New Study Shows Ginger Is 10,000x Stronger Than Chemo

a reply to: boncho

That is a very insensitive thing to say.

originally posted by: boncho

Ah yes, Im sure if he just ate some ginger it would have been cured instantly....

Do you not think if it was that easy that these cures would have been found a long time ago? Yes some natural extracts are great cancer fighting agents, but its very situational, specific, and not always 100% effective.

For instance one component might work a very specific, certain kind of cancer, and then only in a select number of people. Or it might work in everyone, but to varying degrees.

And the exact same conditions of 'some work and some do not' are found with any medicine you want to call to mind.
But that isn't the issue this thread brings to us.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

You may interested in this little concoction.....

32 oz. bottle Organic Apple Cider Vinegar
1/4 cup chopped Garlic
1/4 cup Onions
1 Habanero pepper (or hottest peppers you can find)
1/4 cup grated Ginger
2 Tablespoons of grated Horseradish
2 Tablespoons of Turmeric or 2 Turmeric root chunks

www.earthiemama.com...

a reply to: Byrd

It works well for cancers in the digestive tract, with poor absorption into the bloodstream. Black pepper helps.

New Study Shows Ginger Is 10,000x Stronger Than Chemo

ginger!

my god some people really need to learn that not everything they read on the internet is true and how to critically appraise their sources.

Slice ginger into thin sections and pack it in sugar for a day. Set the slices on a towel and let it dehydrate at room temperature. I don't know about cancer, but it is great for upset stomach.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Thank you for such great information. A family member has breast cancer and I will see she gets this information.
My wife loves ginger so we eat a lot of it but I suspect its one of those foods that, like marmite, one either loves it or hates it.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

because this is science (medicine) and right now it is a scientific fact that chemo treatment is known to stop the growth of tumors.

scientific fact?

www.collective-evolution.com...

A study published in August 2003 revealed that of adult cancer in the USA and Australia, the use of chemotherapy, when looking at adjuvant and curative use, provided a cure only 2.1% of the time in the USA and 2.3% of the time in Australia.

The study undertook a literature search for randomized clinical trials which saw a 5-year survival rate that was attributed solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adult malignancies. The data was taken from the cancer registry in Australia and from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data in the USA for 1998. As stated, the final results show that the overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.

In the video below Dr. Peter Glidden cites the study that concludes better than 97% of the time, chemotherapy does not work.

naturalsociety.com...

Woops! Study Accidentally Finds Chemotherapy Makes Cancer Far Worse
Anthony Gucciardi BY ANTHONY GUCCIARDI
POSTED ON AUGUST 7, 2012


A team of researchers looking into why cancer cells are so resilient accidentally stumbled upon a far more important discovery. While conducting their research, the team discovered that chemotherapy actually heavily damages healthy cells and subsequently triggers them to release a protein that sustains and fuels tumor growth. Beyond that, it even makes the tumor highly resistant to future treatment.

Reporting their findings in the journal Nature Medicine, the scientists report that the findings were ‘completely unexpected’. Finding evidence of significant DNA damage when examining the effects of chemotherapy on tissue derived from men with prostate cancer, the writings are a big slap in the face to mainstream medical organizations who have been pushing chemotherapy as the only option to cancer patients for years.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

FFS, please stick to the original publications instead of these alarmistic exagerating "natural is superb" websites. They tend to spread misleading and plain wrong information, based upon a misrepresentation of the original scientific publications.
The original publications:
Australian publication
Treatment-induced damage to the tumor microenvironment promotes prostate cancer therapy resistance through WNT16B

some facts about the first publication:

it appears almost intentionally designed to have left out the very types of cancers for which chemotherapy provides the most benefit, and it uses 5 year survival exclusively, completely neglecting that in some common cancers (such as breast cancer) chemotherapy can prevent late relapses. There were also a lot of inconsistencies and omissions in that leukemias were not included, while leukemia is one type of cancer against which chemotherapy is most efficacious. Indeed, the very technique of lumping all newly diagnosed adult cancers together is guaranteed to obscure benefits of chemotherapy among subgroups by lumping in patients for whom chemotherapy is not even indicated.

more information here

and a very informative publication about the history of chemotherapy here

Your second article is again too misleading to let it pass. I'll ignore the alarming wording. But the results were not "totally unexpected":

Overall, our findings are in agreement with studies of DNA damage in which the execution of a signaling program culminating in a senescence phenotype is accompanied by elevated concentrations of specific extracellular proteins termed a 'senescence messaging secretome' or a 'senescence-associated secretory phenotype'33, 34.

We already know for a long time that chemotherapy can affect healthy tissue. We already know that tumors may become resistant to therapy. This particular study has identified a potential mechanism by which the healthy surroundings of a tumor cell may assist the tumor in developping resistance to additional therapy.
This research doesn’t show that these drugs don’t work – we already know from clinical trials and years of use in patients that they can slow tumour growth and increase survival. This study will help in increasing our understanding of tumor physiology, the importance of tumor environment (including healthy surrounding tissue), and will help in improving our strategy to combat cancer.

Chemotherapy is one part of the picture. But not the entire picture in fighting cancer.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
And this will be ignored by the MSM because $$$$$.

