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.

 

Brainstorming For Anti-Cancer Natural Treaments

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
The best advice is to go to an oncologist first (that's a doctor who has specialised in cancer and cancer treatment) , see what the options are and take it from there.
If they can't help then feel free to look around.

The worst advice is that information given on a conspiracy website from people who don't know a cancer cell from a Pokemon should be taken note of first.




posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Byrd

Yes, I was aware of that. But the whole "Vitamin B17" thing also sounds like it's bullsh*t and apricot seeds probably don't help at all with cancer treatment. Bummer, wasted money on a stupid fake/ineffective supplement.


It is, and they don't...and in fact can make an ill cancer patient much worse. Their frail systems do not need to be fighting off doses of cyanide.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian
Perhaps our ancestors didn't have the issues with cancer because they often went hungry enough to go into intermittent ketosis, thereby the random cancer cells we all have never had a chance to multiply into a problem.


There's plenty of forensic evidence to show that they also had cancer.

In fact, we even find cancer in dinosarus. (there's been other evidence show up after that 2003 article.)



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?
The best advice is to go to an oncologist first (that's a doctor who has specialised in cancer and cancer treatment) , see what the options are and take it from there.
If they can't help then feel free to look around.

The worst advice is that information given on a conspiracy website from people who don't know a cancer cell from a Pokemon should be taken note of first.


The OP said that the doctors said it was 'too late'; thus the patient has certainly already seen an oncologist.

The trouble with kneejerk debunkers and fake skeptics (a real skeptic is open to new information or proof) is that they think the information available from 'trusted sources' is always trustworthy. It often is not, but instead is a mess of profit-driven and PhD-driven 'research' that may or may not be worth the ink it's printed on.

I'd go with personally vetted, by me on an individual basis, anecdotal information. It's often more intriguing (and less expensive, which is also a concern for most people).

My own take on it is that possibly cancer can be made to be chronic rather than acute, knocking it back with targeted supplements and nutrition. If it doesn't metastasize it can't kill you, at least not quickly. Obviously this depends on the organ(s) involved and the extent of spread at first diagnosis but I think we've been made to be terrified of cancer in order to quickly empty out our wallets, not because the disease itself is so quickly lethal.

Another poster mentioned 'frail' cancer patients. They get quickly frail after poisoning with chemo and radiation, not to mention surgery. You should see what they look like (normal) the day BEFORE diagnosis...



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Baddogma

Is your Vitamin C scholar relative published anywhere? I'd love to have a look



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian

originally posted by: Pardon?
The best advice is to go to an oncologist first (that's a doctor who has specialised in cancer and cancer treatment) , see what the options are and take it from there.
If they can't help then feel free to look around.

The worst advice is that information given on a conspiracy website from people who don't know a cancer cell from a Pokemon should be taken note of first.


The OP said that the doctors said it was 'too late'; thus the patient has certainly already seen an oncologist.

The trouble with kneejerk debunkers and fake skeptics (a real skeptic is open to new information or proof) is that they think the information available from 'trusted sources' is always trustworthy. It often is not, but instead is a mess of profit-driven and PhD-driven 'research' that may or may not be worth the ink it's printed on.

I'd go with personally vetted, by me on an individual basis, anecdotal information. It's often more intriguing (and less expensive, which is also a concern for most people).

My own take on it is that possibly cancer can be made to be chronic rather than acute, knocking it back with targeted supplements and nutrition. If it doesn't metastasize it can't kill you, at least not quickly. Obviously this depends on the organ(s) involved and the extent of spread at first diagnosis but I think we've been made to be terrified of cancer in order to quickly empty out our wallets, not because the disease itself is so quickly lethal.

Another poster mentioned 'frail' cancer patients. They get quickly frail after poisoning with chemo and radiation, not to mention surgery. You should see what they look like (normal) the day BEFORE diagnosis...


No, the OP said that they'd been told it was too late to operate, they didn't mention other treatments.

So how do you "personally vet" anecdotal information?
How do you decide whether it is worthy or not (or indeed truthful and unbiased)?

The simple fact is that you can't.
Period.
Now I would guess that you would believe ones which enforced your personal beliefs and dismissed those that didn't as that's generally seems to be the case with posters like yourself.
As for the open-minded bit, I'm happy to change what I know based upon evidence only, not anecdotes. Evidence that is robust and reproducible that is.


