pH kills cancer and an update on my father-in-law who killed his cancer in 3 weeks!

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Alto88

All of those studies were either done on mice, petri dishes or haven't actually gone ahead with testing yet.

They've done trials on real patients, it was in the first link:

Clinical Trials. We have also initiated clinical trials in patients with pancreatic cancer. The protocol involves a dose escalation starting from 0.3 grams and moving up to 0.9 grams of sodium bicarbonate per day per kilogram of body weight (0.13 – 0.4 grams per pound per day). Patients are advised to measure their daily dose based on their body weight and dissolve it in 1 liter (1 quart) of water and to drink this throughout the day. Notably, some toxicities, such as nausea and vomiting, have been observed. This may be due to too much being ingested at a single time, as sodium bicarbonate in high doses can act as an emetic. Diarrhea is also a common side effect. At this time (July, 2011) we are working on two parallel tracks:

1. To improve the formulation – things we are trying include asking patients to ingest the doses more slowly and steadily throughout the day, going to an intravenous infusion in some patients, and altering the salt to Calcium carbonate, which is just as effective and may be more palatable. This last approach has to be approved by the FDA before we can move forward.

2. To develop high buffer diet recommendations, that can be used as an adjuvant to the supplemental buffers. This work is being written up for publication and will be deposited here following peer review. Once this is published, we will generate dietary guidelines for adjuvant therapy. In the meantime, stay away from acidic food products, such as soft drinks.

a reply to: Alto88

So they say. There's no paper attached to actually back up what is said in that link.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Alto88

So they say. There's no paper attached to actually back up what is said in that link.

Maybe they are lying. Yes, maybe the doctors are lying , with their names, faces, credentials and work out in the open:

imaging.moffitt.org...


Yes TerryDon79, no one and nothing is to be trusted aside from the conspiracy forum user who's hobby is being an anonymous skeptic. Who needs those doctors trying to cure cancer, give me the key board contrarian.

a reply to: Alto88

Well done.

Now, where's the study they were referring to?

a reply to: Alto88

At this time (July, 2011) we are working on two parallel tracks:

Five years of clinical trials? No results?

Ganoderma lucidum or lingzhi has been known in the history for a long time, and it is regarded as the valuable and rare herb in chinese traditional medicine. With the development of technology, Reishi Mushroom Extract is made from lingzhi, and it contains the essential ingredients of the herb. The most important matierals in the Reishi Extract are triterpenoid saponins and ganoderma lucidum polysaccharides, which makes the Ganoderma extrac to be the most nutritional plant extract and allows it to be able to prevent and cure various cancers amd improve immune function. Today, the Ganoderma lucidum extract is widely used in medicines, helath products, functional beverages and so on.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Alto88

At this time (July, 2011) we are working on two parallel tracks:

Five years of clinical trials? No results?

Is there any surprise there are no results (published)? Will there ever be any results? Will there ever be a cure for cancer that the medical establishment will allow to go main stream? How many cures have been proven but buried away by the billions tossed around by the establishment, cures for cancer, diabetes, heart disease, kidneys, liver, etc.? How many? Just more Big Pharma treatment plans and that's it. People who expose them for the frauds they are, who expose the truth are demonized, set up and sent to prison when ever possible, for ridiculous things like tax fraud, mail fraud, etc. It's unbelievable and anyone who buys into this BS you skeptics try to lay out has no mind of their own to see what is so obvious. Enough said. And by the way, my father-in-law who drank a baking soda cocktail with molasses for three weeks when diagnosed with cancer in 2013 remains cancer free and was just told so by his doctors a week ago. He never received any conventional treatment for his cancer and yet he lives...

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Alto88

At this time (July, 2011) we are working on two parallel tracks:

Five years of clinical trials? No results?

Is there any surprise there are no results (published)? Will there ever be any results? Will there ever be a cure for cancer that the medical establishment will allow to go main stream? How many cures have been proven but buried away by the billions tossed around by the establishment, cures for cancer, diabetes, heart disease, kidneys, liver, etc.? How many? Just more Big Pharma treatment plans and that's it. People who expose them for the frauds they are, who expose the truth are demonized, set up and sent to prison when ever possible, for ridiculous things like tax fraud, mail fraud, etc. It's unbelievable and anyone who buys into this BS you skeptics try to lay out has no mind of their own to see what is so obvious. Enough said. And by the way, my father-in-law who drank a baking soda cocktail with molasses for three weeks when diagnosed with cancer in 2013 remains cancer free and was just told so by his doctors a week ago. He never received any conventional treatment for his cancer and yet he lives...