Well at least until Monsanto has time to "Patent" the Ginger plant.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: DeathSlayer

The study was conducted in 2012 and despite the fact that it did reduce tumours in mice up to 56%, they are yet to prove it is suitable for humans too, or that it works as good as it did with mice. Ginger is not an alternative to chemo, the title is misleading and sensationalist.

The original peer reviewed article:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

And I say you are scientifically correct and on the other hand since double blinds have not yet completed (published) we can assume the additional amounts of daily ginger did not cause adverse effects to the tumor.

As a contrarian point check cancer death rates in countries that use a lot of ginger - like China If it was that good, there'd be no cases of cancer there.

But could this not also mean that the Chinese have changed their diets to a more western diet?

China now eats twice as much meat as the United States

China's changing eating habits

and don't forget environmental factors

originally posted by: Foderalover
a reply to: boncho

That is a very insensitive thing to say.

Being realistic is not insensitive. In fact, its much more insensitive to blow things out of proportion, to take money based on BS 'cures' when in fact it wont help people at all when they are deathly ill.

Im going to quote another member here for their poignant post:

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: DeathSlayer

The study was conducted in 2012 and despite the fact that it did reduce tumours in mice up to 56%, they are yet to prove it is suitable for humans too, or that it works as good as it did with mice. Ginger is not an alternative to chemo, the title is misleading and sensationalist.

The original peer reviewed article:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: Aliensun

And the exact same conditions of 'some work and some do not' are found with any medicine you want to call to mind.
But that isn't the issue this thread brings to us.

It's exactly the issue this thread brings us. Its sensationalist and its spinning a story that is borderline deceitful. Ginger is not 'stronger than chemo'. Tell me if you were diagnosed, "knock on wood" would you be eating ginger or signing up for chemo treatments?

Facts:

1. Many types of cancer were tested, including prostate, cervical and breast cancer cells, of which were injected into mice. Shown to work on prostate cancer specifically.

2. The amount the MICE consumed, was the equivalent of a human eating 1 kilo of ginger extract/day.

3. Chemopreventative agents are used for preventative medicine, or more aptly described as preventative nutrition. Nowhere does it says its more powerful than chemotherapy. It's being listed as one of many foods that help with preventing cancer.

"NEW STUDY SHOWS GINGER IS 10,000X STRONGER THAN CHEMO" is a totally BS Headline.

originally posted by: boncho


It's exactly the issue this thread brings us. Its sensationalist and its spinning a story that is borderline deceitful. Ginger is not 'stronger than chemo'. Tell me if you were diagnosed, "knock on wood" would you be eating ginger or signing up for chemo treatments?

Well my father has skin cancer had a few dozen moles dropped. He also has precancerous formations in his colon. There's no need for chemo at this stage, so I went with what the science says. I can't believe nobody has bothered to find many of the numerous studies on ginger's sister root, turmeric. I've ordered broswelia and turmeric in bulk and will be capping them with black pepper to take orally and incorporating these into at least a meal a day. Lots of evidence for it's benefits to colon cancer and precancerous cells.

Maybe I should create a thread on turmeric and get a few dozen studies in there. Definitely not a shortage of evidence on that species root.

Im sure everyone on ATS is smart enough to research all these treatments, and would never take the advice based on one article they found on a board. But, I am so very glad the OP has opened this dialog concerning natural medications compared to chemical.

If I were diagnosed with Cancer, I would research everything and would try the natural treatments first. Because, Chemo is so damaging to the healthy cells.

originally posted by: misskat1
Im sure everyone on ATS is smart enough to research all these treatments, and would never take the advice based on one article they found on a board. But, I am so very glad the OP has opened this dialog concerning natural medications compared to chemical.

If I were diagnosed with Cancer, I would research everything and would try the natural treatments first. Because, Chemo is so damaging to the healthy cells.

paclitaxel and docetaxel are natural compounds used to threat various cancers. So it is not "natural vs chemical". It should be about what has been demonstrated to work and what doesn't.

a reply to: whismermill

These are chemical drugs. Even if they isolated the active ingredient from a herbal source and reproduced it chemically to create the drug, its still a chemical. And not organically created or natural. Even though it might have a basses in Natural Medicine, its still far from natural.

a reply to: misskat1

All matter is chemicals.

Furthermore, "natural" means jack#. Chemicals are chemicals. The laws of chemistry couldn't give two hoots whether something is "natural" or not.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

I grow my own turmeric and ginger and I agree with you, Turmeric is such an important herb. Its very easy to grow, but it does take 10 months to harvest. So, if you live in a cooler area, you can grow it in pots and bring indoors when it gets too cold. Or grow it indoors.

Ginger isnt very expensive, but Turmeric (if you can find it fresh) is 15.00 a pound where I live. So last time, I found it, I bought a bunch and planted it, so I have it free all the time. The powder is expensive too. And the fresh is better, and if you grow it yourself, you can make sure its really organic. Im not trusting whats on the grocery label these days, so I try to grow a lot of what I eat.

Also, since you seem to be into a healthy diet, check into Moringa. Its an African tree that is a super food. Its too cold where I live, so I have them in pots and bring them in for a couple of months. The tree has more nutrients than most other foods. Its super easy to dry the leaves and make your own powder, or add them fresh to smoothies.

Live long and prosper!!