Oh, your hypothesis that if cancer "doesn't metastasize it can't kill you, at least not quickly " is incorrect.
Not all cancers metastasise, brain cancer for instance has a very low rate of metastasis but if left untreated will kill you quite quickly.
And if you think nutrition & supplements will do anything to a cancer then you're very wrong indeed.
Although feel free to show me the evidence to the contrary in order for me to "open my mind".

And frail as people can get on chemo & rad, have you seen a cancer patient who has had no treatment?
They're almost always in morgues.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 05:17 AM
link   
The one that seems to come up time and again is diet. Avoid all animal products. Avoid all processed food. Try to stick solely to raw organic vegetables, fruits, legumes seeds and grains. Exercise regularly.

Other more specific things I've heard, include:

Mega Doses of Liposomal Vitamin C

Alkalize your body with BiCarb Soda

Gerson Therapy - Includes a dozen glasses of Carrot & Apple/Carrot Juices per day

Oxygen therapy - Apparently cancer cells are a symptom of an oxygen depleted system. The only way healthy cells can avoid dying is to mutate into Cancer cells which can survive in oxygen poor environments. Introducing more oxygen into the system kills the cancer cells

Rick Simpson Hemp Oil (RSO)

Tumeric/Black Pepper

Lugols Iodine Solution

Magnesium Chloride

Oregano Oil

Don't know if any of this works, but there's plenty of information out there about each of these.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I'm sorry to hear about your friend and wish him/her well. Being too late to operate doesn't mean they can't get treatments, and they should be very careful with alternative therapies as they may interact negatively with some conventional ones. I know some of the herbal remedies that should be avoided if on chemo or radiotherapy are St Johns Wort, gingseng and echinacea (there are more). But like another poster have said, if they discuss this with their oncologist then they wouldn't embark on an alternative treatment that may have dangerous side effects whilst on cancer drugs.





originally posted by: SentientCentenarian
This is extremely controversial, but sometimes I wonder if cancer isn't a form of chronic scurvy. I doubt anyone nowadays gets optimal amounts of C, and the RDA is just enough to keep your cells from dissolving into a gelatinous mass, lacking any cell wall integrity. Hmmm.... cell wall integrity - cancer... a connection perhaps.


No, there isn't a connection between scurvy and cancer. Scurvy affects the production of collagen and cancer is an umbrella term for cells going crazy, getting 'deformed' and spreading uncontrollably. Some scientists are looking into vitamin C because when injected between cancer cells it becomes hydrogen peroxide which is what white cells do. Unfortunately, so far, this has only worked in a petri dish, so scientists don't know if it works inside a human body and if it doesn't interact with treatments those patients may be receiving already. More research is needed.



originally posted by: SentientCentenarian
My own take on it is that possibly cancer can be made to be chronic rather than acute, knocking it back with targeted supplements and nutrition. If it doesn't metastasize it can't kill you, at least not quickly.


If it was that easy it would have been done already and many cancer research scientists wouldn't have died of cancer themselves (Professor Chris Marshall is perhaps the most known example).


but I think we've been made to be terrified of cancer in order to quickly empty out our wallets, not because the disease itself is so quickly lethal.


This applies only to Americans: in the UK (and 50+ countries in the world) health care is socialized so patients don't pay a penny for their treatment. In the UK the NHS saves billions a years with early detection and early treatments,which contradicts your statement too.








originally posted by: -mytym-
Other more specific things I've heard, include:
Mega Doses of Liposomal Vitamin C


Sorry but oral ingestion will never allow for a 'mega dose' of vitamin C, just because of how our digstive system works (this info is available anywhere).


Alkalize your body with BiCarb Soda


Whatever you ingest will not change the PH of your blood as the body has an incredible system in place to keep blood whithin a perfect range all the time.


Oxygen therapy - Apparently cancer cells are a symptom of an oxygen depleted system. The only way healthy cells can avoid dying is to mutate into Cancer cells which can survive in oxygen poor environments. Introducing more oxygen into the system kills the cancer cells


No, cancer cells have nothing to do with having less oxygen in your tissues. If this was true then all patients with COPD would get cancer. I have read about an alternative treatment called 'Hyperoxygenation treatment' which have caused severe kidney damage and health (especially when germanium was used).

