Fruits and veggies, obesity, and cancer
Here’s a piece of news about cancer and eating fruits and vegetables. The hype in the many MSM articles that covered this research story was the same: eating a goodly number of fruits and vegetables won’t prevent cancer. Stop the presses!
Well, who ever thought it would? I was only under the impression it might slightly reduce the chance of developing cancer, which has complex and poorly-understood causes. And it turns out that’s exactly what the study said:
…[E]ven large consumptions of fruit and veg will only reduce the risk by a maximum of 10 per cent.
It’s not great, granted. But ten percent is still ten percent.
The article goes on to say that obesity and drinking represent far greater cancer risks. Obesity is the favorite whipping boy of the health industry, so this should come as no surprise. But I was curious to find out what percent of cancer cases have been found to be due to obesity.
Trouble is, none of the MSM articles on the research offered that particular statistic. And when I went to check out the original article, it turns out it would cost me $32 to read it (thanks but no thanks).
So I went on a Google search for the answer, or at least an answer. I found this:
In 2002, about 41,000 new cases of cancer in the United States were estimated to be due to obesity. This means that about 3.2 percent of all new cancers are linked to obesity.
It doesn’t sound as though such a huge percentage of new cancers is attributable to obesity after all. If you go through the article, it attempts to discuss for what specific types of cancer, and under what conditions, obesity affects cancer rates. Read it and you’ll see that the situation is astoundingly complex: different for men and women, different for type of cancer involved, different depending on estrogen status (pre- or post-menopausal, and whether replacement hormone therapy has been instituted), different for races and ages.
What’s more, the assumption that the act of losing weight (if people were able to do so; it’s notoriously difficult for the obese) would change things for the better is untested:
The most conclusive way to test if avoiding weight gain will decrease the risk of cancer is through a controlled clinical trial. At present, there have been no controlled clinical trials on the effect on cancer related to avoiding weight gain…
There is insufficient evidence that intentional weight loss will affect cancer risk for any cancer. A very limited number of observational studies have examined the effect of weight loss, and a few found some decreased risk for breast cancer among women who have lost weight. However, most of these studies have not been able to evaluate whether the weight loss was intentional or related to other health problems…
And then there are studies such as this, which focuses on overall mortality rather than specifically on cancer. It found that somewhat overweight people may have a lower death rate than normal weight people, underweight people a higher death rate, and the highest of all was in the extremely obese (over 35 BMI; to give you a rough idea what that means, a person of my height, 5’4″, would have to weigh in at over 205 pounds to have a BMI that high):
In our analysis, we did not find overweight (BMI 25 to 30) to be associated with increased mortality in any of the 3 surveys. Our results are similar to those of a previous analysis of NHANES I and II data that found little effect of overweight on life expectancy. Our finding is consistent with other results reported in the literature, although methodologic differences often preclude exact comparisons. In many studies, a plot of the relative risk of mortality against BMI follows a U-shaped curve, with the minimum mortality close to a BMI of 25; mortality increases both as BMI increases above 25 and as BMI decreases below 25, which may explain why risks in the overweight category are not much different from those in the normal weight category. Some studies have found that overweight was associated with a slightly increased risk of total mortality compared with the normal weight category. Other studies have suggested that overweight (BMI 25 to 30) is associated with no excess mortality, particularly in older age groups. Further investigation of the effects of overweight on mortality, particularly in the elderly, and of the possible role of confounding would be of interest.
Of interest, indeed.
And it would be particularly fascinating to know whether losing weight and keeping it off has any positive effect at all, other than looking better and feeling better. For example, I look and feel better when I’m less weighty, and when I eat fewer sweets. If that’s the way it is for you, it makes sense to try to keep your weight down. But this demonizing of the overweight is both tiresome and non-scientific.
As I pointed out on this blog a long time ago, the cause of cancer is unknown. No one can explain the causal mechanism and etiology. Anybody that tells you this or that causes cancer or this or that will prevent or cure cancer is BSing you.
