It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cancer Is Not a Disease - It's a Survival Mechanism by Andreas Moritz

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
The death is caused by the toxicity and/or mainstream cancer treatment, not the cancer.

But a tumor can cause death if it's blocking a major organ.


You are just contradicting yourself here.


Also in case you are not aware, chemo is only one out of many strategies used by doctors to fight cancer.




posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: ConnectDots

I believe that cancer, the physical disease, cannot occur unless there is a strong undercurrent of emotional uneasiness and deep-seated frustration.

Is he aware of neonatal cancer?



Obviously it's frustration from the past life of the fetus [sarc]



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

oh that was too dark for me.. good one



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
I believe the track record on chemo is abysmal.


What is the track record of "cancer healers"?



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?


If it really worked surely he would take that responsibility wouldn't he?

Ever read some of the release forms used by doctors, surgeons, and hospitals? If it really worked surely they would take that responsibility wouldn't they?



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

nice amount of cash?



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   
To the OP: Don't believe everything you read. As someone else mentioned, these snake oil salesman make it sound SO fantastic and believable that they understand cancer, and have a simple treatment plan that will work for everyone.


To the person who said chemo doesn't have a good track record, that is only half true. The FULL truth is that it generally has a better track record as far as combating cancer than ANYTHING else.

Things like dietary changes, lifestyle changes, meditation, pranayama and breathing techniques, and other holistic approaches to medicine are FANTASTIC....but they work best as PREVENTATIVE medicine. Once a person already HAS cancer, especially in the later stages, chemo is usually one of the most effective modes of treatment, especially for aggressive cancers.

Holistic medicine can STILL help the patient, but usually in COMBINATON with western medicine.


I've known MANY people to have gotten cancer. Most of the survivors I know combined western medicine (chemo etc) with holistic health for the best results.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
If it really worked surely they would take that responsibility wouldn't they?


I know you are being facetious but unfortunately doctors have no choice today since lawyers started to get the bad habit of preying on the misery of people and to sue doctors anytime they did not completely heal someone.

So yes they must make it clear to the patient that "in no way I can give you a 100% certainty you will be fine".

But if they weren't seeing how their effort actually helps people I'm sure many doctors and nurse would leave such a demanding job to do something else ensuring easier money.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

I'm sorry, but cancer runs in my family and it's almost a given that, one day, I will be fighting that battle so, yeah, I'll take my chances with the chemo and radiation, long before I resort to the "natural cure". I've seen "positive" people die just as quick as those who had given up. Mood may have an impact, but "thinking positive" is just not going to do it. You can defend this guy all you like, but [ God forbid ] you are diagnosed with cancer, what will you do?
Read all the books you like, but if you do get sick and look to this guy for a cure....... read fast.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

The death is caused by the toxicity and/or mainstream cancer treatment, not the cancer.

But a tumor can cause death if it's blocking a major organ.


Yeah, cancer had nothing to with cancer, it was the treatment that gave them the sickness they already had.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: ConnectDots

I'm sorry, but cancer runs in my family and it's almost a given that, one day, I will be fighting that battle so, yeah, I'll take my chances with the chemo and radiation, long before I resort to the "natural cure". I've seen "positive" people die just as quick as those who had given up. Mood may have an impact, but "thinking positive" is just not going to do it. You can defend this guy all you like, but [ God forbid ] you are diagnosed with cancer, what will you do?
Read all the books you like, but if you do get sick and look to this guy for a cure....... read fast.


I'm sorry to hear that.

If I can give you one advice based on something that is recognized by science today and that is studied as another strategy to fight (and maybe heal?) cancer:


Keep you sugar (simple and complex) consumption to a minimum. Cut it if you can. Not only excess of sugar is a big factor in developing some cancers, but furthermore when the tumor starts, it will grow by consuming large amount sugar.


Without any sugar to feed it, the tumor cannot grow. It might not be (yet) sufficient to kill it, but at least starving the tumor will slow its growth. At least it will buy you time.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Is this what you're talking about?

From ScienceDirect:


Summary

Neonatal cancer is rare and comprises a heterogeneous group of neoplasms with substantial histological diversity. Almost all types of paediatric cancer can occur in fetuses and neonates; however, the presentation and behaviour of neonatal tumours often differs from that in older children, leading to differences in diagnosis and management. The causes of neonatal cancer are unclear, but genetic factors probably have a key role. Other congenital abnormalities are frequently present. Teratoma and neuroblastoma are the most common histological types of neonatal cancer, with soft-tissue sarcoma, leukaemia, renal tumours, and brain tumours also among the more frequent types. Prenatal detection, most often on routine ultrasound or in the context of a known predisposition syndrome, is becoming more common. Treatment options pose challenges because of the particular vulnerability of the population. Neonatal cancer raises diagnostic, therapeutic, and ethical issues, and management requires a multidisciplinary approach.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

No, it's the treatment that can kill them instead of remove the cause of the cancer.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Is this what you're talking about?