There are lots of results, look for them.
There are hundreds of patient trials happening now, just look for them, they're all there and documented.
Here's a link to get you started.
www.cancerresearchuk.org...

The ones that there are no results for are the sham trials. The trials set up by snake-oil salesmen who have no intention of publishing anything.

As for the cures "that have been proven", show me them.
Show me the proof and I'll believe what you say.
There is a bit of a caveat to that though, the proof has to be via the scientific method, not random blogs and testimonies.
That's not good enough for me.

As for your father's cure, we only have your words that he did have cancer, did not have conventional treatment and was "cured" by drinking a mixture that is biologically impossible to cure cancer with.
And words are cheap.

well i don't mean to stir the pot .. too much.
but there are certainly a lot of controversial information around cancer research and cures.

For instance this link has interesting information which could help many people with certain types of cancer, if it was more talked about and known in medical world?

is it valid?
i don't know but "here and there" available on the internet are all kinds of alternatives. Some of which, have been around for ages (above link), some which has helped some people and some...which are probably fake...

to think that medical field or any field of science know everything possible and make such definite conclusions as biologically impossible is limiting in my opinion.
but hey it is a bit how modern science works ... a lot of things were or are impossible until proven otherwise and until then... nope not even consider it?

well...that is the decision each cancer patient has to make his or her self.

originally posted by: UniFinity
well i don't mean to stir the pot .. too much.
but there are certainly a lot of controversial information around cancer research and cures.

For instance this link has interesting information which could help many people with certain types of cancer, if it was more talked about and known in medical world?

is it valid?
i don't know but "here and there" available on the internet are all kinds of alternatives. Some of which, have been around for ages (above link), some which has helped some people and some...which are probably fake...

to think that medical field or any field of science know everything possible and make such definite conclusions as biologically impossible is limiting in my opinion.
but hey it is a bit how modern science works ... a lot of things were or are impossible until proven otherwise and until then... nope not even consider it?

well...that is the decision each cancer patient has to make his or her self.

The thing is, there isn't really a lot of controversial information at all.

The information is pretty much split in two.
There is the half which shows cures for cancer but provides no definable proof (like the link you shared, the Budwig diet. It doesn't cure cancer, in fact no diet cures cancer. Diet can only help prevent certain types and then it's not a guarantee you won't get a different type). This half suggests that cancer is easy to treat too, "simply follow the instructions and you'll be cured!" They'll also happily fabricate statements in the hope you'll believe them. Case in point, Budwig didn't win a Nobel prize nor was she ever nominated for one. In fact you can have a look yourself HERE

Then there's the half which realises that cancer is an umbrella term used to describe over 200 different diseases which have different etiologies and mechanisms and which can't all be treated the same way and that some are far, far harder to treat than others. The information from this side is likely to be backed up with evidence.

So whilst anyone with cancer has the right to choose what their treatment protocol should be, they also have the right to be presented with robust evidence and correct information so they can make that choice.

a reply to: Pardon?

thanks for your information, it is a valid opinion and i agree with you on some points... but not entirely.

in case of robust evidence there probably is not much out there, but there is evidence in many stories of healed people or alternative doctors and their patients who got better.

And that is the controversy i was implying, due to the internet we have free sharing available and that is in my opinion priceless.
personally i never cared much about official science and medical opinions, but i have respect for their work and knowledge...

i guess it is more of a question what kind of opinion holds value to you?

you maybe trust more what current medical or other sciences tells you, but i trust more what ordinary people say, due to personal experiences and anecdotes in life or internet...

a reply to: UniFinity

Stories (testimonials) aren't proof of anything though.

