Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iodine: a discussion, and perhaps a civilized debate

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Quote below from the breast cancer study, if I am reading it right there was a higher death rate in the control group before the study period, so this already suggests a confounding factor. In addition to that it would be interesting to actually know how many diagnosis and treatments there were in both the control and study group to determine if the screening was actually effective or not. I also wonder about the definition of deaths and how many may have been classified as another cause some time after treatment and if it was related possibly.

    By using the definition of refined mortality, there were 607 breast cancer deaths during 4.8 million person-years in the study group and 846 breast cancer deaths during 6.3 million person-years in the control group during the reference period (from 1970 to 1985; ie, before the start of service screening), resulting in an RR of 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.05). For the study period (from 1986 to 2005), there were 803 breast cancer deaths during 7.3 million person-years in the study group (Table 2) and 1238 breast cancer deaths during 8.8 million person-years in the control group (Table 3), resulting in an estimated crude RR of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.86), (Table 4). The crude cumulative breast cancer mortality per 100,000 person-years is illustrated in Figure 2. The curves start to diverge after 3 years and continue to diverge throughout follow-up.
    "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DuhPrincess View Post
      Iodine is a controversial topic everywhere...I just didn't expect to have to do battle HERE on a site that pretty much promotes taking charge of your own health after realizing that CW is usually wrong. When I first found this thread, I was already using Iodine in high doses and had never heard of Brownstein or Grizz. My hubby found info for me about 6-7 years ago called "The Iodine Saturation Protocol" by Dr Bruce West and hoped it would help my thyroid since no other local doctor would help me based on their useless TSH test. I had every classic symptom of hypothyroidism yet no one would help me. Unfortunately, the iodine hubby ordered only contained Iodine but no Iodide which is what mostly supports the thyroid. So I feel that my breasts and other female parts have still been protected by the iodine I did take but it had little to no effect on my thyroid or the bromides in it. If it had "caused hypothyroidism" by raising my TSH levels, even a doctor would have recoginized something was wrong and treated my thyroid. But my TSH was always at a "normal level" according to the doctors narrow thinking. I needed iodide too and found out about it on this forum along with Selenium etc. I am thankful!
      I agree it is controversial, but why? Could it be there are people recommending doses that are a thousand times or more over what is considered a safe limit? Or could it be that the iodine peddlers keep telling people who have signs of iodine poisoning that they are only suffering from the mythical bromine detox? And worse yet telling them to take even more iodine to push the bromine out when this happens? Or when they suffer from iodine poisoning they recommend "salt flushes" which actually push the toxic excess levels of iodine out so people can poison themselves again with excess iodine?

      I personally have problems with all of the above as well as their ignoring the fact that excess iodine can cause or aggravate Hashimoto's thyroidosis.

      I also have a problem with the iodine peddlers claiming that high dose iodine cures pretty much everything under the sun including all forms of hypothyroidism. There are actually a number of things that can cause hypothyroidism and not all can be treated with iodine since not all forms of hypothyroidism result from an iodine deficiency.

      They also claim that high dose iodine has been used to treat hyperthyroidism. Although this is true they are overlooking the mechanism. When doing excessive levels of iodine the thyroid actually shuts down to protect itself from the poisonous levels of iodine. I am taking care of someone right now that developed iodine poisoning from his medication. This initially threw him in to hyperthyroidism and the thyroid started shutting down. We took him to a new cardiologist who confirmed the drug was the problem and cut his dosage in half. This caused his thyroid to go in to a severe state of hypothyroidism. He is now off the drug completely and taking an herbal formula to support his thyroid and is quickly recovering.

      People need to realize that yes iodine is essential to the body, but they also have to use some common sense and realize that iodine is also poisonous in high amounts. Look at these examples:

      After using a treatment, please share your results

      Great example of excess iodine side effects

      And more on the bogus brominism claims:

      Iodism debunked? Not even close!!!

      Toxic Bromine In Our Food Supply?

      More misinformation from the iodine forum.

      And on iodine safety issues:

      MedCapsules Forum - Iodine Safety/Issues
      Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 10:49 AM.

      Comment


      • Yeesh. I stopped reading after the third post.

