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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: -mytym-
Other more specific things I've heard, include:
Mega Doses of Liposomal Vitamin C
Alkalize your body with BiCarb Soda
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
Don't know if any of this works, but there's plenty of information out there about each of these.
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.
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?
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?
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?
'Standard of care' has an overall 'cure' rate of only 3%, after all.
Why does 'standard of care' legislation criminalize the patient's right to try whatever they want in the name of treatment?
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.
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.