There's stories (testimonials) of Santa, the Easter bunny, flat earth and countless other things. Doesnt mean they're true.

a reply to: TerryDon79

hey Terry!

when it comes to cancer anecdotes...if your general opinion about those stories are of the same type as your examples...hey no problemo amigo, it is your opinion and i bet you have your reasons for having such!

and other people have other reasons...

the main issue here is in my opinion that we constantly go back and forth...as in.
you are wrong...
no i am right...
no this is biological impossibility.
...
this will never lead us anywhere, but silly egoistic dribbling.

in my view cancer patients are getting better with alternatives, no doubt about that for me.
and i am only pointing into finding out why did it work for them not if i am right or wrong.

current science may differ in results and research and yet, some get healed...we should unite heads and research such situations in detail so we could gather more intel and drop the crap from the flowers, rather than just say it is all crap...

a reply to: UniFinity

And that's where the problem is. There isn't any proof of anyone getting healed by alternatives. It's ALL testimonials. There's never any proof of them working.

Why do I have this opinion? My wife has cancer. So does her brother, father and our daughter. It starts out as polyps and, the majority of the time, ends up being cancerous over time. We've tried most of these "cures all cancers" remedies. They're bogus.

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Pardon?

thanks for your information, it is a valid opinion and i agree with you on some points... but not entirely.

in case of robust evidence there probably is not much out there, but there is evidence in many stories of healed people or alternative doctors and their patients who got better.

And that is the controversy i was implying, due to the internet we have free sharing available and that is in my opinion priceless.
personally i never cared much about official science and medical opinions, but i have respect for their work and knowledge...

i guess it is more of a question what kind of opinion holds value to you?

you maybe trust more what current medical or other sciences tells you, but i trust more what ordinary people say, due to personal experiences and anecdotes in life or internet...

Why isn't there robust evidence?
That's the crux of the matter.
Why don't these alternative "cures" allow the same scrutiny as the conventional treatments?
The reason is simple, they don't work so they don't stand up to even the most basic testing.

So it's not really a case of trust, for me it's a case of being able to sort out the useful from the useless (and there's a lot of useless information out there).
Although if you must talk about trust, would you trust a faceless, random internet blogger or a specialised professional who has trained for most of their adult lives with helping you make a life or death decision?

Anyone can say anything on the internet. Proving what they say is far harder.

a reply to: TerryDon79

sorry to hear that, i wish you all the best!

i understand a lot better your position now and there is not much left to say for me here, you are probably way better informed and educated about this.

although i never implied about one medicine for all cancers...this sounds too good to be true and i understand there are many types. And for certain types there seems some have found alternatives to work...

yeah...no real proof, but i have heard from personal life stories from friends about people getting healed with only water fasting or use of cannabis oil...so i know that there are alternatives, but don't know anything more than that.

i wish that they will figure and sort it out soon.

a reply to: Pardon?

i trust myself and my intuition.

not a doctor or faceless person behind a comment.

And i know there are some successful alternative treatments from personal stories...
-----

hey it is okey, we will not get anywhere as i don't have anything constructive to say or add.
Mostly, i just wanted to share a link, maybe it will help someone somehow.

have a nice day!

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Pardon?

i trust myself and my intuition.

not a doctor or faceless person behind a comment.

And i know there are some successful alternative treatments from personal stories...
-----

hey it is okey, we will not get anywhere as i don't have anything constructive to say or add.
Mostly, i just wanted to share a link, maybe it will help someone somehow.

have a nice day!

The only thing you know is that people have told stories.
You don't know whether anything in those stories is real because other than using your intuition there's no substance.
Intuition is more often than not wrong.
In fact. it's probably because you want to believe them that you think they're real.

And the really sad thing is, sharing stuff like you did doesn't help anyone.
Sharing stuff like that does the exact opposite.
People waste precious time trying "cures" they've seen on the internet instead of being treated by methods which have been proven to be effective. The earlier real treatment is started the better the outcome generally is.
By the time they've realised this the treatment may have to be more aggressive or even worse it's too late to do anything about it.
They don't get that time back.

Feel free to try whatever you want if conventional treatment can't help you but don't do it the other way around.

a reply to: Pardon?

What you've said is dangerous.. to try to tell people not to try treatments that work. It's reckless.

originally posted by: Rezlooper
a reply to: Pardon?

What you've said is dangerous.. to try to tell people not to try treatments that work. It's reckless.

Can you prove (yes, prove) that they work? No, you can't. You can give stories of them working, but you have failed, for 33 pages, to actually prove it works.