Cancer (treatment) is (probably) a HOAX.

I'm currently on my 4th course of chemotherapy after being diagnosed with a recurrent brain tumour 13 years ago. I've had 4 brain surgeries, 1 6 week radiotherapy course. I have my 3rd cycle of my 4th chemotherapy course next week. I'm still here with a malignant brain tumour. I haven't been cured, but being alive Is good enough right now. So I'll probably continue to follow my oncologists advice at the moment. And follow their hoax of a treatment plan.

a reply to: NavyDoc

1). Were they cancer free in truth?
2). What was their life expectancy?

That is probably the reason cancer is not yet cured, doctors stubbornly refuse to investigate some potentially usefull research leads and alway shift a heavy burden of proof toward the proponent.

Check work done by Vilhjalmur Stefansson and others around years 1900 if you really want some answers.

I'm quite sure, as a good doctor, you will say in the end, it was just a myth...

a reply to: 123123

Sodium bicarbonate and melassiss is the way to go.

originally posted by: Aboveway
a reply to: 123123

Sodium bicarbonate and melassiss is the way to go.

Only if you have heartburn and are not diabetic.

As for cancer though they will do nothing.

Quick (bio)chemistry lesson...
Soda bic or NaHCO3 plus hydrochloric acid HCL3 (stomach acid) when mixed produces salt NaCl, water H2O and carbon dioxide CO2.
Melassiss [sic] or molasses as it's more commonly known will be broken down into simple sugar molecules.
So one part of the "cure" is neutralised into water, salt and maybe a little burp and the other is processed the same way as table sugar.
Tell me, how does combining them form a cure for cancer?
Be as technical as you wish.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: NavyDoc

1). Were they cancer free in truth?
2). What was their life expectancy?

That is probably the reason cancer is not yet cured, doctors stubbornly refuse to investigate some potentially usefull research leads and alway shift a heavy burden of proof toward the proponent.
Check work done by Vilhjalmur Stefansson and others around years 1900 if you really want some answers.
I'm quite sure, as a good doctor, you will say in the end, it was just a myth...

Please, what gives you the intellectual authority to call present cancer research...or the opinion of an MD (NavyDoc)... into question? Degrees in Youtube and Google? I'm sure we'd like to see your credentials.

According to data obtained from the NFL by Darren Rovell of ESPN, the NFL "takes a 25% royalty from the wholesale price (1/2 retail), donates 90% of royalty to American Cancer Society."

In other words, for every $100 in pink merchandise sold, $12.50 goes to the NFL. Of that, $11.25 goes to the American Cancer Society (ACS) and the NFL keeps the rest. The remaining money is then divided up by the company that makes the merchandise (37.5%) and the company that sells the merchandise (50.0%), which is often the NFL and the individual teams

Read more: www.businessinsider.com...

cancer might not be a scam but the business model sure is

currently cancer free
no chemo used

Cancer Society spends more on fundraising than research

www.cbc.ca...

yeah one day we will maybe work on prevention but that would put the scammers out of business
better lots of people suffer and die to keep the pump primed

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
I'm currently on my 4th course of chemotherapy after being diagnosed with a recurrent brain tumour 13 years ago. I've had 4 brain surgeries, 1 6 week radiotherapy course. I have my 3rd cycle of my 4th chemotherapy course next week. I'm still here with a malignant brain tumour. I haven't been cured, but being alive Is good enough right now. So I'll probably continue to follow my oncologists advice at the moment. And follow their hoax of a treatment plan.

Sounds like fairly definitive proof that they really have no idea what they are doing.

The treatment plans they offer are pretty sad all around, they refuse to look for evidence that is already gathered in key areas, and most people STILL succumb to this terrible disease, I have watched so many brutally destroyed by the treatments.

If you say that being alive is good enough, that is great for you, but reality needs to set in, that they likely have complete cures, and would rather "treat" everyone.

Not one person I have spoken too, at a Cancer Hospital with over 10,000 people, have seen anyone cured, or without insane regimens foisted upon them.

