi Johan here, Please let me know if you share my assumption
The rumors that YouTube stands to have a total loss at end of 2009 of about::: $470M is grossly exaggerated and built on insignificant data and analysis made by pipe-dreamers. It's all in the grand plan.
Do I think YouTube provided services, hosting, will be 'kosten los' without costs in the future? No! I think the parent company [Google] the owner will impose some sort of charge, fee for everyone of us using its hosting services.
This rumor was born on the date of First of April ; April 1st joke! I am sure. Or did it come out from the Economic Summit in London this week. Don't tell me you think BO is part of a conspiracy. I love the guy, he is an 'on-line person' almost.
Media is loving the hype about YouTube 'cause it is truly a consumer-friendly service' and does bridge the culture gaps between nations and people and creates a knowledge based chain of intellectual information exchange and education in so many ways.
No wonders so many ill-fated organization like to see YouTube to go into the tank of oblivion and never to come back.
Many organizations are sitting ducks and ready to take over this giant Google created and this for no other benefit than their own to own..
I am amazed that media and pundits do reign in their various territories and love to 'rattle the cage and wake up the slumbering dragon' for no other reason than to bolster their egos.
Be well YouTube !
There is always a sun behind the clouds.
Johan Sandstrom, BComm.
www.whiterockreporter.com
www.youtube.com/whiterockreporter
" Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) could lose nearly half a billion dollars operating online video site YouTube Inc. over the course of 2009, according to a research report issued by Credit Suisse ."
Conclusively and against all sense and balance I wrote this, the following, to an influential friend of mine. This with the hope he would respond and tell me he too shared my more optimistic agenda than what Banque Credit Suisse claim to be theirs.
I'm now looking for more tea leaves to be able to complete my 'fortune-sigh' for YouTube.
I guess what I'm saying is that it's anybody's guess what may be in the cards for YouTube.
Subject: YouTube in the tank already? No, not so, not at all. Monetizing process underway..will gain revenues in billions 2010. Rich, super rich, mega rich parent footing the bills.
Hi Johan here, Please let me know if you share my assumption
The rumors that YouTube stands to have a total loss at end of 2009 of about::: $470M is grossly exaggerated and built on insignificant data and analysis made by pipe-dreamers. It's all in the grand plan.
Do I think YouTube provided services, hosting, will be 'kosten los' without costs in the future? No! I think the parent company [Google] the owner will impose some sort of charge, fee for everyone of us using its hosting services.
This rumor was born on the date of First of April ; April 1st joke! I am sure. Or did it come out from the Economic Summit in London this week. Don't tell me you think BO is part of a conspiracy. I love the guy, he is an 'on-line person' almost.
Media is loving the hype about YouTube 'cause it is truly a consumer-friendly service' and does bridge the culture gaps between nations and people and creates a knowledge based chain of intellectual information exchange and education in so many ways.
No wonders so many ill-fated organization like to see YouTube to go into the tank of oblivion and never to come back.
Many organizations are sitting ducks and ready to take over this giant Google created and this for no other benefit than their own to own..
I am amazed that media and pundits do reign in their various territories and love to 'rattle the cage and wake up the slumbering dragon' for no other reason than to bolster their egos.
Be well YouTube !
There is always a sun behind the clouds.
Johan Sandstrom, BComm.
www.whiterockreporter.com
www.youtube.com/whiterockreporter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