In 1971 President Nixon signed the national cancer act and the National Cancer Institute was tasked to find the cause of cancer. The NCI confidently predicted they would find the cause within 5 years, by 1976. After spending billions of dollars and 39 years on research they have not discovered the cause of cancer. The last time I checked they were confidently predicting they would discover the cause of cancer by 2015. Look at this NCI website, the next to last paragraph.
http://training.seer.cancer.gov/disease/war/
Cancerogenesis was my first field of research interest, and my first job was with Institute of Experimental and Clinical Oncology. I still read literature and follow news in this field. So I must dispell some popular myths about cancer. First, this is not a single disease, but a multitude of very different diseases, each having its own “causes” and factors of risk. Second, there is no such thing as “cause” of cancer except for a tiny percent of cases. I do not know who predicted discovery of cause of cancer, but they must be totally ignorant fools. And progress in understanding of mechanism of malignant transformation was astonishing in my lifetime, but it only underscored how immensely complex the problem is. Enough to say, this is the same problem as the problem of aging (involves the same genes) and the problem of regulation of cell differentiation. Solving one of these will mean solving all of them. That is, true understanding of cancer will allow us to regenerate any organs or tissues and became immortal. But I do not have any hope that this will happen ever, while certain improvements in diagnostics and treatment are, of course, possible.
About obesity: in advanced cases it will almost certainly lead to diabetus and immosupression due to carbohydrates metabolism imbalance and because fat tissue is hormonally active, acting as endocrine gland. Its secrets are immunosupressors, like many other steroid hormones. These two factors are quite enough to shorten one’s life, including, among many other health hazards, higher risk of developing cancers.
Oh for Pete’s sake, let us all stop confusing ASSOCIATION with CAUSATION. Fatness doesn’t cause cancers any more than being gaunt prevents them. Getting old “causes” cancers too, but jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge when young is still not endorsed as “cancer prevention.”
The nutritional conventional wisdom in the MSM would be embarrassing for its stupidity if these bozos embarrassed. It is overblown, hyped-up, mind-bogglingly wrong. It’s not limited to the MSM; medical journals, run by similar members of the Order of Gramsci, do it too. It starts with fat and cholesterol, goes on to vitamins, salts, fiber and Good Grief! The next thing you know the Senate has passed a $4.5 Billion bill to “correct” secondary school food programs with Michelle’s blessing, including restrictions on the content of cookies sold at school clubs’ bake sales.
The Left is doing its best to herd us like sheep. Maybe more of us will turn into cats.
Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins:
1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.
2. Cancer cells occur 6 to more than 10 times in a person’s lifetime.
3. When the person’s immune system is strong the cancer cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.
4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.
5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet to eat more adequately and healthy, eating 4-5 times/day, and including supplements will strengthen the immune system.
6. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger, un-forgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.
7. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.
“… But this demonizing of the overweight is both tiresome and non-scientific.”
“Obese” has been made a meaningless term by all the foolishness the Government-Health_Industry Complex put out. According to that chart, I am “obese.” To which I say: BS.
Now, I do weigh more than I’d prefer — I’m overweight, and I admit it. I’m sure I’d be healthier and feel better if I were 30 pounds lighter; but I also know that it ain’t gonna happen.
Epidemiology is non-scientific. All it tells us is that some things are “linked”, without explaining the causal interrelations within an organism.
Is it the diet itself, or does following such a diet also tend to draw one into other lifestyle choices that also influence the development of disease?
To me this is the biological version of the Knowledge Problem in economics. The system is complex beyond our current ability to describe it. When we cannot describe, we must not prescribe.
Interesting article, but it has something of a “restatement of the obvious” character. By that I mean that there seems to be no connection to cancer in any part of the body not in “direct contact” at some point with fruits and vegetables, i.e. there’s no discernible effect on prostate or lung cancer.
In the upper GI, smoking and alcohol have higher correlations. In the stomach, chronic infection (Helicobacter pylori) carries a greater risk.
Determining the cause of colorectal cancer, where dietary fiber from fruit and vegetables might be thought to have the greatest impact, is confused by other dietary components like meat.
The bottom line: “Overall, the data do not show a clear association between fruit and vegetables and the risk for colorectal cancer, although they are compatible with a small reduction in risk.”
As for the obesity question, the article seems to take the connection to certain forms of cancer for granted, citing two other studies. The first cite is Stewart BW, Kleihues P (eds) (2003) World Cancer Report. IARC Press: Lyon, and the other is Key TJ, Allen NE, Spencer EA, Travis RC (2003) Nutrition and breast cancer. Breast 12(6): 412—416.
