6
65rosessamurai
Guest
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Faust</b></i>
As far as the ultraviolet radiation aspect, I stated I knew it was overall harmful to our cells in my original post. But then again, i'm inhaling collistin right now and it says right on the insert that this product has not been tested for it's carcinogistic/mutagenic properties. I'm sure most people, if given the choice (myself included), would take the health risk vs a possible cancer effect down the road (though with minimal exposure, very slight chance) if someone was being devastated by pseudo or staph right now, and the once a month or even once a year treatment would erradicate a large percentage of our bugs. </end quote></div>
Perhaps taking a very large cancer insurance policy would be a good idea? My ex already put me in one, fortunately it wasn't so she can induce me with cancer-inducing drugs or something so she can run off with my policy claims!
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> I didn't see you offer anything, but you surely scrutinized mine, and that is fine. But saying you "couldn't handle reading past the first two paragraphs" in a flippant manner seems a tad rude. That is fine as well. I was trying to be constructive.</end quote></div>
Sorry I didn't have anything to offer, please accept my apoligies, at least for not reading on...
As for adding any constructiveness, I would say to leave things more "natural" for treatments. they seem to find all these chemicals and such to fight the stuff in the body, but never seems to induce the body to fight it itself. I spent the last 20 years or so in the martial arts, especially Judo and Aikido, and all those times of being slammed on the tatami mats seemed to keep my lungs clear. Perhaps pondering about more "organic" and natural ways would be a good idea? (Not intended to be rude, just constructive)
As far as the ultraviolet radiation aspect, I stated I knew it was overall harmful to our cells in my original post. But then again, i'm inhaling collistin right now and it says right on the insert that this product has not been tested for it's carcinogistic/mutagenic properties. I'm sure most people, if given the choice (myself included), would take the health risk vs a possible cancer effect down the road (though with minimal exposure, very slight chance) if someone was being devastated by pseudo or staph right now, and the once a month or even once a year treatment would erradicate a large percentage of our bugs. </end quote></div>
Perhaps taking a very large cancer insurance policy would be a good idea? My ex already put me in one, fortunately it wasn't so she can induce me with cancer-inducing drugs or something so she can run off with my policy claims!
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> I didn't see you offer anything, but you surely scrutinized mine, and that is fine. But saying you "couldn't handle reading past the first two paragraphs" in a flippant manner seems a tad rude. That is fine as well. I was trying to be constructive.</end quote></div>
Sorry I didn't have anything to offer, please accept my apoligies, at least for not reading on...
As for adding any constructiveness, I would say to leave things more "natural" for treatments. they seem to find all these chemicals and such to fight the stuff in the body, but never seems to induce the body to fight it itself. I spent the last 20 years or so in the martial arts, especially Judo and Aikido, and all those times of being slammed on the tatami mats seemed to keep my lungs clear. Perhaps pondering about more "organic" and natural ways would be a good idea? (Not intended to be rude, just constructive)