I walk the halls wondering when these scums will be forced out of hiding and release the reality of what is actually happening , in this and many other diseases.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
I'm currently on my 4th course of chemotherapy after being diagnosed with a recurrent brain tumour 13 years ago. I've had 4 brain surgeries, 1 6 week radiotherapy course. I have my 3rd cycle of my 4th chemotherapy course next week. I'm still here with a malignant brain tumour. I haven't been cured, but being alive Is good enough right now. So I'll probably continue to follow my oncologists advice at the moment. And follow their hoax of a treatment plan.

Sounds like fairly definitive proof that they really have no idea what they are doing.

The treatment plans they offer are pretty sad all around, they refuse to look for evidence that is already gathered in key areas, and most people STILL succumb to this terrible disease, I have watched so many brutally destroyed by the treatments.

If you say that being alive is good enough, that is great for you, but reality needs to set in, that they likely have complete cures, and would rather "treat" everyone.

Not one person I have spoken too, at a Cancer Hospital with over 10,000 people, have seen anyone cured, or without insane regimens foisted upon them.

I walk the halls wondering when these scums will be forced out of hiding and release the reality of what is actually happening , in this and many other diseases.

It mustn't be a very good cancer centre then.
Or it's just a figment of your imagination used to imply you actually know something about the subject.
I'll opt for the latter.

For a start 90% of children diagnosed with ALL are cured.
80% of women diagnosed with breast cancer are cured.
95% of people with skin cancer are cured.

In fact, in the UK, the overall cure rate for cancers is 50%.


The issue is when the cancer is diagnosed.
The earlier, the better.
However, people are naturally frightened by cancer and the treatment so stupidly listen to interexperts such as yourself who suggest if they look around they'll find a simple cure.
That wastes time.
And time is the most precious thing anyone with cancer has.

Here's post from an oncologist. I'm sure you won't read it.
www.slate.com...

Another thing people like you fail to consider is that since cancer affects around 1 in 4 people, the doctors who treat cancer patients, the people who run pharma companies and the people who research into cancer have probably had someone close fall ill with it and possibly die.
If they knew of a cure that worked don't you think they would use it?

If a pharma company came up with a cure they would instantly be the most powerful pharma company in the world.

But no, the likes of you would rather they started eating seeds & herbs or rubbing caustic salve on their skin.
And the reason you can say that is because you have no responsibility and thus there is no recourse.

Show me a website which offers a cancer cure without a disclaimer on the bottom of the page.
No responsibility and no recourse.

Show me irrefutable proof that even a single alternative cancer cure has worked (confirmed diagnosis, full list of treatment and regimen, adjunctive therapies, evidence of removal of cancer, evidence of cure. Obviously testimonies count for absolutely nothing).
If you can do that I'll believe you.
If you can't, think about what you say more carefully as you could be putting people's lives at risk.

a reply to: ParasuvO I have not been brutally destroyed by the treatments and I've had enough of them as I've posted. In fact to look at me you probably wouldn't think there's anything wrong with me despite living with the disease for 13 years. Of course I have some big old scars on my head from 4 brain surgeries. The chemo is surprisingly tolerable. The advancement in anti sickness meds means I suffer what I describe as a bad hangover for a couple of weeks while taking the chemo. In fact I've only vomited once on chemo after 4 courses and that time was because I forgot the anti sickness medication. To keep me alive for 13 years with a GBM grade 4 tumour. Suggests they do know what they are doing. I used to belong to a support group for young people with brain tumours and I saw a few come and go. It was always sad to see the ones who'd chosen an alternative course pass away, but it was their lives and not for me to interfere with their desires. I understand that a complete cure would be preferable to just being alive, but being alive after 13 years of such a nasty disease is nothing to be sniffed at. I was originally given a prognosis of 3 years. So I've out done that by 10 years. I've had some great times in my life in those 10 years. So I understand it won't be cured, but to keep trying to control such an aggressive tumour is testament to the treatments I've recieved. I don't have the skepticism many here have for big pharma and I'll continue to keep fighting until the day I die, despite what the naysayers may spout