1. Neo, this is one of the very best posts I’ve read since coming around here. My compliments. Perceptive comments too. As the saying has it, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”
2. Read it and you’ll see that the situation is astoundingly complex…
The complexity of issues like cancer, climate, missile defense, etc implies that policies should be tailored for flexibility when new information comes to light. Unfortunately that’s not how to attract special-interest donations, reward political constituencies, and build bureaucratic empires. Flexibility is the opposite of what happens in practice.
I never understood how the BMI can be thought of as having any meaning. Has none of the people who use BMI ever heard of the square-cube law?
BMI is calculated by squaring your height. Now I know that taller people (like me) are not exactly proportioned the same as shorter people but by their stupid standard, I was overweight as a skinny 21-year-old.
The very fact that somewhat overweight people have been shown to be healthier (i.e. live longer) than people in the “ideal” or “Kate Moss” range proves to me that they know far less about what’s the “right weight” than they would have us believe.
I know I’m overweight, and I know I’m risking some health problems, but my weight has been stable for quite a few years and I refuse to believe I’m the horrible, reckless deliberate-suicide-case the health community would have me be.
The reference to (bow and scrape) Johns Hopkins is mostly blather. Burnet’s immune surveillance hypothesis of ~1970 has been proven (Curtis’ points 2 and 3), but the rest of the points are poppycock and surely did not emanate from The Hop in the form attributed.
A “positive” mental outlook does nothing against cancer, except perhaps to keep patients plugged in to arduous treatment programs instead of dropping out. No one can alter their bodies’ pH or cellular oxygen levels meaningfully or measurably by attitude and/or deep breathing; that’s just nuts. You cannot bulk up your “immune system” via nutrition, either. Lots of folks will try to sell you on the idea, for their profit at your cost, but that’s not how the vaunted immune system works.
neo, just ran across this other important cancer related study.
http://www.thelocal.se/30566/20101202/
The takeaway seems to be this: “Studies of the sun exposure habits of 40,000 women in southern Sweden have found that the health benefits of spending extended periods in the sun outweigh the negatives, such as the increased risk for skin cancer.”
Impressive Swedish photograph illustrating the approved methodology at the link.
BMI is another one of those committee-like health decisions. They want to lump everyone into a standard model. Most people recognize there are three body types – ectomoprph, mesomorph, and endomorph. Ectomorphs and some mesomorphs will fit the BMI measurements. Most mesomorphs and endomorphs will not. At 6′ and 185 pounds – my contest weight for body building – my BMI is 25.1. That is considered overweight. Arrgh!! Hope no one tells the judges.
To quickly calculate your BMI and to see how some healthcare committee tried to create a picture of most of the U.S. as being overweight to obese, go here:
http://www.bing.com/bmi/search?q=bmi+calculator&domain=bmi&height=6'0%22&weight=185
I have very serious problems with the “attitude as treatment and therapy” approach, which Curtis ascribes to some uncited Johns Hopkins “update.” With the best will in the world, I must say that all such attitudinal approaches to cancer, or any other serious disease, really piss me off to no end. 🙁
Curtis’ sixth point, allegedly from Johns Hopkins, maintains that cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. He is right about the second parameter of those three: Cancer is a disease of the body. If the mind and spirit have influences upon it, we do not know what they are, how they operate, or how we might access and control them. We have not the first clue.
In the cases of studies about attitudinal effects on cancer treatment, we have no way to measure the supposed effects. We simply assume they are there. It’s another one of those damned numbers rackets people are so in love with.
But we must just think happy thoughts. Right.
I watched my mother-in-law die a relatively quick and painful death from gall bladder cancer some years ago, after she had tried the ultimate in attitude treatments: Christian Science. She was a life-long, committed Christian Scientist, and would tell you all day long that she was “God’s perfect child,” and no harm could come to her. She believed that any suggestion to the contrary was simply false, deceptive, and illusory. Most of the time before her final illness it didn’t much matter, so courtesy prevailed and we let her alone. Her belief embraced all possible physical illnesses, right down to and including the purely mundane hay fever attack.
Well, you might say, OK–she could have tried the indicated chemotherapy while practicing her positive thinking approach into the bargain, and what would have been the harm? It might have helped.
