Arguably The Most Important Documentary In The History Of Medicine Was Just Released

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I've had lifelong chronic sinus problems . . . colds have turned into pneumonia several times. etc. etc. etc. In the Navy, was 24 hours away from dying from pneumonia. Has gotten close another time or two.

The last 3 years have been the healthiest of my life. I don't recall a single cold taking root in that time.

The difference:

--Vitamin D3
--Turmeric
--saline wash initially--at first hint of a cold tweak in my nose etc. And at every succeeding tweak--maybe every 3-4 hours--even in the middle of the night. Could be one bottle per nostril or one bottle for both. Very troublesome and annoying but effective.

--Last year+ I have used the MESOSILVER brand of colloidal silver--evidently the tiniest particle size available and a standard deviation or 2 above the 2nd best. All others are fairly useless. That stuff beats the saline wash. Before a whole bottle of saline might last 3-4 hours before return of threatening cold symptom. And I'd have to wash lots religiously for 3-4 days to beat it back and be done with it.

Using the Mesosilver in the squeeze bottle was much better. 1-3 squirts per nostril would last 12 hours or so. And the symptoms were gone within 1-3 days.

I don't recall at this late hour my other major helps. I just know that my life is GREATLY better due to these supplements.

Oh, Apple cider vinegar, too.

I have no interest in going back to how my life was for 66 years. This is far, far better.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Wouldn't reducing glucose cause other, possibly major, problems?

That the main argument I always ear. But I have serious paper that tell otherwise. Contrary to popular belief (docs also believe it), glucose is not as mandatory as we believe. The only organ that require a minimal amount of glucose is brain, but as I said minimal, I think it can goes as low as 10%, the rest of energy can by provided by ketones. An individual adapted for ketones use as fuel can no longer fall under hypoglycemia with glucose level as low as 1mmol/l. Except from brain there is RBC that need glucose. The idea is to keep blood glucose as minimal as we could.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Aggravates her pancreas, causes internal bleeding from both ends and intense pain.

Not sure about blood thinning. Never saw it mentioned on her chart when she was in hospital.

What you need to know is if it is only NSAIDs (Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs).

The most prominent members of this group of drugs, aspirin, ibuprofen and naproxen, are all available over the counter in most countries.

a reply to: PeterMcFly

I heard about the only thing that needed glucose was the brain, but never really looked into it as my and her diet never really takes into consideration any high sugar levels (apart from the occasional candy bar lol).

I don't see how you could make the liver only produce 10% glucose though.

a reply to: PeterMcFly

She is only allowed to take half an aspirin if she's having chest pains (she has a left bundle block).

She's not allowed ibuprofen or naproxen. I'm pretty sure it was naproxen that put her in hospital. Was a few years ago, but the name rings a bell.

A lot of the ‘credible’ research out there has been supported and funded by the pharmaceutical companies themselves, and much of it conflicts with the work of independent scientists from all over the world.

The field of U.S. cancer care is organized around a medical monopoly that ensures a continuous flow of money to the pharmaceutical companies, medical technology firms, research institutes, and government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and quasi-public organizations such as the American Cancer Society (ACS). – Ralph Moss, Ph.D., quoted by John Diamond, M.D., & Lee Cowden, M.D. in Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide to Cancer

I'm just going to leave this here...

a reply to: PeterMcFly

Just found an interesting article with information backing it up from other sources (if you google it).

This link is about dichloroacetate (DCA) and it's something I've never heard of before.

ETA: This link is more up to date. Some interesting results are being discovered.

a reply to: TerryDon79

never really looked into it as my and her diet never really takes into consideration any high sugar levels (apart from the occasional candy bar lol).

That is far more complex than that, not only "fast sugar" produce glucose in blood. It is all carbohydrate that produce glucose in blood. To suceed at reducing blood glucose, one need to consume very little carbs!

Again that is the problem with internet and all the "rumors" there. You will find an endless source were they tell you to cut sugar to fight cancer, the problem is that any carbs is a polymeric substance composed of simple sugar like fructose, glucose and galactose. Starch is a carb. All these carbs have the end result being the same as consuming regular table sugar by the spoon, the only difference is the glycemic index (the speed it find itself in the blood).

a reply to: PeterMcFly

So basically go onto the Atkins diet?

a reply to: TerryDon79

She is only allowed to take half an aspirin if she's having chest pains (she has a left bundle block).

She's not allowed ibuprofen or naproxen. I'm pretty sure it was naproxen that put her in hospital. Was a few years ago, but the name rings a bell.

NSAIDs are very bad when having intestinal problems. Especially for someone having problem with intestinal polyps and fecal occult blood presence.

Not sure about status of turmeric, will ask spouse about this tomorrow. It is she who is in charge of supplements info management...

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: TerryDon79

never really looked into it as my and her diet never really takes into consideration any high sugar levels (apart from the occasional candy bar lol).

That is far more complex than that, not only "fast sugar" produce glucose in blood. It is all carbohydrate that produce glucose in blood. To suceed at reducing blood glucose, one need to consume very little carbs!

Again that is the problem with internet and all the "rumors" there. You will find an endless source were they tell you to cut sugar to fight cancer, the problem is that any carbs is a polymeric substance composed of simple sugar like fructose, glucose and galactose. Starch is a carb. All these carbs have the end result being the same as consuming regular table sugar by the spoon, the only difference is the glycemic index (the speed it find itself in the blood).

