# Zabriske's stab at Livestrong in ROAD



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

I was curious if anyone else thought Dave's comment in ROAD was a little caustic? In answer to a question about his project, Yield to Life, he said.

"If you change one person's habits, that's a success for me. I think that I can at least change one person. And it's not like a disease, and I'm not looking for money for a cure. The money that I raise is for materials to pass out to people. These are unnecessary deaths. You can't stop cancer but you can stop people from running other people over"

I thought it probably could have been worded a little less controversially.


----------



## Guest (Dec 16, 2009)

Its DZ, love him but you gotta take what he says with a grain of salt.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

Ummm... you do realize we're talking about Dave Z here, right?  



CabDoctor said:


> I was curious if anyone else thought Dave's comment in ROAD was a little caustic? In answer to a question about his project, Yield to Life, he said.
> 
> "If you change one person's habits, that's a success for me. I think that I can at least change one person. And it's not like a disease, and I'm not looking for money for a cure. The money that I raise is for materials to pass out to people. These are unnecessary deaths. You can't stop cancer but you can stop people from running other people over"
> 
> I thought it probably *could have been worded a little less controversially*.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

CabDoctor said:


> I was curious if anyone else thought Dave's comment in ROAD was a little caustic? In answer to a question about his project, Yield to Life, he said.
> 
> "If you change one person's habits, that's a success for me. I think that I can at least change one person. And it's not like a disease, and I'm not looking for money for a cure. The money that I raise is for materials to pass out to people. These are unnecessary deaths. You can't stop cancer but you can stop people from running other people over"
> 
> I thought it probably could have been worded a little less controversially.


I failed sensitivity 101 and between the lines reading in school so would you be so kind as to explain how this is a shot at Livestrong. 

I'm pretty sure that Dave knows that you can substantially avoid and cure cancer and that his analogy was a spontaneous shot from the hip? If not, he would be too dumb to ride a bicycle.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Dave Z is goofy- I wouldn't take anything he says remotely seriously. He may have wacked his head on the ground a few too many times. Makes a fine chamois cream though. . .


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

DZNUTS!!!!! I personally find Dave normally hilarious, but I just thought making comment about cancer like that was a little "interesting." Also its funny cause in the rest of the interview he mentions how he's become more "media friendly."


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

Yeah... perhaps he could be a bit more sensitive to the cancer community. 

Here's a tangent: why is it now de riguer for every pro athlete and celebrity to have a cause attached to their name?


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

Seriously I was wondering the same thing!


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

CabDoctor said:


> Seriously I was wondering the same thing!


Couldn't have been the celebrity that Armstrong/Livestrong created.....Naaahhhh just coincidence.


----------



## muscleendurance (Jan 11, 2009)

cause theres no such thing as bad publicity


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

Creakyknees said:


> Yeah... perhaps he could be a bit more sensitive to the cancer community.
> 
> Here's a tangent: why is it now de riguer for every pro athlete and celebrity to have a cause attached to their name?


Because there are major tax benefits.


----------



## ThatsAPaddlin (Aug 13, 2003)

Alright people, don't let your jadedness drag you down into vacuity: No matter how you slice it, the "tax benefit" doesn't actually put $ in their pocket. Look it up. Or take a tax law course. 

The reason celebs get into the charity game is b/c they actually want to do (or at least be seen doing) something of substance and have the resources ($, recognition) to devote. Money's different for the successful - it usually stops being enough. I can understand the criticism that celeb causes are narcissistic. But greedy? C'mon.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

ThatsAPaddlin said:


> No matter how you slice it, the "tax benefit" doesn't actually put $ in their pocket. Look it up. Or take a tax law course.


You could always have commercial venture named the same as your foundation. It could have web site using similar graphics and color scheme as the foundations web site, but with a .com extension instead of .org. Products couild be offered for sale at a profit. 

I doubt if anyone would do that, though. At least not more than one person.

JSR


----------



## grrrah (Jul 22, 2005)

You are reading waaaaay to much into it.

He's talking about his charity, and how its not a cure for cancer. Not taking a shot at any other charitable organization. 