This attitude completely ignores the awful destructive effect of positive thinking as therapy for physical illness. As we watched her die over approximately 6 months, it became clear that she was bereft of any comfort whatever from her faith, and she was left with nothing as she went her way. She believed–as do all those who ascribe such power to attitude-as-therapy–that her mind held some negotiable portion of control over her fate. When it had clearly failed, she was left bankrupt of even the smallest spiritual comfort. She believed that her attitude was key, and when it clearly failed, she was left with no alternative but to believe that she had failed so completely as to cause her own death. She was left with nowhere to turn in the face of the resulting guilt.
Imagine that, if you will. Just for a moment.
If you believe that your attitude controls your fate in the face of illness, and then your attitude fails to cure you, to what or to whom do you turn?
Is this not the cruelest of fates?
So now I am lead to consider another of the destructive results of attitude-as-therapy. When my mother-in-law was in thrall of her beliefs, we were none of us able to be honest with her. We could not discuss her situation with her, because doing so would have required recognizing a truth she was committed to denying. I have never otherwise in my life seen a person so pitiably isolated, and at the time of her greatest need for fellowship, as she was in those months.
OK, you say, Christian Science is extreme, that’s not what we’re talking about. The mind and spirit bits can still work in some positive way without having to deny the reality’s existence, can’t they?
I don’t know. Four years ago my kid brother died of head-and-neck cancer. No one has ever had, at the outset and diagnosis of such a poor-prognosis disease, a better attitude than he had. Nothing was impossible, everything would work, he had the greatest spiritual strength, he could prevail and win the battle. The war. Oh yes.
But the physical toll of his disease was more than he could address, control, or bear with his mind. He bought 2 years, but it wasn’t at the expense of his attitude. It was at the expense of the purely physical treatment of the disease. Nothing more (and also nothing less).
My heart still breaks to recall a conversation I had with him, near the end. His whole head and face were deformed from the treatments, and he hadn’t been able to swallow a single bite of a single bit of food for 2 years. He stood up and looked at me and said, “Something’s bothering me. Sometime soon people will be standing around in the kitchen talking about me, and I won’t be there.
“I don’t want to die.”
Well.
Six bare weeks later, he was gone from this dear world.
I spit on the notion of attitude as treatment for cancer, or any other disease. It’s a lie.
I just had to pass this along: it’s a different use for a “flash mob”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp_RHnQ-jgU&feature=related
And it features the Wanamaker Dept. Store pipe organ, the world’s largest. Best of all, the looks on the faces of the shoppers. Wonderful.
1. betsybounds, I read somewhere–didn’t save the link, perhaps someone knows of such–that a statistical study had been done to compare recovery rates between people who sought help from spiritual practices and those who did not.
2. I don’t want to be inhuman responding to your report, but I suspect that the resources that did not work, or were counterproductive, for your loved ones might be beneficial for some others. The point, IMHO, is that such resources should be offered rather than mandated. Especially vile is the attitude that if a psychic approach fails, the patient is somehow deficient. “You must not be doing it right.”
3. I’ve tried to write the foregoing in a manner that gets the point across but remains civil to people of faith on the thread.
betsybounds,
I am so sorry to hear of your losses. Your anger is understandable. You wrote about it in such an honest and moving way it touched my heart. I will never again be able to think quite the same way about the positive thinking bromides that are so easily prescribed.
I can only hope to be as brave as your brother if I should face such a disease.
betsybounds, attitude can’t keep you alive or cure disease, as you seem to suggest you’ve been told. I’d be surprised if anyone ever meant that literally. However, attitude can make being alive worth the effort. There’s no way to compare losses, but here’s what I saw.
Nineteen years ago, my nearly eight-year old son died on my lap. He lived with acute lymphocytic leukemia for five years. That made him a long term survivor. Look it up–five years is ‘success.’
He had cancer before he knew he had a life, but by the end, he knew he was mortal, something no child ever needs to learn. The one thing that made the difference was that he was determined to live as much as he could. Not long, but full. Attitude made the difference.
As his father, I was, to say the least, not happy with the outcome. I’ll spare you the details, but I hope I will have lived as well when my time comes to check out. Whether or not I succeed, I definitely will not waste my time on bitter and self-destructive anger.