From ScienceDirect:


Summary

Neonatal cancer is rare and comprises a heterogeneous group of neoplasms with substantial histological diversity. Almost all types of paediatric cancer can occur in fetuses and neonates; however, the presentation and behaviour of neonatal tumours often differs from that in older children, leading to differences in diagnosis and management. The causes of neonatal cancer are unclear, but genetic factors probably have a key role. Other congenital abnormalities are frequently present. Teratoma and neuroblastoma are the most common histological types of neonatal cancer, with soft-tissue sarcoma, leukaemia, renal tumours, and brain tumours also among the more frequent types. Prenatal detection, most often on routine ultrasound or in the context of a known predisposition syndrome, is becoming more common. Treatment options pose challenges because of the particular vulnerability of the population. Neonatal cancer raises diagnostic, therapeutic, and ethical issues, and management requires a multidisciplinary approach.



Yes, of course. Why do you ask?



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Is this what you're talking about?

From ScienceDirect:


Summary

Neonatal cancer is rare and comprises a heterogeneous group of neoplasms with substantial histological diversity. Almost all types of paediatric cancer can occur in fetuses and neonates; however, the presentation and behaviour of neonatal tumours often differs from that in older children, leading to differences in diagnosis and management. The causes of neonatal cancer are unclear, but genetic factors probably have a key role. Other congenital abnormalities are frequently present. Teratoma and neuroblastoma are the most common histological types of neonatal cancer, with soft-tissue sarcoma, leukaemia, renal tumours, and brain tumours also among the more frequent types. Prenatal detection, most often on routine ultrasound or in the context of a known predisposition syndrome, is becoming more common. Treatment options pose challenges because of the particular vulnerability of the population. Neonatal cancer raises diagnostic, therapeutic, and ethical issues, and management requires a multidisciplinary approach.




Hey your quote says the cause of neonatal cancer are probably genetic



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

No, it's the treatment that can kill them instead of remove the cause of the cancer.


The cause of skin cancer is the sun, how do you remove the sun?



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

No, it's the treatment that can kill them instead of remove the cause of the cancer.


The cause of skin cancer is the sun, how do you remove the sun?

I'm guessing ''chemtrails'' and holographic projections in the sky?



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Pardon?


If it really worked surely he would take that responsibility wouldn't he?

Ever read some of the release forms used by doctors, surgeons, and hospitals? If it really worked surely they would take that responsibility wouldn't they?


Yes I have read them but I'm guessing you haven't by what you've implied.

Signing a consent form (certainly in the UK) does not absolve the physician from any responsibility whatsoever.

www.radpro.eu...



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I believe this man, whomever this author is, really is just capitalizing off of people's sickness, and grief, because he omits so many other factors that can bring about cancer! So many! To cite "toxins" as a cause is such a vague way is negligent. He wanted a niche to get his book out there, and unless in said book he's offering any scientific resources to back his claims and exhibit that he himself has even rudimentary knowledge of cell dynamics or physiology even (something), I'm not convinced.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: ConnectDots

I'm sorry, but cancer runs in my family and it's almost a given that, one day, I will be fighting that battle so, yeah, I'll take my chances with the chemo and radiation, long before I resort to the "natural cure". I've seen "positive" people die just as quick as those who had given up. Mood may have an impact, but "thinking positive" is just not going to do it. You can defend this guy all you like, but [ God forbid ] you are diagnosed with cancer, what will you do?
Read all the books you like, but if you do get sick and look to this guy for a cure....... read fast.


I'm sorry to hear that.

If I can give you one advice based on something that is recognized by science today and that is studied as another strategy to fight (and maybe heal?) cancer:


Keep you sugar (simple and complex) consumption to a minimum. Cut it if you can. Not only excess of sugar is a big factor in developing some cancers, but furthermore when the tumor starts, it will grow by consuming large amount sugar.


Without any sugar to feed it, the tumor cannot grow. It might not be (yet) sufficient to kill it, but at least starving the tumor will slow its growth. At least it will buy you time.


I'm afraid the sugar deprivation diet doesn't work for cancers.

The reason that cancers consume so much sugar is due to their rate of growth, not the other way around.
Depriving your whole body of sugars would be counter-productive as ALL of your cells need it.
You need as much energy as possible when you have cancer.




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join