I don't think there is any contraversy about it.


----------



## hipcheck5 (Dec 11, 2009)

I like Dave but I think he comes off sounding stupid saying "you can't stop cancer."


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

hipcheck5 said:


> I like Dave but I think he comes off sounding stupid saying "you can't stop cancer."


Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

ThatsAPaddlin said:


> Alright people, don't let your jadedness drag you down into vacuity: No matter how you slice it, the "tax benefit" doesn't actually put $ in their pocket. Look it up. Or take a tax law course.
> 
> The reason celebs get into the charity game is b/c they actually want to do (or at least be seen doing) something of substance and have the resources ($, recognition) to devote. Money's different for the successful - it usually stops being enough. I can understand the criticism that celeb causes are narcissistic. But greedy? C'mon.


The need to give back is strong (no pun intended) in successful people, I agree. Its why I donate to my alma mater every year. But let's look at the other side just for fun. So take for example something that is too far fetched to be true, but let's say my charity leases a private jet that gets me from gig to gig where my exposure to the media in my charity's kit happens to raise funds. Now its true that money never enters my pocket, but having said jet to fly my skinny arse all over the world in the name of my charity, let just call it Legstrong to keep from being confused with any other charity out there, is certainly a benefit, one free of taxes and free of expenses to myself which if you look at it that way is like putting money in my pocket.


----------



## agm2 (Sep 18, 2008)

Creakyknees said:


> Yeah... perhaps he could be a bit more sensitive to the cancer community.
> 
> Here's a tangent: why is it now de riguer for every pro athlete and celebrity to have a cause attached to their name?


I think in DZ's case he started this foundation because of an accident he had with a car. In 2003 (according to cyclesport) he got hit by a SUV that almost ended his career. So he created the foundation to spread awareness, in the same way Livestrong came about. In cases I'm sure it's for publicity but it seems this one was created because of the accident.


----------



## Maximus_XXIV (Nov 10, 2008)

hipcheck5 said:


> I like Dave but I think he comes off sounding stupid saying "you can't stop cancer."


Name 3 cures for cancer.


----------



## Blue 58 (Aug 6, 2008)

Maximus_XXIV said:


> Name 3 cures for cancer.


Prostatectomy +/- chemo/radiation +/- hormone therapy for prostate CA 
Enucleation for retinoblastoma
Colectomy +/- chemo for colon CA
Mastectomy/lumpectomy +/- chemo or radiation +/- hormone therapy for breast CA
Excision of malignant melanoma
Chemo for ALL, AML, etc.
I 131 plaques for choroidal melanoma

I can continue, but I think I'm already past three.


----------



## atown117 (Dec 1, 2008)

It can't be considered a "Cure" unless it works 99.9% of the time.


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

60% of the time, it works every time. 

But seriously nothing works 99.9% of the time. Name one "cure" that have that proficiency rating.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Blue 58 said:


> Prostatectomy +/- chemo/radiation +/- hormone therapy for prostate CA
> Enucleation for retinoblastoma
> Colectomy +/- chemo for colon CA
> Mastectomy/lumpectomy +/- chemo or radiation +/- hormone therapy for breast CA
> ...


Not treatments, cures.


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

DZ loves cancer


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

atown117 said:


> It can't be considered a "Cure" unless it works 99.9% of the time.


There is no such rule.


----------



## Blue 58 (Aug 6, 2008)

atown117 said:


> It can't be considered a "Cure" unless it works 99.9% of the time.


My Stedman's Medical Dictionary (I'm an M.D., btw), defines a cure as follows: 1. to heal, to make well; 2. a restoration of health. There's no mention of some arbitrary, quantitative threshold to reach the definition. 

Whatever authority you have been granted to create your own definition is fine in your world, but in the real world, and certainly in the medical world, that's not the case.

I have thousands of patients who have been cured by the above treatments (therefore, these treatments are cures (for poster "Ultimobici")) - who are living fruitful, fulfilling, productive, comfortable lives because their cancer didn't kill them.

Most relevant to this forum, how can you argue that Lance, and the vast majority of testicular cancer survivors, haven't been cured of their disease? Has he not been been "healed, made well, and had a restoration of health".