        This is all I want to know:

        I like nori and kombu kelp. Is one serving every other day or so (1 mg/day total I and I-) going to help me, harm me, or make no difference?
        5'0" female, 45 years old. Started Primal October 31, 2011, at a skinny fat 111.5 lbs. Low weight: 99.5 lb on a fast. Gained back to 115(!) on SAD chocolate, potato chips, and stress. Currently 111.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by oxide View Post
          Yeesh. I stopped reading after the third post.

          This is all I want to know:

          I like nori and kombu kelp. Is one serving every other day or so (1 mg/day total I and I-) going to help me, harm me, or make no difference?
          Yeesh indeed. Somebody stayed up all night just to post multiple walls of text on this thread. Some of which are very sensible and well researched and some of which are kinda puzzling.

          I think your "dose" of sea veggies sound very much the norm for that hypothetical healthy Japanese person we keep discussing.

          Whole foods are good. Munch on.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JamesS View Post
            Most likely he is including the magnesium because magnesium increases adenosine triphosphate (ATP) that fuels the cells and helps them to function properly.
            Yes but that is a general health reason to take selenium. The question was specifically irt taking it with iodine.

            Originally posted by JamesS View Post
            I don't trust anything coming from Mercola. His claims have been discredited to many times.

            One thing that Mercola is overlooking though is that the iodine sources the Japanese consume such as seaweeds and ocean fish are also loaded with other halogens that help prevent iodine poisoning. Apparently Mercola is not aware that the ocean contains a lot of chloride, as well as bromine and fluoride that are picked up by seaweeds and ocean animals.

            Mercola is apparently unaware of the fact that the low rate of cancer in Japan has been linked to their higher consumption of soy that contain protective phytoestrogens that also happen to counter the adverse effects of excess iodine. Mercola though sits on the board of the Weston Price Foundation who is supported by the beef and dairy industries. So Mercola is paid to bash soy, which is the biggest competitor of the beef and dairy industries.

            Seaweeds are also rich in immune stimulating polysaccharides that further reduce the risk of cancer.

            Iodine does have estrogen blocking effects just like phytoestrogens, but there is no evidence that estrogen causes cancer to begin with. Estrogen appears to only be a growth factor for already existing cancers.
            I agree that Mercola's claims often need to be taken with large doses of salt (haha). But I do agree with him that soy needs bashing. Mark, who gets no money from the meat industry bashes as well.

            Originally posted by JamesS View Post
            Yes, seaweeds contain arsenic. So do a lot of common foods such as brown rice and apples. Seaweeds though also contain algins that bind heavy metals helping the body to excrete them.
            Good point.

            Originally posted by JamesS View Post
            I'm curious about the supplements as well. Following are the "required" supplements:
            1/2 tsp unrefined salt
            Selenium 200 mcg
            Magnesium 400 mg
            Vitamin C 2000 mg +
            ATP Co-Factors (100 mg Riboflavin, 500 mg Niacin)

            The only time I have seen salt recommended is when people are also recommending toxic levels of iodine. Refined salt is sodium chloride, and the excess of chloride helps to displace the excess, toxic levels of iodine. Sea salt will also provide small amounts of bromine and fluoride that will also displace iodine. It is interesting to watch the iodine peddlers tell people to take toxic levels of iodine. Then when the people complain of symptoms of iodism (iodine poisoning) they blame the symptoms on a "bromine detox" then tell people to do a "salt flush". First of all the "bromine detox" thing is a myth:

            The "bromine detox" myth

            Secondly, the "salt flushes" simply push out the excess iodine poisoning the body. But they tell people to turn right around and take more toxic levels of iodine. They got a great scam going.
            Very true.
            Last edited by Paleobird; 08-09-2012, 09:06 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
              Someone earlier mentioned thermography which is an interesting technology with a lot of promise for the future but, as it stands now, it is highly inaccurate compared to a mammogram leading to some false positives and panic but worse, leading to false negatives and false security while a cancer grows.
              Hmmm... sounds like you are describing mammograms. Mammograms DO NOT prove the presence of cancer. Other masses such as calcifications, fibroids and dense tissue can all lead to unnecessary biopsies to see what they are. And implants can also interfere with mammograms. I don't know how many mammograms you have looked at but they are not as accurate as you are portraying.

