It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Cure(s) for Cancer

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 06:39 PM
according to articles ive been reading, there are three cures for cancer and the FDA along with the cancer industry has denies it.

The three I found were:
Vitamin B17 or laetrile or Amygnalin
Bluegreen Algae

now this makes sense to keep this all a secret to save money. because Vitamin B17 comes from fruit seeds and it does contain Cyanide which is in fact toxic to the human body, however until the cyanide is broken away from the B17 molecule, it is not toxic.

If the FDA helps the cancer industry by disapproving of this product, both can make bigger money, cancer is treated with kemo, a process that is not guaranteed to work. and its expensive. so using something that might not work and still making money is what they would do.

I havent really studied the other ones, but I did read a little about them and they are said to fight cancer and cure it even during late stages.

any info anyone?

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 06:52 PM
bluegreen algae isnt really safe.

If ingested in large quantities, the toxins are fatal.

But its not that common.

As for it being a cancer cure.. i dunno but i found this.

As for the medical claims, there’s no scientific evidence that blue-green algae can treat or cure any illness or has any health benefit. The “studies” often cited by the marketers do not support the claims. Don’t fall for the testimonials. In a recent court decision in California, marketers of blue-green algae were told to stop making health claims.

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 01:38 PM
I also remember reading something about the cures to cancer a long time ago. What was basically said, was that the at present have a clue for nearly all forms of cancer, however they will deny there existance, since charities/fondations gain so much money from support that it would never profit them in releasing the cures.

If this is true, then dam all of man and socity for its greed.

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 01:55 PM
Interesting... Unfortunately I'am no sience pro...

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 02:03 PM
The problem with claiming a cure-all for cancer is this:

Different cancers are triggered by different things. There is no one substance that will effectively cure or even successfully treat every type of cancer, simply because there is no one trigger or causal substance.

(fwiw, I've read Kevin Trudeau's book and website - he is one of the more prominent supporters of non-drug treatments; alas all he really does is offer unproven (and often dangerously inaccurate) statements along with unverified anecdotal statements. He's also been close to criminal indictment for fraud and false advertising).

Onto the money factor.

Chemotherapy and other traditional cancer treatments are generally very, very expensive for the patient and the treatment facility. Some patients have insurance to help with this - but many chemo patients don't have insurance. These uninsured costs are absorbed by various sources, but they don't come "for free". It's a fallacy to think that every cancer patient somehow has their treatment all done and neatly paid for by their insurance companies - but that's just not how it works. It's usually the hospitals and drug companies taking the loss. So, it doesn't really make sense for "them" to withhold a treatment that would save "them" money in the long run, to me.

Do you have any evidence at all that these treatments actually work? Anything to support the notion that one or all could become a universal treatment?

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 02:27 PM
Im trying to find the link but i also read somewhere that the bark of a wormwood tree cures some cancers also. Ill edit upon finding the link.

crud screw it, cant find it so heres the google search and some links from said search.

Google Search

Link 1

Link 2

Argh, and i dont understand the editing of posts with url links wiping out all ur text..
Thank god for ctrl-c ctrl-v

[edit on 19-6-2005 by S1LV3R4D0]

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:51 PM
I know of two things, apart from the above, that can reduce your cancer cell count:

1) Good quality colloidal silver (not the powder etc). The best generator (current and voltage regulated) can be purchased at:

2) The Rife Generator:

I've got a Rife video and it shows the cancer cells literally exploding - amazing stuff!

Thought I'd edit this and also provide the following link:



[edit on 19-6-2005 by jumpspace]

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 05:03 PM
Doesn't the Rife video show:

" This narrated 115 minute video tape consists of two parts. The first half shows a variety of Protozoan micro organisms being destroyed by the plasma wave originating from the device....The second half of the video shows you in a step by step process how easy it is to actually construct and operate my device. "

Assuming the claim is true....protozoa are not cancer cells. I'm not seeing the link to cancer.

With regards to colloidal silver, could you find something that indicates it kills cancerous cells (without killing normal cells would be a plus, too).

All I can really find is this article and various similar reports.

CS might be a good anti-viral (I think it actually does have some benefits), but I can't find anything to support an anti-cancer claim.

(FWIW, some proponents are claiming that all cancers are caused by parasites - this is beyond unfounded, and goes into "Ridiculous assertation" territory, and can be debunked simply by looking at what does cause cancer)

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 05:07 PM
Here's an article better describing the wormwood-based cancer theory:


Short excerpt:

" The compounds, all developed through the research of UW scientists Henry Lai and Narendra Singh of the Department of Bioengineering and Tomikazu Sasaki of the Department of Chemistry, make use of the properties of a substance known as artemisinin, found in the wormwood plant and used throughout Asia since ancient times to treat malaria.

