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.

 

This Doctor’s 25 Years of Research Showed: Cancer Patients Live 4X Longer by Refusing Chemotherapy

page: 5
43
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: NautPsycho

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: NautPsycho


You can reach genetic potential and strengthen weaknesses by simply feeding your cells what they require. Bathing yourself in high energy fruits, massive herbs and doing away with damaging hazardous cuisines. It's simple really. I was born with asthma, genetic weakness, couldn't run down the street with medicines. Had to be home schooled for quite some time. Switched my lifestyle up and I run miles non stop no medicine, just coconut water and fresh grape juice. I have begun to strengthen what was once weak.

The medicines I took for years (prednisone, albuterol) and other crap have taken a toll on my pituitary and adrenals among other glands. With the herbs I am regenerating what the medical system has once poisoned with their lousy way of helping. I have healed tumors effortlessly this way and many others have done so and much more for their bodies by consuming alkaline foods, removing acids from the body, and staying consistent.

Ask yourself, what are you composed of? Think abut everything you have ever eatin...what was that sh**? Who made it? What was it laced with and what has it done to your evolution...now imagine you knew everything you ate was beneficial to your body in an organic non tampered with way. No human interaction for profitable reasons, no lab made chemicals to keep the food from rotting sooner, no burning up of nutrients by cooking what is supposed to hydrate and nourish your cells...who would you be then? Would you have cancer? Na jack. You'd be the one helping others to cure themselves from cancer with the truth. Don't believe this scientific game. The puzzle has been solved...now go put the pieces together for yourself



Once again, if you read my post you'll see that cancer have always existed even when man made chemicals had not been invented yet!
I'm talking thousands of years ago!

I don't think you read people's posts, you are in such hurry to write the same thing in many different forums!!

BTW, I'm 45, I look at least 10 years younger, no illness, no medication: should I now tell people to follow my lifestyle just like you do?


You're not understanding that it is all ACIDS. Thousands of years ago to today people have damaged their cells with a high protein diet which equals wrecked eliminative organs which equals acidosis and cancer. Nowadays we have more things to acidify the body and the medical system has so many yummy tools to help you out. I read your replies but I don't think you're understanding mine. I don't care if you follow my way of life but I will share what I believe is the true way because I would want someone to drop that truth for me. 50 or 78 years old. How you look means nothing. How do you look on the inside? What's lurking about? Cancer is a result from poor body chemistry. There is acid or alkaline. Choose one. It sounds like regurgitated words because there is only so much I can say without sounding like a scratched cd. Take me as a grain of celtic salt. I am only here to help. Truly.


You're not understanding human physiology.
I can probably stop there.




posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?


Radiotherapy is not chemotherapy, they are two very different treatments. One uses radiation, the other uses chemicals.


Exact, but the mechanism of action is very similar: Most chemotherapy induce high level of intracellular ROS (Reactive Oxygen Species), and ionizing radiation causes the formation of water radiolysis products that contain also ROS. The increased ROS level is what will kill cancer cells as they are more fragile to it than normal cells. The merit of radiotherapy is that it can be localized on a specific zone.

However, intracellular augmentation level of ROS is one of the leading explanation for the mechanism of aging, and the stress of high level of ROS on the whole human body is suspected to give a few years added to the counter... Ever heard of someone having theirs hairs growing back white after chemotherapy? This is not unheard of.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha



... cancer have always existed even when man made chemicals had not been invented yet! I'm talking thousands of years ago!


It's interesting to note that statue of Michelangelo have physiological signs of advanced breast cancer and the first recording of cancer comes from ancient Egypt.



What can you say about the Inuits then? They only meat and fat, and practically no fruits or vegetables and yet prostate cancer amongst them (as an example) is practically unheard of (and other diseases).


One frequent argument I've got served is that Inuits did not live old enough to develop cancer due to their living condition, hygiene and primitive diet. However, it is my understanding that ancient Egyptian had not an easy life, a modern hygiene, diet and a very long life too.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: PeterMcFly

It's interesting to note that statue of Michelangelo have physiological signs of advanced breast cancer and the first recording of cancer comes from ancient Egypt.

One frequent argument I've got served is that Inuits did not live old enough to develop cancer due to their living condition, hygiene and primitive diet. However, it is my understanding that ancient Egyptian had not an easy life, a modern hygiene, diet and a very long life too.