              Interestingly though back when I first started in medicine I was working down in radiology and they came in with an example of a brand new mammogram. It was the clearest and most accurate mammogram you could ever imagine. The "picture" was very sharp and clear showing all the structures in the breast in crisp detail. So even tiny tumors would be visible, which is not the case with current mammography. The most interesting part though is that the procedure used NO radiation. The way the process was explained to me is that instead of radiation they used an electrostatic discharge through the breast tissue to a metal plate. I don't remember every detail from here since this was over 30 years ago. But in short the charge was transferred to a piece of paper in which a very fine blue powder was dusted over. The charge would cause the powder to attract to the paper in different densities depending on the amount of charge going making it through the different densities of the tissues in the breast forming the picture. So the process was along the lines of a copying machine. Anyways, the clarity of the image puts today's mammograms to shame, but that was the one and only time I ever saw an example of the technology.

              More accuracy and no cancer causing radiation involved yet it was suppressed. There is only one reason I can think of that such an advancement in diagnostics would disappear rather than being accepted and improved on over the last 30 years. Finding tumors at too early of a stage is not profitable. Its that simple. I know you are going to disagree with this claim, but then again you have not seen all the corruption I have seen in allopathic medicine ranging from unnecessary procedures and medications being given to illegal billing for medications and devices never given or used to double or triple billing for the same devices being used. As I said earlier they are in the business to make money and it does not matter to them if they have to do this legally or illegally nor ethically or unethically.

              In fact, are you aware that pregnancy tests can be used to very accurately detect a number of cancers? This principle is commonly used in many parts of the U.S. but rarely in the U.S. And when it is used here it is done very quietly. These tests are so accurate that they can detect the presence of cancers long before any of the conventional means we currently employ. But again, catching malignancies too early is less profitable so they are not very interested in detecting cancer too early. After all those big fancy hospitals are not built on charity.

              And before you try to argue the whole mammogram detecting cancer early claim I have several points to make to save us both a lot of time. Mammograms still make the hospitals a lot of money, but not as much from the mammograms themselves as they do all the unnecessary biopsies. A biopsy costs a lot more than a mammogram and the vast majority of "suspicious lumps" detected by mammogram that get biopsied turn out to be nothing serious. So they lead to all sorts of panic when in most cases they are nothing. And being that the majority of breast cancers are extremely slow growing a few smart doctors don't do biopsies but instead watch it carefully to see if it continues growing so they don't unnecessarily panic the woman.

              As far as your claim that thermography being highly inaccurate compared to mammography that claim is highly inaccurate. You are comparing apples to oranges here. Each test has its benefits and limitations compared to each other so each has its place.

              The other point is that when I mention cancers not being profitable if caught too early I am not referring solely to breast cancer.
              Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 10:50 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by katemary View Post
                JamesS, what are you doing? Is the normal font someone else's post (who?) and the bold your response to the same?

                Are you not quoting because it is from the other thread?

                It would help if you could edit briefly to identify the forum member to whom each post responds. Identity counts! (well, for me anyway, some members' posts I glaze over, for others I pay attention)
                This forum format is different from any others I have posted on so I am still getting use to it. But I am use to bolding my lines to differentiate from the persons lines I am responding to instead of having to do the old << or by using different colored fonts since that can get even more confusing after having to use several different colors in a post. I have always found it easier and faster to do it this way. And when I first started posting I found that if I only wrote within the quotes that it would not allow me to post saying the post was too short. But I finally hit the posts explaining how to get around some of these problems so I will try to keep the persons quote intact with the ID now that I see how to do it.
                Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 10:50 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JamesS View Post
                  This forum format is different from any others I have posted on so I am still getting use to it. But I am use to bolding my lines to differentiate from the persons lines I am responding to instead of having to do the old << or by using different colored fonts since that can get even more confusing after having to use several different colors in a post. I have always found it easier and faster to do it this way. And when I first started posting I found that if I only wrote within the quotes that it would not allow me to post saying the post was too short. But I finally hit the posts explaining how to get around some of these problems so I will try to keep the persons quote intact with the ID now that I see how to do it.
                  Now that you've found how to do the quotes you want, it would be easier (for me at least) to read your posts if they were NOT in bold.