----------



## t-dub (Jun 3, 2003)

I haven't read the interview in Road magazine but perhaps what he means is that one individual yellow bracelet isn't going to cure cancer in and of itself - those are part of broader effort. But that his Yield to Life Campaign can raise safety awareness on an individual basis and that can actually save a life.

This kind of thing always reminds me of this:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28024


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

t-dub said:


> I haven't read the interview in Road magazine but perhaps what he means is that one individual yellow bracelet isn't going to cure cancer in and of itself - those are part of broader effort. But that his Yield to Life Campaign can raise safety awareness on an individual basis and that can actually save a life.
> 
> This kind of thing always reminds me of this:
> 
> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28024


I thought it was incredibly dumb statement. Maybe he was trying to say that he is trying to do things on a smaller scale and should not be compared to Livestrong or other major campaigns? If so, he did not succeed in communicating it well. 

I am not even sure he has much of a point - inconsiderate jerk drivers are not likely to change because of awareness campaign, but cancer research can and does benefit tremendously from the money raising effort, and advanced treatment options combined with early detection of many forms of cancer saved millions of lives worldwide already. I can easily see cure or treatment for cancer coming within our lifetime, but I doubt we will ever get rid of jerks who happen to drive cars, or people who are naturally bad drivers, inattentive drivers or just old people with deteriorating vision and motor skills.

Regardless, this was a dumb statement: "my charity cause is better than X charity cause"? This is not a pissing match, DZ. You can have cancer research fund-raising efforts, AND raise awareness about sharing the road.


----------



## bmxhacksaw (Mar 26, 2008)

ThatsAPaddlin said:


> The reason celebs get into the charity game is b/c they actually want to do (or at least be seen doing) something of substance...


Really? I always thought it was driven by the subconscious realization that one is morally bankrupt and they are trying to offset the situation by "doing a good work". Silly me.


----------



## hipcheck5 (Dec 11, 2009)

The whole point of cancer foundations is to find a cure for cancer, to stop cancer. DZ saying you can't stop cancer is him essentially saying:

1) Trying to find a cure is a waste of time, since you can't stop it.

2) Cancer foundations are a waste if time, since you can't stop cancer.


----------



## Blue 58 (Aug 6, 2008)

hipcheck5 said:


> The whole point of cancer foundations is to find a cure for cancer, to stop cancer. DZ saying you can't stop cancer is him essentially saying:
> 
> 1) Trying to find a cure is a waste of time, since you can't stop it.
> 
> 2) Cancer foundations are a waste if time, since you can't stop cancer.


I agree that DZ's ignorance is on display. We've made amazing progress in the fight against cancer. While we're currently able to cure many people, we should maintain the ultimate goal of complete effectiveness against every type of cancer for every patient. Research is the engine of this fight and funding (foundations, government, private sector) is the gas that makes the engine run.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

I think far too much is being read into his wording. 

At the end of the day he's a sportsman not a diplomat or orator. Consequently, he may articulate his thoughts in a way that could possibly be misconstrued or misinterpreted.

Whether he meant "stop" or "cure" cancer, who knows. I doubt very much that it was meant in any way to be a stab at Livestrong at all.


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

I think a lot of people just get too sensitive about this stuff. If you read his quote carefully, DZ uses 'you' in the sense of 'everyman' in the very first sentence. He then very humbly states the goal of his cause, before reiterating the humble goals compared to curing cancer. He references LA's cause more to state his humble goals, compared with those of Livestrong. Re-read with 'you' stated in the sense of everyman:

"If [everyman] change one person's habits, that's a success for me. I think that I can at least change one person. And it's not like a disease, and I'm not looking for money for a cure. The money that I raise is for materials to pass out to people. These are unnecessary deaths. [Everyman] can't stop cancer but [everyman] can stop people from running other people over."