Well said. People don't understand the complexity and micronutrient structure of foods they are consuming to understand that sugar is in fact hidden in numerous food types.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: BO XIAN

Yet there are measures to prolong life with cancer, new techniques to combat certain types of tumors and people are getting diagnosed earlier so it's more manageable meaning a longer life.

My wife's cancer (hereditary) meant an average life span of 40. Her father is 50 because of the NEW abilities of science to prolong life.

Yeah, it's about depopulation.

Cancer is not hereditary. You can have genetic markers but it is not a given that you'll develop cancer. Lifestyle is the main factor.

originally posted by: LostThePlot

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: BO XIAN

Yet there are measures to prolong life with cancer, new techniques to combat certain types of tumors and people are getting diagnosed earlier so it's more manageable meaning a longer life.

My wife's cancer (hereditary) meant an average life span of 40. Her father is 50 because of the NEW abilities of science to prolong life.

Yeah, it's about depopulation.

Cancer is not hereditary. You can have genetic markers but it is not a given that you'll develop cancer. Lifestyle is the main factor.

Familial polyposis (FAP) is the gene marker that gets passed on (in the case of my wife, her dad, her brother and our daughter). That in turn turns into cancer.

ETA: Here's a link about the condition

a reply to: TerryDon79

So basically go onto the Atkins diet?

Again, I think it is more complex than that. Atkins is geared as a fad diet to loose weight if I remember well. The recommended approach for cancer from the paper I got was to help ketosis by consomption of MCT oil (typically coconut fat as it is rich in lauric acid), to use a restricted caloric diet and possibly lower further glucose level in blood using metformin (can be very dangerous if not under direct medical surveillance).

The way I see it is there is no need to follow a receipe or buy a book. Without doing the restricted version of the diet with metformin, one can simply monitor blood ketone level and glucose using a simple machine like the one diabetics use.

Appart from trying to starve cancer, these low carb diet, by virtue of the ketones produced in blood, have others interesting medical properties. My opinion on this is that it would be a protection mechanism that evolution have embedded into human being, coming from prehistoric time. When someone is hurt or sick and alone, he cannot hunt, so the starvation make him burn his fat store then produce ketones that have therapeutic value.

Since spouse have worked into cancer detection (cytotechnologist) and worked in an hospital, one thing I heard often and always leave me perplexed and deeply disturbed is that often when a patient have reached a terminal phase and it is decided to no longer feed them, either IV or oral, we often see a brief amelioration of their conditions before they die. Wonder if it is due to induction of ketosis?

a reply to: PeterMcFly

I'll certainly look into that. Nothing to lose trying something (if it's not harmful).

Thanks for the info and taking the time to explain

I work at Walmart, and always found this interesting: The Pharmacy out profits every other department Every. Single. Day. by a huge margin. Pharmacy is THE profit maker at our store, and that's just one store.

The amount of money pharmaceutical companies are making is beyond absurd. I don't understand how a few million can develop advanced military hardware, but a couple billion hasn't found a cure for any major cancer ailments in .... what? A few decades? When you sit down and think it about it becomes quite clear something isn't right. Within a 100 hundred years after the airplane was invented we had the A-bomb, and somehow the most dangerous thing to our species still hasn't been cured with billions thrown at after how many years?

When my aunt was bleeding from her eyes and everywhere else, she was taking a concoction medicine that was around 700$ per refill A MONTH. That's not even counting the other treatments. The funny thing was that when she was diagnosed with cancer, and had apparently had it for while, once she started treatment she was dead within seven months. It was like witnessing slow murder. We all sat by and watched her slim to walking a skeleton within just a couple months.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I'll certainly look into that. Nothing to lose trying something (if it's not harmful).

I'm afraid nothing on earth is without danger. There is always some risk involved, depending on the level of ketosis you whish to achieve. Anything below 5mmol/l have no therapeutic value (just my opinion). Many source you will find on the internet recommend a mild ketosys of 1.5mmol/l, without danger but without positive effect.

High ketosis have the danger to put you into acidosis, yes yes the same pH reduction that some peoples try to avoid, but as we know acidosis is when we fall under the bracket of allowable blood pH and it must be avoided and one must do controls and know the signs to check and how to compensate before it goes too far. So there is a specific level of ketosis you don't want to go past, but normally the body will compensate and regulated ketones production like if it were glucose.

a reply to: Flesh699

The amount of money pharmaceutical companies are making is beyond absurd. I don't understand how a few million can develop advanced military hardware, but a couple billion hasn't found a cure for any major cancer ailments in .... what? A few decades? When you sit down and think it about it becomes quite clear something isn't right. 100 hundred years after the airplane was invented we had the A-bomb, and somehow the most dangerous thing to our species still hasn't been cured with billions thrown at after how many years?

The problem is that even an Apache AH-64 at it's latest revision and having it's full compliment of electronics and weapons is not even near the complexity of a simple human cell. That is why cancer research seem to advance soo slowly...

a reply to: PeterMcFly

I understand. I didn't really mean not harmful as pretty much everything is harmful these days.

My wife, her father and brother all have cancerous polyps now. I might try and do a kind of study with lowering the glucose levels. Wife has had 90% of her large intestines removed, her brother has had an ileo-rectal anastomosis (colon joined to small bowel) and her father has had the colon and rectum removed entirely and is on an iliostomy bag.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Thanks for the info and taking the time to explain

You're welcome. If you want a good hint at understanding these things, do some reading on the mechanisms involved at regulation of blood glucose. Very interesting, especially if somedays you have to deal with diabetes. Specifically at how insulin lower blood glucose and how glucagon increase it.