                  And thanks for some of the points you've raised - very interesting. With Oxide, Paleobird, Cori, radialhead and a few others also making well reasoned and balanced posts, this thread should really go somewhere worthwhile now.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Omni View Post
                    Since this thread is way off track anyway.
                    JamesS
                    You seem to have done a lot of looking into alternative cancer cures,
                    What do you think of Burzynski and antineoplastins, his site link below:
                    Burzynski Clinic | Advanced Alternative Cancer Treatment | Houston, Texas
                    I looked into all this stuff a while back including Hosley, some nurse with "Herbs" and Gerson therapy amongst others, obviously data is lacking so they may all be quacks or all or some of them may actually be onto something.
                    I centred on the Burzynski one after watching a Doco(?) on U-Tube, his battles with the FDA seem to be well documented, there is footage of senate hearings with real patients and documented diagnosis being healed and there seems to be some evidence of conspiracy to steal his patents, so just just wondering if you or anyone else has more to add on that one?
                    Link to movie below.
                    Dr Burzynski movie (Full Version) .flv With Extra Burzynski Links - YouTube
                    Actually I have not looked in to anti-neoplastin therapy in probably over 20 years. But from what I recall yes, he was getting some excellent results.

                    I really prefer ozone therapy as my first choice since it is the most effective, safe and fast cancer therapy I have found. For example, I had a friend who had a malignant breast tumor diagnosed by the doctors. But she did not want to go through the surgery or chemo so she had ozone injected directly in to the tumor. One injection completely eradicated the tumor. Another friend of mine used ozone to get rid of his advanced prostate cancer. He has been cancer free now for 3 years now. I have two other friends who used ozone to get rid of their melanomas. And there are others I have seen get rid of their cancer with ozone.

                    My second choice for advanced or aggressive cancers would be a Rife unit, but with a fixed frequency. The frequency freaks a lot of people out but it is 666hz. The first person I saw cured by a Rife unit was my father's neighbor. He had advanced liver cancer and was given less than a week to live. We gave him a unit to use. Long story short he died two years later from an aneurysm. But tests he had a month earlier confirmed he was still cancer free. Another guy I knew had bone, lung and esophageal cancer. He used the Rife unit to get rid of his cancer, but his cancer took 8 months for him to get rid of since he had previous radiation therapy, which interferes with the therapy. Another reason I prefer ozone since it does not matter what previous therapies were used.

                    I also like herbs for cancer, but not individual herbs. The way I view things the cancer should be attacked at every Achilles's heel it has to help prevent the development of resistance or recurrence. For example targeting cancer microbes, blocking the Cori cycle, blocking angiogenesis, mitosis and metastases, increasing immune cytokines, peroxides and antioxidant enzymes, etc.

                    As far as Hoxsey goes he was actually getting excellent results as well. Much higher than most allopathic treatments even to this day are achieving. And the research as to the formula are available in a way. I doubt you will find anything on the formula per se, but you can find the anti-cancer research on most if not all the herbs in the formula on Medline. The only people who claim the research on herbs does not exist are the ones that never bothered to look in the first place. Herbs have been researched more heavily than any pharmaceutical drug. Something I really did like about Hoxsey is that when he left this country to go to Mexico and open a clinic the price of treatment was only $10,000, which included a lifetime of treatment in case the cancer ever came back. Not only significantly cheaper than allopathic treatments but also a guarantee that allopathic medicine does not offer. And if the person could not afford the therapy they were never turned away. They cold either pay what they could afford or the treatment was free if they could not afford anything. Hoxsey clearly believed in what he was doing. In allopathic medicine they often try to bleed as much money out the person as they can before they die. If anyone wants to disagree with that statement do they want to guess how many times I have heard we can do _________, which will give you a few extra months? Of course the few extra months is not a guarantee for anything other than making the hospital and doctor a lot more money before the person dies.

                    Actually that reminds me of another great example. Once when I was working up in oncology we had a patient who's cancer was causing him to bleed out through his bowels. They had MULTIPLE units of blood going in to the guy as fast as they could put it in and it was coming out just as fast. Point is that there was no way they were going to save the guy and he was not really "living" in the state he was. But the longer they could treat him with anything the more money they were making.

