Christoph Reuss wrote:
> Let's analyze this (it does fit together): Conventional ovens heat the
> food from outside to inside, so the pathogens INside ground meat survive
> if you don't cook it long enough. Microwave ovens heat the food from
> inside to outside, so the pathogens on the _surface_ survive if you don't
> cook it long enough (and on most food _except_ ground meats, most of the
> pathogens are on the surface, hence my point 1). Thus, it does make sense
> to PRE-cook ground meats in the microwave (killing the pathogens INside)
> and then cook it regularly. See, "the devil is in the details"... ;-)
Like you say, but all of the foods that I have in my kitchen and thedirections in
the Micro-wave states that food should be left for a
few minutes, before removing. It seems that the heat comes
to the outside. But the main issue for me was with meat that
has the pathogens ground into the center. I've learned
to be afraid of pink hamburger.
Something that is pointed out in
Dr. Michael Arnott's book on Breast Cancer is that cooking in the
oven or on the stove creates carcinogens that contribute to breast
cancer in women. Not the case in the Micro-wave. So choose
your poison. I still prefer fresh, organic tasty food. The Micro-
wave doesn't deliver on that one. And my daughter is much
improved, in school, doing three hour a night homework assignments
and happy. Hey what's wrong with that?
>
(snip)
> Well, it's an open secret that "mainstream" docs have virtually no idea of
> nutrition and prevention. This is a structural problem in their education.
No it's a structural problem with the double-blind testing method and theprivate
enterprise system that is only rewarded AFTER you get sick.
They have an investment in your being ill!
> Your criticism of the medical system is perfectly valid on that account.
> However, your homeopath seemed to imply that enzymes survive in conventional
> cooking but not in microwave cooking, which was a wrong interpretation.
Well, he is a five-star French chef. Maybe there was something lost in
thetranslation. I'll check it out with him. But even my stomach doesn't enjoy
the food from the Micro-wave either. Kind of like cooking in old grease at
the stomach level. I keep the Zantac close by.
> I've heard similar stories on homeopaths being wrong in the explanations
> but right in the results (well, sometimes). That's how homeopaths work,
> after all. ;-)
I once had a heart surgeon tell me that 800 IUs of vitamin E was bad for me
and could harm my internal organs. (note that they now recommend that
amount and above for healthy hearts). I asked my heart surgeon of the time
about the right amount and he said he would check with a specialist but
he knew that I was wrong.
The issue of healing one's self and taking care by practicing healthy
prevention practices seems to be the only answer given the future of medical
work in these times. Especially for folks like myself without personal medical
coverage. I draw attention to Brian's post for the rest.
But this issue of the medical Doctor's needing to be a businessman, according
to Wall Street, and having a vested interest in creating a market by making you
sick in order to need him is a little wierd, don't you think? You don't believe
me?
Remember it was business that came up with the idea of "planned obsolescence."
And yes I do believe that it is on topic. It's all work and definitely a problem
of the
future.
Economically, I wish the economists on the list would explain the
economics of being a Doctor given the current climate both in the U.S. and
Canada.
It don't make sense! (idiomatic Oklahoma speech with a nasel twang like Garth.)
REH