Although the compounds are promising, potential medical applications are still years away, officials say.

“We are very excited about the UW’s discovery and an opportunity to develop an artemisinin-based cancer drug,” Kevin Mak, chief scientist at Holley, said. “The technology is very promising, but it’s in its early stages. Further research and clinical trials are needed.”

Sounds promising, at the very least - though it'll probably come with it's own side-effects (wormwood has also been responsible for deaths amongst people who consume it for it's mind-altering properties).

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 05:27 PM

I found these:

If you look at my updated post, it has info. re cancer in the new link.

I also remember reading aobut an AIDS patient that was taking colloidal silver intravenously and his AIDS was being held at bay.

BTW; Stephen Barrett who runs has been proven to be linked to the pharma's (here on ATS somewhere I believe) so we know his hidden agenda
I read one story that he recently wrote on the hallelujah diet (another cancer killer) and he COMPLETELY forgot to mention an experiment that shows how to cure cancer using the hallelujah diet...what a w@nker! Here's the link re the experiment/diet to use:

Just remember, if you are going to go the hallelujah diet way (ie only eat raw fruit and veg), make sure it's all organic



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:10 PM
In regards to what you have said about the companies and people in charge do not want a cure, because there is to much money in the current treatment, and the research, well I think you are right

and hear are some links that you might want to look at to help solidify the point.

it really does make me mad that this might be going on. I will look forward to the day when the cure for an illness is again a good thing.

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:15 PM
this is a reply to one of the posts above.
all cancers are the same thing. just different types of cells. and all cancer cells have the same shell.
yes it is true that all cancers are caused by different things, there are many causes for cancer, however, they are all the same thing. The uncontrolled growth of ab-normal cells or bad cells. kinda like weeds in a flower garden.

all cancer cells have the same protein coating called beta-glucosidase. I think thats how you spell it. anyways. when one takes Vitamin b17 which contains Cyanide, the coating around the cancer cells breaks the cyanide from the molecule (by the way, this coating is the only way to break down b17) and since the cancer cell is what broke it down, it is the cell that is poisoned by the cyanide. thats how that works.

Now why doesnt the FDA approve of this? it works in helping fight cancer, and prevents it. why not sell it?

well eventually no one would get cancer and the FDA and cancer industry could be out of buisiness.

“For the love of money is the root of all evil.” Timothy, 6:10

that is what I believe,

Ive read that there is a cure for AIDS, but I also heard that the reason they wont release it is because they want to let all the gay people die.
here is my question: what about the gay women?, its kinda hard to get an STD from another lesbo. or the druggies? of the ones who are just born with it? or what about those who receive infected blood that didnt show signed of AIDS/HIV?

see, if you take a look at the NWO along with what it written on the georgia guidestones and what the new laws outline, you will find that letting people die is ok. and its necessary to bring the the human race down in population.

and if you think outside the box, you will realize that this is all a part of evolution. people think that natural selection will make us as humans better and even create a better species of humans, and if you research darwins theory about natural selection and survival of the fittest, you will see that many people buy into that when in fact is has not even been proven.

see the source for these cures, are found in natural things like fruit. vitamin B17 is found in fruit seeds. the FDA has said that fruit seeds contain Cyanide, they do, but if you go back and read what I said at the beginning of the post., you will see that they are giveing selected information. no one dies from fruit seeds. even the bible says to eat the seeds.

I dont know about you, but I think that people are just trying to keep their money instead of trying to help people live.

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 07:15 PM
Jumpspace -

Thanks for the links! I'm still wading through a few google pages...oh, the fun

Now...the second one is selling colloidal silver. That doesn't bode well for an objective source, unfortunately.

Onto the Health Hotline link. It shows many alleged uses for CS - again, I have no doubt that it does have some great potential, not least as an anti-viral/anti-microbial. However - there's still nothing to show reliable proof of any anti-cancer benefits. Anti-viral does not equal anti-cancer, fwiw.

If you look at my updated post, it has info. re cancer in the new link.

Still wading through material now - will report back

One thing though (I think someone else mentioned this): it's very true that some cancers are triggered by virii. Killing the virus greatly reduces (if not outright negates) the possibility of that cancer. But this is not the case in every type of cancer .

I'm still trying to find non-rumour information about the AIDS patient/CS link.

Re: the Hallelujah diet. A good basic raw foods diet is possible - this isn't a new idea. BUT - and it's a big "but" (pardon the expression!) - there MUST be adequate vitamin and mineral intake ...and articles such as this

and this bit

suggest that raw-food diets lead to worrying decreases in B12 levels.

this by a doc who does support alternative methods, but is concerned about the lack of B12 in non-animal sources.