                    And it was not only on the oncology unit I saw this kind of stuff. I was up working on the dialysis unit one night and we had a patient who came in about a week earlier with small spots of gangrene in a few fingers. He was diabetic and helping his neighbor trim his rose bushes. The thorns pricked a few fingers resulting in the gangrene. I saw him when he was first admitted and I was back up there a week later when he passed away. The gangrene had spread throughout his entire body in that week and he was literally head to toe black with gangrene. He coded just as I was getting off in the morning and so was involved in the code. They applied internal and external pacemakers and every drug they could think of in to this guy knowing full well that there was no way on earth they were going to save him. Even if by some miracle they did he would have likely expired in a few minutes after being revived. But the guy had great insurance so they ran the code and probably netted the hospital an extra hefty profit.
                    Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 10:51 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by oxide View Post
                      Yeesh. I stopped reading after the third post.

                      This is all I want to know:

                      I like nori and kombu kelp. Is one serving every other day or so (1 mg/day total I and I-) going to help me, harm me, or make no difference?
                      Seaweeds on a daily basis are not much of an issue as long as you are not consuming massive amounts and you are not dealing with gout of autoimmune conditions. Seaweeds can aggravate both of these conditions in levels that healthy people could consume.
                      Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 10:51 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                        Yeesh indeed. Somebody stayed up all night just to post multiple walls of text on this thread. Some of which are very sensible and well researched and some of which are kinda puzzling.

                        There was a lot of misinformation and misleading information being posted in the thread. I have been following it and signed up for an account over the weekend so I could start responding. Even though I activated my account over the weekend I was not approved to post until yesterday morning so there was a lot of catching up to do.

                        If there is information you did not understand then quote what is puzzling and I will see if I can clear it up for you.
                        Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 10:51 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                          Yes but that is a general health reason to take selenium. The question was specifically irt taking it with iodine.
                          It would be called a co-factor. The thyroid plays a role in energy production for the body, just like magnesium does. Look at it this way. You not only need gas in your car to run, but also oil. Remove one and you are not going anywhere. Iodine alone will not help the body to produce energy. In fact, iodine is reliant on cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) to even be taken up and utilized by cells. And herein lies your answer. Magnesium is required to maintain proper cAMP levels.

                          Like any machine the body has different parts and factors that have to work in tandem to function at all.
                          Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                          I agree that Mercola's claims often need to be taken with large doses of salt (haha). But I do agree with him that soy needs bashing. Mark, who gets no money from the meat industry bashes as well.
                          I have found that most of the people who bash soy do so because they never did any proper research and instead relied on propaganda sites to get their information. If you want to debate it though go for it. You start with what you think is dangerous about soy and I will address your claims with the facts.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                            My HMO follows the American Cancer Society guidelines for testing which means that it's standard at 40. I was diagnosed at 45. Had I waited until 50 to have my first mammogram I would be dead. (And there is no way that 5 mammograms "caused" cancer. That is tinfoil hat nonsense parroted by people who don't even have a basic understanding of the quantities of radiation involved.)
                            Another misleading statement. Some of the newer mammography machines do use less radiation. But there are plenty of the old, high radiation machines still in use out there. And no, I don't have a "tinfoil hat". I just happen to do actual research, especially if I am not familiar with the topic before posting. In this case though I learned this fact from a news expose' a few years back.

                            Comment


                            • Please, t2t, I know you mean well but this ranks right up there with Melinda Gates is plotting to "depopulate" the world and poisonous "chemtrails".

                              This video portrays the Italian huckster who touts his cancer "cure", baking soda, based on the ludicrous idea that cancer is a fungus, as some kind of persecuted martyr attacked by the money grubbing doctors who *want* us to be sick.

                              The entire premise that it is doctors *want* us to be sick so they can shove more pills down our throats is ridiculous.

                              You are overlooking an important fact. Many people are brought up with the trust the doctors indoctrination. In addition, people tend to know very little about how their body's actually work. Why do you think there are so many people developing iodine poisoning from following the advice of the iodine peddlers on Curezone but cannot figure out that the symptoms are of iodine poisoning, not "bromine detox"? Because most people don't have a clue how their bodies really work they have to put their trust in someone, which is often doctors. And when they realize the doctors are not really gods and do not know as much about medicine as they pretend to people will often resort to the internet.