There is something called the HBO treatment (Hyperbaric oxygen) used in oncology clinics, but it's not used to treat cancer, it's used to relieve some side effects of cancer therapies.


Don't know if any of this works, but there's plenty of information out there about each of these.


People should always consult an oncologist first as some alternative therapies are really dangerous (like the hyperoxygenation one) and none have been proven to work effectively (perhaps not yet again).


edit on 24-8-2016 by Agartha because: Spelling...



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
"So how do you "personally vet" anecdotal information?
How do you decide whether it is worthy or not (or indeed truthful and unbiased)?"

You try it out on yourself and see what works. If you're wrong, you get sicker/die. (Medical response: 'Oh well') Like I said, we're all our own guinea pigs, just most don't realize it. Leaving all the decisions up to a guy in a white coat is abdication of personal responsibility and/or laziness. Maybe Darwin comes into play there.

As far as your other comments, who knows for sure what scurvy looks like in all its ramifications? Maybe 'cell integrity' is important to not getting cancer in the first place, or fighting it off before it takes hold? Without adequate C, no cells are formed whatsoever; maybe inadequate C results in deformed (cancerous?) cells.

And I *have* seen people who eschewed chemo and radiation, myself included. Still going, years later, on my own recognizance, and my savings are still intact, too. The docs wanted to poison me while they emptied my wallet and then the death certificate would have said 'cancer' rather than the poisoning they were so insistent on.

YMMV, but at least realize that the docs don't know everything and their blinkered training and hubris (such as you show) tends to blind them to alternatives, especially if those alternatives get in the way of profits.

Please tell me why when oncologists were surveyed, many said that they would never undergo chemo or radiation if they came down with cancer? Doesn't speak well for 'standard of care', does it?


(post by GetHyped removed for a manners violation)

posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Something people keep forgetting - all cancers are different. Different organs are involved, different genetics, different age groups with different hormonal influences - one cancer can be indolent while another is exceedingly aggressive. One may be diagnosed quite early, the other at the tail end near organ failure.

We're trying to figure out apples, oranges, guavas, strawberries, asparagus and potatoes... conflating totally different diseases under the name of 'cancer' when in fact they may vary utterly.

All I know is that I'm unwilling to trust anyone who states things unequivocally, and very willing to listen to conjecture and anecdotes - because that's where the solutions may lie. 'Standard of care' has an overall 'cure' rate of only 3%, after all.

Repeating blindly textbook solutions (which are repeated blindly from a different textbook until they become dogma) doesn't get us anywhere. If 'standard of care' was so great, why the huge death rates and why are they rising? Why does 'standard of care' legislation criminalize the patient's right to try whatever they want in the name of treatment? Why are alternative medicine providers called quacks when plenty of standard doctors have their patients die under treatment too?

All I want is the ability to take in as much information as possible, un-hindered by dogma and legislative concerns, and then seek the treatment I deem may be most effective (because we can't know with surety) without interference.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian
"So how do you "personally vet" anecdotal information?
How do you decide whether it is worthy or not (or indeed truthful and unbiased)?"

You try it out on yourself and see what works. If you're wrong, you get sicker/die.


Flawless logic.

And flawless, I mean painfully stupid.


Sure. Trust the guy in the white coat and see how that goes. What part of 'you takes your chances' no matter what decision you make do you not understand?



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian
"So how do you "personally vet" anecdotal information?
How do you decide whether it is worthy or not (or indeed truthful and unbiased)?"

You try it out on yourself and see what works. If you're wrong, you get sicker/die.


Flawless logic.

And flawless, I mean painfully stupid.


Sure. Trust the guy in the white coat and see how that goes. What part of 'you takes your chances' no matter what decision you make do you not understand?


Yeah, I'll trust clinical trials over tall talk on a conspiracy website any day of the week, thanks.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian
"So how do you "personally vet" anecdotal information?
How do you decide whether it is worthy or not (or indeed truthful and unbiased)?"

You try it out on yourself and see what works. If you're wrong, you get sicker/die.


Flawless logic.

And flawless, I mean painfully stupid.


Sure. Trust the guy in the white coat and see how that goes. What part of 'you takes your chances' no matter what decision you make do you not understand?


Who to take your chances with.