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2009)

ElvisMerckx said:


> I think a lot of people just get too sensitive about this stuff. If you read his quote carefully, DZ uses 'you' in the sense of 'everyman' in the very first sentence. He then very humbly states the goal of his cause, before reiterating the humble goals compared to curing cancer. He references LA's cause more to state his humble goals, compared with those of Livestrong. Re-read with 'you' stated in the sense of everyman:
> 
> "If [everyman] change one person's habits, that's a success for me. I think that I can at least change one person. And it's not like a disease, and I'm not looking for money for a cure. The money that I raise is for materials to pass out to people. These are unnecessary deaths. [Everyman] can't stop cancer but [everyman] can stop people from running other people over."



You're right but that's not going to be enough to convince people who go looking for a hidden agenda when someone tries to do something good.


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

kytyree said:


> You're right but that's not going to be enough to convince people who go looking for a hidden agenda when someone tries to do something good.


Some people have only one purpose in life - to find the "hidden agenda".

In fact the only reason people ever do anything good for someone else is to make themselves feel good. Isn't that selfish?  

Isn't that the logic you are referring to?


----------



## Lazy Spinner (Aug 30, 2009)

I thought it was pretty clear. My interpretation:

"This (his cause) isn't hard like finding the cure to an illness. Unlike a disease which can strike healthy people despite their best preventive efforts, car / bike accidents are entirely avoidable. Educating road users is comparatively easy thus, we should do it and stop these tragedies from happening because we have that ability now."

Slam on LA? Hardly. It must be off-season, eh?


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

No, not LA but on a much broader scale the cancer community itself of which his organization is a part of. The first time I read the quote I came away with the same expression that HipCheck did. After re-reading it a few times I thought it was Dave being Dave but still should have been worded way differently.


----------



## oily666 (Apr 7, 2007)

Blue 58 said:


> Prostatectomy +/- chemo/radiation +/- hormone therapy for prostate CA
> Enucleation for retinoblastoma
> Colectomy +/- chemo for colon CA
> Mastectomy/lumpectomy +/- chemo or radiation +/- hormone therapy for breast CA
> ...


But you're pretty much SOL if you're a woman with BRCA 1 or 2


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

CabDoctor said:


> No, not LA but on a much broader scale the cancer community itself of which his organization is a part of. The first time I read the quote I came away with the same expression that HipCheck did. After re-reading it a few times I thought it was Dave being Dave but still should have been worded way differently.


And after reading this thread I think you shouldn't have started it. But I'll bet you did it with the best intentions.


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

Well I knew it was can of worms when I typed it, but I did find out what I wanted to know, namely that it was said in poor taste.


----------



## kmunny19 (Aug 13, 2008)

Creakyknees said:


> Here's a tangent: why is it now de riguer for every pro athlete and celebrity to have a cause attached to their name?


beyond the idea that they will have a better ability to spread the word, which is certainly true, and they may well have these ideals deeply invested in thier personas, it could in also partly be to create good publicity capital for their future f-ups. we f-up and nobody cares, but they know that when they do, it'll be big news. also, having the world at thier disposal, they sometimes f-up big, so they need a get out of jail free card, publicity-wise. 

Tiger: yeah, I banged the phonebook, but don't forget all the good charity.
Lance: yeah, I'm more egotistical than most athletes, and publicly disrespect any accomplishments not made by me but don't forget livestrong.
Kobe: yeah, I rape, but don't forget after school all stars.
etc.

that said, they're gonna act badly anyway, so the money and publicity they can give a charity is great, and I'm sure to a large extent, they are doing it for a true good reason from thier hearts. but its sort of like, well, I'm a celebrity now, I'd better pick a flagship charity before people start calling me a bad boy celebrity.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

ultimobici said:


> I think far too much is being read into his wording.
> 
> At the end of the day he's a sportsman not a diplomat or orator. Consequently, he may articulate his thoughts in a way that could possibly be misconstrued or misinterpreted.
> 
> Whether he meant "stop" or "cure" cancer, who knows. I doubt very much that it was meant in any way to be a stab at Livestrong at all.


You must understand that it is the deeper, hidden meaning in casual conversation that our x-spurts have once again managed to discover. They have uncovered the fact that DZ does not know that cancer can be either prevented or cured. It is an amazing piece of detective work to expose this basturds evil motives and general lack of knowledge!