                              And that guy who cons gullible people into thinking that cancer is a fungus is not giving his treatment as a public service. He charges tens of thousands of dollars (for baking soda). Who is the one with a financial motive?

                              That part I agree with. Cancer is not a fungus. I am working on a book on alternative cancer therapies right now and I have a whole chapter on Simoncini's fraud.

                              And it goes on an on and on and on.....
                              Totally agree with you about the ignorance factor but I would take a real doctor over an internet site any day. Personal preference.
                              Good to know you don't fall for the baking soda huckster.

                              <long rant with outdated "evidence" of how nasty chemo is.> Duh.
                              <more ranting about the faults of the FDA> Nobody said the system is good.
                              <lots of unsupported assertions about the ineffectiveness of allopathic medicine>

                              Originally posted by JamesS View Post
                              I read your post about having the breast tumor removed. Even you mentioned it was caught early and it sounds like they did a lumpectomy. Lumpectomies can be performed when the cancer is still very tiny, which also means that it likely did not tap in to any major blood vessels and did not metastasize. When they do the surgery though they still take a certain area around the border of the tumor to make sure all the tumor is removed. If they do chemotherapy after this point it is done just in case there are any metastasized cells such as from the biopsy, which has been shown to metastasize cancer cells. So how can you say the chemotherapy was effective when the whole tumor was already excised by the lumpectomy?
                              You need to improve your reading comprehension. They did two attempts at a lumpectomy and failed to get it all as it was growing so rapidly. We then resorted to a full mastectomy followed by chemo to chase down any remaining cancer cells. Given the fast growing and invasive nature of the tumor, I think this was wise.

                              Originally posted by JamesS View Post
                              One thing I do agree with though is that iodine is not a cure for cancer. Can it help in some cases? Likely since it has anti-estrogen effects. But so does safer compounds like phytoestrogens.

                              One major problem I see with iodine being touted for cancer is that inflammation appears to play a role in cancer development. Excessive amounts of iodine can not only directly inflame tissues, it will also lead to suppression of the thyroid. This in turn leads to an increased level of inflammatory homocysteine. This also increases the risk of atherosclerosis, which has been shown to be inflammation induced.

                              We do need iodine just like we need water. But the self proclaimed "iodine experts" on Curezone are advocating over 1,000 times higher levels than are considered safe. Since water is more important than iodine in the body does this mean they should be advocating people drink 1,000 times more water than is considered safe if it were even possible?[/B]
                              I agree.

                              Originally posted by JamesS View Post
                              "In preparing for the trials FDA inspectors investigated some 400 cases of persons who were claimed by Hoxsey to have been cured of cancer by the treatment. This is what they found:

                              One group of these victims had diagnosed themselves or had never had a biopsy showing they had cancer.
                              A second group had cancer and had been treated for it by accepted and effective methods. but had later gone to the Hoxsey Clinic fearing they had not been cured.
                              The remaining cases were people who had received the Hoxsey treatment and had died of cancer (the majority) or still had it. Not one case of a bona fide cure was found.
                              This is typical of the pattern when cases allegedly cured by untested cancer remedies are carefully investigated."

                              This has been shown over and over again throughout history. A very interesting article. Well worth the read.

                              Maybe if the article was actually factual. I don't rely on science fiction though for evidence of the effectiveness of treatments.
                              Dismiss as science fiction anything that does not agree with your opinion. That works.

                              Originally posted by JamesS View Post
                              If there is information you did not understand then quote what is puzzling and I will see if I can clear it up for you.
                              What puzzling is not the content but the sheer volume. I have other things to do today. Do you?
                              Last edited by Paleobird; 08-09-2012, 11:38 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                                You need to improve your reading comprehension.
                                And you could stand to improve your ability to get along with others without the constant sarcasm directed at anyone who disagrees with you. Seems that his reading comprehension is pretty good, although it's likely that he simply missed that small detail in the volumes of your personal history you've provided in this thread. I know I missed it, as I've taken to skimming much of what you write.

                                Don't take this to mean that I'm trying to diminish your experience. I am happy for you that you've overcome the cancer and I'm sure I'll never understand the level to which that has transformed your appreciation for your life and how you went about the healing process. However, your condescension towards others is overbearing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X