I am definitely curious about the Michelangelo's statue! Are you referring to the David statue in Rome? ... I am overdue a visit to the motherland, and when I do I'll definitely go and see it. Won't look at it the same though! lol

Regarding the Inuits, you are right, they do have shorter life expectancy at 73 but seeing as the median age for cancer is 65, they still fit the criteria for developing the disease.

Didn't ancient Egyptians only lived to 40/45 years?







posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha



I am definitely curious about the Michelangelo's statue!


It is 'Michelangelo’s Night' in the New Sacristy in the Basilica of San Lorenzo, Florence.
Night (Michelangelo) - Wiki

Here the analysis:
National Breast Cancer Awareness Month & Michelangelo
The left breast of Michelangelo's statue of Night



Didn't ancient Egyptians only lived to 40/45 years?


It seem to be the case
The people of ancient Egypt



Life expectancy for one year old children was less than forty years.


My theory on the near absence of cancer for Inuits (ancients) relate to their low carb diet resulting in ketogenic state.

Another theory of mine, if chemotherapy result in a low life expectancy, I would highly suspect the associated use of corticosteroid be the culprit. Corticosteroid use cause hyperglycemia and cancer love high glucose level.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I think everyone want to believe in their "cure" for Cancer. First of all each type of cancer dictates different treatment options. NONE OF THEM are 100% successful to everyone. Personally we've struggled with our options with my wife's Breast Cancer. Everyone has their own take on what works. I'm inclined to believe the people in the trenches actually doing this everyday of their professional careers. Is it foolproof? Hardly. Given the choices,all of which suck BTW, you have to make the most rational choices given the info you have. I don't thing that the doctors in the cancer field are just milking money by torturing people. They are just doing the best they can with a moving target. Even with the breakthroughs you'd think we would have found better treatments.

Anyway you slice it, CANCER SUCKS.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: PeterMcFly

In regards to chemo. In the early days of chemo massive doses were used with really bad side effects. They learned by trial and error that smaller doses had equivalent results with survival rates. Today's chemo while still poison, typically are much easier on the body relative to the huge doses of the past. Chemo still is hard on the body trust me.



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

And cancer kills more people than chemo. 15-15.

We've all heard the horror stories of chemo such as 'the cure is worse than the disease.' However Chemo can save lives but there is a point where it can't and it prolongs agony. An oncologist would be better suited to answer this but without chemo would some people with cancer survive?



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 03:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: purplemer

And cancer kills more people than chemo. 15-15.

We've all heard the horror stories of chemo such as 'the cure is worse than the disease.' However Chemo can save lives but there is a point where it can't and it prolongs agony. An oncologist would be better suited to answer this but without chemo would some people with cancer survive?


Any therapy such as chemo or radiation is only offered if there's a good chance it will benefit the patient.
If it's not going to provide a benefit it will not be offered.
Oncologists will talk the patient through the relative risks and benefits and then decide what course to take from there.

As for whether a patient will survive wihout chemo, it would depend on what type of cancer they had and whether they had already had any adjunctive therapy e.g. surgery to remove a tumour.
There are various professional bloggers around (certainly one springs to mind) who make their money promoting woo and natural "cures" by claiming they "beat cancer" by adopting a certain protocol. It's only when you drill down you find that they did have standard treatment (in that case surgery) but refused chemo after it.
If it's a localised tumour which has shown no signs of metastising then surgery is very effective however a relatively short course of chemo is recommened post surgery to eradicate any rogue cells.
You may be lucky that the surgeons have removed all traces of the cancer and live a healthy life.
Or you may not and it returns.
It's down to the skill of the surgeons and oncologists and luck, nothing else.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
See here www.cancerresearchuk.org...

(1) Devita et al. 1970 MOPP cures advanced Hodgkin's disease www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(2) 69-74% cure rate for pediatric ALL in 1990. It's better now, fortunately (90-95%) www.sciencedirect.com...
(3) Success at treating disseminated germ cell tumors as reported in 1987 www.nejm.org...
(4) CMF Chemotherapy after surgery reduces the chance of dying of breast cancer, after 30 years follow up. as reported by the Milan group www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
It's not like they are trying either www.mercknewsroom.com... and news.bms.com...&t=635534715857175898



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22
It often come down to one of two categories. Quality versus quantity.

I have made my choice, and it was an easy one for me,after spending over 40+ years in the medical field.

Give me a quality filled short lived life, over a miserable, agonizing long one, any day.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join