----------



## atown117 (Dec 1, 2008)

Never said that people who got rid of their cancer via these methods or any methods weren't cure. I got a little carried away with the percentage. That I do admit, but a cure should work for almost everyone. Not just a 60% chance of if it will work or not.


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

hipcheck5 said:


> The whole point of cancer foundations is to find a cure for cancer, to stop cancer. DZ saying you can't stop cancer is him essentially saying:
> 
> 1) Trying to find a cure is a waste of time, since you can't stop it.
> 
> 2) Cancer foundations are a waste if time, since you can't stop cancer.


The cancer industry's number one reason of existence is to treat cancer... Finding cures is way down on the list... Like at the bottom. Cures would diminish the bottom line.

There's plenty of people that have been cured without the cancer industry treating them....
http://www.gerson.org/


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

The biggest cure is to not get cancer. Keep your body at its proper alkalinity 7.4 and above and you're set.

It is a FACT. Cancer cannot flourish in an alkaline-rich environment... Just a toxic one. Test every cancer patient out there and you'll see their PH levels are in the 6's or below. People and organizations say this or that cause cancer... It's complete bullsheet. Those things contribute to an environment within the body that allows cancer to flourish... Those things make a person toxic. The body can beat cancer if you equip it correctly. Unfortunately, equipping it correctly does not include drinking lots of Coke and eating lots of meat. So most people are just ****ed. 

Ignorance is bliss for a while until the doctor gives you your test results. Turns out there are consequences for living a life of gluttony.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

atown117 said:


> Never said that people who got rid of their cancer via these methods or any methods weren't cure. I got a little carried away with the percentage. That I do admit, but a cure should work for almost everyone. Not just a 60% chance of if it will work or not.


A lot of people who have cancer in remission would disagree. Whether you want to call it "cure" or not, the goal and end result is the same


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

MaddSkillz said:


> The cancer industry's number one reason of existence is to treat cancer... Finding cures is way down on the list... Like at the bottom. Cures would diminish the bottom line.
> 
> There's plenty of people that have been cured without the cancer industry treating them....
> http://www.gerson.org/


The reason there is no "cure for cancer" is that cancer is not the flu or chicken pox. It's a very complex disease with many factors that may cause it. It's also a natural part of aging. Cells mutate over time and eventually become cancer cells.

As for the cancer industry...there are a lot of publicly funded scientists who would love to make a major advancement in treating cancer. They would receive huge accolades, tons of cash, and possibly a Nobel prize.

But keep selling coffee enemas, that's gotta work.


----------



## ThatsAPaddlin (Aug 13, 2003)

Mootsie said:


> having said jet to fly my skinny arse all over the world in the name of my charity ...is certainly a benefit, one free of taxes and free of expenses to myself which if you look at it that way is like putting money in my pocket.


It's just that I don't think most celebs think of having to keep charity appointments all over the world as money in their pockets. Misuse of charity jets, etc. for personal fun I'm sure happens, but is less abused than, say, pre-tax "business expenses."

Again, the LA's of the world could have used their fame to get a lot more in their personal banks if that were their sole motivation. I submit it's not. I think BMX is kind of right - not so much moral bankruptcy as existential angst. I mean, if you were wealthy, why would you get up early and leave your friends and family to do, well, anything? "Accomplishment" is usually part of the answer. If the tax code favors "charitable" accomplishment, I am all for it.


----------



## ThatsAPaddlin (Aug 13, 2003)

I think he's just making a point about efficacy. 

Public awareness is sufficient stop a bunch of car-bike accidents. 

Public awareness is necessary for funding but not medically sufficient to create a cure for cancer.

Nothing wrong with concerted effort to solve simple problems. Wear a seatbelt. Quit smoking. Watch for cyclists. It doesn't all have to be about world peace, curing cancer and answering the big questions.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

SilasCL said:


> But keep selling coffee enemas, that's gotta work.


So, do they make you drink the coffee after the enema?