Good God, these personal anecdotes are wrenching. My heart goes out to you, Betsy and LAG. I hope I never have to bear the terrible burdens you have borne. I hope you find such peace as you can.
10% is nothing. It’s 10% of the 0.0001% or so of developing some specific kinds of cancer, which amounts to exactly nothing at all.
It’s like you normally have a 1 in 10 million chance, but if you eat enough fruit that you’re sick of it that goes down to 1 in 11 million.
As a cancer survivor, I’ve always had the belief that while a good attitude won’t save you, but a bad outlook will kill you.
betsybounds: I am so sorry to hear you’ve had such difficult experiences.
I remember when I first read all that supposed “research” on how attitude helps cancer patients, I immediately smelled a rat. I noted (correctly, as it turns out) that it would be used to blame the patient for not having the proper fighting spirit if the patient failed to thrive. To me, either this possibility (or the related possibility of self-blame, as with your mother-in-law) seemed pernicious, wrong, and destructive.
Subsequent research did not bear out that early research that seemed to link attitude and survival length. This is the advice people are being given today, which is a lot more realistic..
LAG: your story is heartbreaking. Your son sounds like a phenomenal person.
You might want to take a look at this book. It is a wonderful piece of work, about an extraordinary child who lived her life to the fullest and died very young.
Linkage of immunity strength to positive thinking is firmly established. In many studies it was shown that depression undermines immune response. Of course, immune surveillance has its limits: it can control small numbers of cancer cells, routinely arising in every person, but not sizable tumors. So good immunity is crucial for prevention of cancers, but it also important to post-operative cancer patients survival rates. Only this immune surveillance allows them get cured, since surgery never can remove all the tumor cells.
Sergey – the linkage may be there, but is there evidence of causation, or direction of causation? Would not the same evidence support the idea that a strong immune system causes positive thinking?
Isn’t it also very misleading to present depression as the opposite to positive thinking?
Personally, having the seen the ravages of a few autoimmune diseases, I’d be really careful about thinking too positively if there were any actual link between positive thinking and immune response.
Neo, the American Cancer Society article you linked is pretty much what I think after seeing many family members with cancer or other terminal diseases. You have to allow patients the emotional space to deal with their disease and let your simple presence remind them of the positive things about their life. Lag, it sounds like your son felt your presence. And to betsybounds, the attitude-as-therapy cults are disgusting. I’m really sorry that you had to experience the effects on your mother. My father was a lifelong optimist but also a realist about his cancer. His attitude probably allowed him to take some good moments from between the times of pain and helplessness, but it was never a therapy.
Looking at things from another perspective, they nanny nutritionists can make life pretty miserable for an otherwise healthy person. I’m glad that when my time comes, I will have a lot more to look back on than counting carbs and calories.
Whenever I read that scientists have proven or even shown… fill in the blank… my eyes glaze over and I begin doubting the whole thing. First their is that the article was written by someone with a socialist/communist agenda. Their are almost no “news reporters or writers” today who are not too seriously tainted to be even taken at minor trust. (like computer settings, where you can put trusted, slightly trusted, not so much trusted, or lock down everything the pirates are here… best to do that last when reading ANYTHING in print or on air)
Then, of course, are the “scientists”. These are no better than the “reporters”. They are out to prove they are “right”, not to find out what is. They, the government who pays them, the industry who buys them, are all in on a fix game, not a study of what is or is not. Even when you find and “honest” scientist, science is… well, a fools tool unless used absolutely properly. Most scientists are not good at their profession. Cheating, lying, and making mistakes in method, reasoning, and math all lead to the same thing.
What… what we got here is… failure to communicate.
LAG, many of us have such examples of courage in our lives as your son provided you, can we but bear the gift. I think your boy was a very brave little man, and I’m so sorry for what you have lost. I’ve known people who’ve lost children, and I don’t know how you go on after that. I really don’t. I’m so sorry.
Along with the book neo recommended, I’ll just mention this one: http://tinyurl.com/2d3gv4e It’s a novel, but based on de Vries’ own life–he lost his daughter, also to leukemia, a couple of years before he wrote the book. It’s a stunner, moving on every level I know of.
