I thought the one positive of Tiny Hands McTwitterfingers holding the country hostage while he cries about not getting his Lincoln Log Wall was that we would get some kind of reprieve from him, if only for like a week. Alas, now they’re just giving him prime airtime.
Re PEETUS. Well President of the United States here is referred to as the POTUS, and have you guys not heard about the pee tape over there? I envy you. But please tell everyone that PEETUS is the official acronym tho.
Knew the POTUS bit but I’d forgotten about the (alleged [has it actually been shown?]) pee tape, now it makes much more sense.
I didn’t even read the article because their OTHER articles along the side caught my eye. And then I refused to read the article. For your viewing pleasure:
When my mom was sick with cancer, she’d eat an entire bag of candy most evenings. She always said that she didn’t want it, but the cancer did.
Yup. But you read that as part of your balanced media diet, right?
My mom would read it for fun when I was a kid. It always had psychic (for the youngins) Jeane Dixon on the cover. We laughed when we found out she had sued a hotel for getting scalded with the bath water.
Well I found the article in the Daily Mail that was referenced in…Natural News?..I can’t remember which rag it was in…Anyway, the Daily Mail said “Apple Shaped Women” have a 50% higher chance of getting cancer. Just a little different than 50% of women, I think.
You mean the tape that has been totally disproved? Keep politics out of it FFS.
Makes false claim.
Then tells everyone to not argue with his false claim, once he’s made it.
A month after the thread was last posted to.
You really do need to have the last word in everything. Yes I didn’t look into this forum for a month. Soo sorry.
The point being missed here, of course, is that reviving the thread is pointless enough - it was well dead - but doing so with a false claim is beyond ridiculous.
I LOVED Tripping Over the Truth and am eager to see more of that work getting into the mainstream, but I wanted to point out to everyone reading that your above statement is pretty controversial. From what I’ve heard, there are some cancers that can indeed use ketones (unfortunately). It might still be better to be keto than not in those cases but it’s not because the cancer can’t use ketones as a fuel. I think this is unusual, just a small percentage of cancers, and if you have a tumor that lights up with a PET scan, your cancer thrives on (probably depends on) sugar to grow.