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

MaddSkillz said:


> The biggest cure is to not get cancer. Keep your body at its proper alkalinity 7.4 and above and you're set.
> 
> It is a FACT. Cancer cannot flourish in an alkaline-rich environment... Just a toxic one. Test every cancer patient out there and you'll see their PH levels are in the 6's or below. People and organizations say this or that cause cancer... It's complete bullsheet. Those things contribute to an environment within the body that allows cancer to flourish... Those things make a person toxic.  The body can beat cancer if you equip it correctly. Unfortunately, equipping it correctly does not include drinking lots of Coke and eating lots of meat. So most people are just ****ed.
> 
> Ignorance is bliss for a while until the doctor gives you your test results. Turns out there are consequences for living a life of gluttony.



Clearly you have absolutely NO understanding of human physiology and metabolism. 

As someone with many years of study and health care experience (enough to have an MD after my name and triple board certification), your statements are so ignorant as to be offensive to those of use who have devoted a lifetime to studying the science of medicine and the process of healing, curing, and helping sick people with cancer or other diseases.


----------



## tyro (May 15, 2005)

I agree that a single quote from a larger article can seem out of place. Possibly with the surrounding text, it might seem less brash. Also, things can be edited to be more sensationalist. 

At the same time, I think that it is a bit of bad form to be joking around with this sort of thing. I've lost family members to cancer and currently have a close coworker who looks to be terminal. It's just one of those "don't go there" kinds of things I guess. 

Everyone will react differently because everyone has different levels of experience with the issues. I also had a riding buddy who was just hit by a car, I mean CREAMED head on by a lady who had her head in the clouds or something. He is in insurance hell right now. No bike, letting lawyers fight it out. The recovery is going to be slow and arduous. He may never return to form.

I can see both charities/causes as valuable for society, but to compare the two is a bit apples and oranges. To distill it to some sort of pissing match is insulting to both parties. I'm certain more people die of cancer than from being hit by motorists, but a life is a life and each is as precious as the next. 

How these individuals benefit from donating their time and image, I think they are both doing noble things.


----------



## untoothedyouth (Jul 9, 2009)

Good 'ol Dave. At least he backs up his mouth with great riding. I agree with him by the way.


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

adimiro said:


> Clearly you have absolutely NO understanding of human physiology and metabolism.
> 
> As someone with many years of study and health care experience (enough to have an MD after my name and triple board certification), your statements are so ignorant as to be offensive to those of use who have devoted a lifetime to studying the science of medicine and the process of healing, curing, and helping sick people with cancer or other diseases.



I also have many years of study and two friends cured of cancer without following the mainstream treatment plan of Kemo treatment. The body is a very resilient thing if equipped correctly. And proper nutrition is key.

Sounds to me like you've been studying from the wrong books... I do have real-world results on my side as well.

BTW, you may want to simply Google Cancer + Alkalinity... It's like you believe what I said is in no way accurate. You might be surprised to find how alkalinity and toxicity play a role in cancer... Of course, one would think that with your many years of study, you would have at least stumbled across this information by now.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

MaddSkillz said:


> I also have many years of study and two friends cured of cancer without following the mainstream treatment plan of Kemo treatment. The body is a very resilient thing if equipped correctly. And proper nutrition is key.
> 
> Sounds to me like you've been studying from the wrong books... I do have real-world results on my side as well.
> 
> BTW, you may want to simply Google Cancer + Alkalinity... It's like you believe what I said is in no way accurate. You might be surprised to find how alkalinity and toxicity play a role in cancer... Of course, one would think that with your many years of study, you would have at least stumbled across this information by now.


I have one friend who made it and 2 who didn't. What does this prove? Nothing. 

As a healthcare professional, I hear of a magic cure every other week or so. Truth be told, we're doing a little better, but far from curing anything and everything. Early detection is still the best bet and success will always vary among types of cancer, individual health factors, and still vary among people with the same stage, type, and health factors.


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

MaddSkillz said:


> BTW, you may want to simply Google Cancer + Alkalinity... Of course, one would think that with your many years of study, you would have at least stumbled across this information by now.


Sorry MaddSkillz but Google is not among my scientific medical references. 

Wish you and others many years of health in whichever form one decides to pursue it.


----------