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: ParasuvO I have not been brutally destroyed by the treatments and I've had enough of them as I've posted. In fact to look at me you probably wouldn't think there's anything wrong with me despite living with the disease for 13 years. Of course I have some big old scars on my head from 4 brain surgeries. The chemo is surprisingly tolerable. The advancement in anti sickness meds means I suffer what I describe as a bad hangover for a couple of weeks while taking the chemo. In fact I've only vomited once on chemo after 4 courses and that time was because I forgot the anti sickness medication. To keep me alive for 13 years with a GBM grade 4 tumour. Suggests they do know what they are doing. I used to belong to a support group for young people with brain tumours and I saw a few come and go. It was always sad to see the ones who'd chosen an alternative course pass away, but it was their lives and not for me to interfere with their desires. I understand that a complete cure would be preferable to just being alive, but being alive after 13 years of such a nasty disease is nothing to be sniffed at. I was originally given a prognosis of 3 years. So I've out done that by 10 years. I've had some great times in my life in those 10 years. So I understand it won't be cured, but to keep trying to control such an aggressive tumour is testament to the treatments I've recieved. I don't have the skepticism many here have for big pharma and I'll continue to keep fighting until the day I die, despite what the naysayers may spout

Good on you.

Unfortunately the anti-pharma brigade only see black or white.
It's either a complete cure or it's worthless.
You and countless others are testament that it's not the case.
(And before I get criticised for my use of the word "testament", it can be backed up with definitive proof.)

I think being from the UK and having a nhs means I'm far less skeptical of "big pharma". I don't feel im paying these huge companies for their treatments.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
I think being from the UK and having a nhs means I'm far less skeptical of "big pharma". I don't feel im paying these huge companies for their treatments.

Indeed...my treatment cost me $32 out of pocket...total parking at the oncology centre.

a reply to: C84K2

Cancer is a hoax, yet... the search for the cure for cancer conducted by the so called mainstream scientific research is a scam. Cancer has always been curable by many methods. Chemotherapy is a legalize experimentation/use of hazardous chemicals/radiation on the human body. Most cancer patients die due to the effects of the therapy rather than from the cancer itself

Well said!

a reply to: 123123

i dont have to watch to comment.
cancer is not a hoax
chemo works on some cancer for some people
broccoli or b12 or horny goat weed or whatever the new age holistic flavor of the day is does not.

if you get cancer, go get some modern treatment.
thats about it

I have been banned on virtually every cancer forum on the net, so I thought I would try this one out (This one might be the last forum I can post too!).

I have went to these different forums and sought out some of the truly most hopeless cancer patients. Most of these patients had given up on conventional chemotherapy and even alternative therapy. They decided that they would just wait for their cancer to take them to another place.

These patients had terminally advanced cancer such as pancreatic, and liver and bile duct cancer. They are considered medically untreatable.

I felt very badly for them, so I posted the suggestion that they might want to consider 3-Bromopyruvate.

I noted the two patient reports (urls below) that resulted in metabolic cures of terminal cancer. The first patient
report was truly stunning. A teenage patient with terminal liver cancer was cured. This patient did not ultimately survive. However, no trace of cancer was detected at his last labs. The problem was he did not have a functioning
liver.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The FDA granted orphan designation for 3-Bromopyruvate for pancreatic cancer (04-29-2014) and for liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer (03-05-2013). The FDA granted immediate enrollment of a phase 1 clinical trial with 3-BP in January of 2013. This trial has not yet started.

The background story for 3-BP is quite startling and has been written up in the book, Tripping over the Truth.

Perhaps there is something to all this conspiracy talk.

a reply to: 3Bromo

Most of these patients had given up on conventional chemotherapy

Most conventional chemotherapy agents are designed to increase ROS up to a level that will be toxic to cancerous cells, but still tolerable to normal cells. This is not a very good approach as you may know that ROS is very bad and are the most probable cause for aging and intracellular damages.

There are others antineoplasic agents that work differently.

Yes, this is true about conventional chemotherapy. However, most cancer patients will simply go to their doctor and ask for whatever treatment the doctor believes will be best for them. The doctor will then required by law to give cancer treatments that have been formally approved by a regulatory body. Chemotherapy is one approved therapy for cancer.

3-BP has not been approved by any regulatory body. However, it has shown dramatic anti-cancer effects in a small number of terminally ill patients. 3-BP is able to target cellular respiration-- the only energy pathway that exists in the human body-- in the cancer cells. By disrupting the cancer cells energy source, 3-BP treatment can result in almost immediate and massive cancer destruction. [ Research has also shown that ROS generation contributes to 3-BP's anti-cancer effect. ]