I’ve read a few reports on-line about people with terminal diseases, usually cancer, and one thing that I find interesting (and heartbreaking) is how often they speak about the difficulty of finding someone they can speak to honestly about their disease. One man in particular (I don’t have the link handy, sorry) spoke of really needing someone willing to share his thoughts and feelings about his own impending death, what a relief it would be, not frightening or depressing, just a relief. But no one would. Virtually everyone he knew was infected with this awful sort of civic religion that won’t allow honest mention of sure fate, but that instead it’s important–to the point of being indispensable–to be optimistic and up-beat at all times. That’s not a victory, it’s a defeat and a nearly unbearable burden. I hope people are actually beginning to break with this mind-set. It’s no way to live.
I’m glad to see, through neo’s link, that the American Cancer Society isn’t pushing such tripe anymore.
There are 3 types of processes in universe: mechanical, organical and psychical (spiritual). Higher level processes have additional degrees of freedom, unavailible to lower types. That means that the flow of causality (control) is directed from higher levels to lower levels. This is known as a principle of subordination. Free will allows us to chose a positive attitude, undependently of the state of organical body. I know what a severe depression means: I had it myself. I managed to overcome it, only due to effort of will seeking spiritual rebirth.
Pingback:Did you believe in magic?(tm) « Ð¡ÐºÑ€Ð¸Ð¿ÑƒÑ‡Ð°Ñ Ð±ÐµÑедка
Pingback:Do you believe in magic?(tm) « Ð¡ÐºÑ€Ð¸Ð¿ÑƒÑ‡Ð°Ñ Ð±ÐµÑедка
Being optimistic does not mean denial of reality: a person can be fully aware of impending death and still be optimistic, if he can overcome fear of death. Not an easy feat, but doable.
Sergey,
I think there is a difference between basically having a positive attitude toward life and feeling that you have to deny all the feelings you have when you are told your cancer is terminal. Being able to express the fear, anger, and worry and accepting that all these emotions are normal is part of finding peace. Feeling that you have to hide your emotions amounts to breaking your bonds with family and friends at a time when you most need to know you are loved for the real you and that a bit of the real you will live on. In some ways, maybe the most important ones, that is a positive attitude, but I think it is far removed from the phoney one betsybounds described. In the end, her mother felt she had failed. It is cruel to put someone in that position.
Attitude-as-therapy is disgusting not because it never works (sometimes it does), but because, like all kinds of magical thinking, it is a materialistic perversion of spirituality. Positive thinking is like a prayer: an expression of gratitude to Creator. It can be answered, or can be not. This is the difference between magic spells and prayers, true religiosity and paganism. Faith healers cults are modern versions of paganism.
betsybounds: yes, fortunately, at least the official site of the Cancer Society seems to be actively distancing itself from the attitude. My guess is that they finally realized how punitive it often is. And research in recent years has not been able to replicate results that indicate it matters in terms of survival.
It’s also possible to be severely depressed and optimistic at the same time. Optimism is far different from what I’ve seen when people use the term “positive thinking”.
Optimism includes acceptance, does not deny reality, and allows plenty of room for sadness and anger.
Brazil nuts; high in selenium, which is supposed to help prevent cancer. Several studies have suggested a possible link between cancer and selenium deficiency.
The factor with the highest correlation with mortality of any kind is poverty. Poverty does not cause mortality, it simply predicts it. The Obama administration, in its infinite wisdom, operates on the principle that every problem can be fixed by writing checks, transeferring wealth etc.
Camojack wants us all to eat Brazil Nuts. I hope he’s laid in a stash to protect himself against the Big C in anticipation of the Nut stampede. Would that be a stampede to the nuts by the nuts? Maybe he owns a Bnut plantation.
I have a better idea: extract the selenium from the nuts and sell it as organic selenium.
Tom Says:
Camojack wants us all to eat Brazil Nuts. hope he’s laid in a stash to protect himself against the Big C in anticipation of the Nut stampede. Would that be a stampede to the nuts by the nuts? Maybe he owns a Bnut plantation. I have a better idea: extract the selenium from the nuts and sell it as organic selenium.
No plantation owner I; as for how to get your selenium, that’s entirely up to you. I bought shelled brazil nuts in bulk…it’s easier than processing them myself. YMMV… 😉
Impressive overcom! I wish to beginner concurrently because you modify your internet-site, how may my spouse and i sign up to get a site web-site? This bill helped me a applicable cope. I became little acquainted of this your current transmit made available dazzling obvious plan