The person in the white coat who has studied for years to be able to practice medicine and has medical trials and evidence to back them up.

Or,

The person on the Internet who is trying to sell books/products/"cures".


edit on 2482016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I think someone in my family is getting Oral Cancer for the second time. First, we thought was all removed with Surgery...been monitoring it and there is another biopsy scheduled to see if it came back or, maybe never truly went away. We don't know the next medical step...It hasn't been confirmed yet, but probably radiation.

has anyone had experience with radiation therapy. if you've followed my posts on ATS, you know that I'm a big believer in Science overall but have specific questions on certain things. I know that drugs and expensive treatments are usually prescribed out of hand by the medical profession and natural cures and simple cures like exercise and nutrition aren't prescribed first because they don't bring in the medical/insurance industry money.

I don't want this person to go thru radiation treatment if say CBD Oil would be more effective or if there was something else I could try first.

I base my opinion here on research as well as first hand experience of helping people reduce/reverse/control and cure certain conditions with exercise, diet and some life style changes. While many of you will agree that sure exercise and diet can help with certain conditions....the medical industry would prescribe medication first and natural, common sense solutions last. And that comes down to money.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

If you know the type of cancer, Google the name and add "atlernative cure". Then go through the list and search for each of them and see if there's any results from studies. That should weed out the pseudo cures from something that could possibly work or, at the very least, help slightly.

Just remember, what works on mice doesn't always work on humans. But that's not to say that all cases are the same.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian
Please tell me why when oncologists were surveyed, many said that they would never undergo chemo or radiation if they came down with cancer? Doesn't speak well for 'standard of care', does it?


Please tell us what survey that was or provide evidence for your statement.

If you are talking about the claim by Philip Day, then it's completely wrong as his survey was based on data thats more than 25 years old and that focused only on one kind of chemotherapy (which had just been approved for treatment) and for one specific type of lung cancer.



'Standard of care' has an overall 'cure' rate of only 3%, after all.


Please provide evidence for this 3% figure.


Why does 'standard of care' legislation criminalize the patient's right to try whatever they want in the name of treatment?


In the UK patients are the only ones who decide what to do and the only ones to choose a treatment. I have no idea what is this criminalization you are talking about.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: amazing

If you know the type of cancer, Google the name and add "atlernative cure". Then go through the list and search for each of them and see if there's any results from studies.


Run that query through PubMed - not Google. On Google, you'll get every hypester in the world claiming cures (including web pages that grab your query terms and insert them in a "fill in the blanks" spot in the page... so that (for example) carrot juice can be "shown to cure you" if you google for foot fungus... or for cataracts... or tooth cavities... etc.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

My bad.

After reading what I typed, I'm not even sure why I put google. Guess "I was half asleep" is my excuse for now lol.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 05:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian
Something people keep forgetting - all cancers are different. Different organs are involved, different genetics, different age groups with different hormonal influences - one cancer can be indolent while another is exceedingly aggressive. One may be diagnosed quite early, the other at the tail end near organ failure.

We're trying to figure out apples, oranges, guavas, strawberries, asparagus and potatoes... conflating totally different diseases under the name of 'cancer' when in fact they may vary utterly.

All I know is that I'm unwilling to trust anyone who states things unequivocally, and very willing to listen to conjecture and anecdotes - because that's where the solutions may lie. 'Standard of care' has an overall 'cure' rate of only 3%, after all.

Repeating blindly textbook solutions (which are repeated blindly from a different textbook until they become dogma) doesn't get us anywhere. If 'standard of care' was so great, why the huge death rates and why are they rising? Why does 'standard of care' legislation criminalize the patient's right to try whatever they want in the name of treatment? Why are alternative medicine providers called quacks when plenty of standard doctors have their patients die under treatment too?

All I want is the ability to take in as much information as possible, un-hindered by dogma and legislative concerns, and then seek the treatment I deem may be most effective (because we can't know with surety) without interference.


Your last sentence is quite ironic since your basing your "knowledge" of the subject on untruths.
In fact most of this post is based upon untruths.
Firstly, the mortality rate from cancer has dropped by over 20% over the last 20 years.
www.cancer.org...

Secondly I'm guessing your "standard of care" cure rate refers to chemo and relates to this...?
scienceblogs.com...


So in both instances you're wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join