Now, about Stephen Barrett. As a retired psychiatrist, he's of course going to be subjected to accusations of hidden agendas, etc etc. So is any doctor, if we're honest - the very second a medical professional debunks, argues against or attempts to disprove a popular alternative theory, they're generally considered "part of the conspiracy". I'm sure in some cases, this might indeed be true! But to disallow the entire concept of a non-profit watchdog-like committee (like NCAHF) seems to suggest a refusal to consider that there might be some truth in that committee's findings - and we're all about denying ignorance, surely?

To further what I'm sure will accompany more accusations, please take a look at this site, where Dr Barrett has had to actually take legal action (successfully) against certain detractors. I don't know enough about him to defend him (even if I wanted to); rather, the point I'm trying to make is that being against something doesn't always mean you have a hidden agenda other than that which is stated (in his case, the health of Joe Average).

In addition, many many doctors "have links" to the FDA (and by extension, the pharmaceutical industry). It would be worrying if they didn't; the FDA needs to have medical experts to testify, observe, carry out, regulate and be involved in clinical trials. If this were to change, the entire regulatory process would be in jeopardy, and the public would find themselves facing a much greater danger - unregulated, unvalidated substances saturating the market.

To whit...

There are a great many doctors who also regularly speak out against (variously) FDA procedures; pharmaceutical incentives and the ethical issues therein. Point being, having links to the pharma industry and/or FDA is not a reliable indication that you have a hidden agenda, or that you're mixed up in unethical research practices, or worse. It simply means that - like most of the medical profession - you have to deal with a whole boatload of red tape and mountains of paperwork.

Back to my research....

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 07:28 PM

About cyanide and cancer (I'm loathe to ask the obvious question to the poster; that being "Did you read the multitude statements and studies of various independent and professional, as well as non-governmental agencies, who have since conceded that the initial theory relating to beta-glucosidase is ambiguous at best, and false at worst?)

From Sloan-Kettering:

"Claims for amygdalin's activity rely on the theory, now proven false, that cancer cells contain elevated amounts of beta-glucosidase and reduced levels of rhodanese compared to normal cells (1) (2). Based on this incorrect assumption, cancer cells were claimed to metabolize amygdalin into cyanide and die, while healthy cells would convert cyanide to benign thiocyanate via rhodanese. Limited in vitro data support the idea that cyanide, benzaldehyde, and prunasin are cytotoxic. It has also been postulated that cancer develops due to deficiencies in vitamin B17, but no data substantiate this idea (8)."" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Linky

There's also information here, but I'm thinking that both of these sources may be considered to be "suspicious" or conspiratorial, as neither supports the efficacy claims.

Nat. Cancer Institute

Because many sources are citing peer-reviewed studies, I now need to ask this:

What other sources would you find acceptable?

There's another article here , this one cited on a Canadian page. I mention that because Canada's drug pricing and regulation differ to those of the US; because prices are regulated much more fairly (that's just my opinion), there's even less cause for a pharmaceutical company to hide evidence of a newer, more effective or cheaper substance.

So - with this in mind....please help me out. What sources would be considered "fair", in the case of cyanide and cancer treatment?

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 07:34 PM

This is a good ATS link:

..and this was extracted from the same thread about Barrett:



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:51 AM
so there is a cure for cancer, why doesnt the FDA approve of it? do they want credit for it? do they want to save money using a process that makes money but isnt gauranteed?

why isnt this cure out there?

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 04:24 AM
what sources would be a good place to start investigating?

China or India

they are ancient civilizations with ancient medicine

other places of interest to study
:Bushmen or other Tribesmen around the world who are not "modern"

find out what They use and then see what their success rates are
i am pretty sure they dont use chemotherapy

traditional remedys can sometimes be useful

anyone have any good sources to Chinese or Indian cures for cancer ? or treatments?

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 06:18 AM
Asian/Eastern/tribal cures for cancer? Doubtful.

Remedies to treat the symptoms - oh absolutely!

It might be worth mentioning though, that certain populations are not exposed to the same carcinogens as certain tribal groups...thus won't have anywhere near the same incidences.

Cancer isn't a new thing, either - it's been with us since man first whacked his missus over the head and took her back to Chez Cave.

We just know more about it these days.

Expert999 - that's the point. There isn't one cure for cancer. There just isn't.

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 06:52 AM
I would like to make a point using the 3rd law of motion.

According to Newtons 3rd law of motion (energy/force) states that forces come in pairs.

Right so for EVERY action there is a Re-action. So take into account that the Universe is made of vibrations. Even space has a certain vibrational frequency.....and not forgetting the first thing EVER made was.....Thats right the big Bang. A SOUND. A vibration.

So if you have a vibrational frequency for EVERYTHING EVER MADE then there is a vibrational frequecy to DESTROY EVERYTHING EVER MADE.

Also how do you explain high voltage power lines directly causing child-hood lukemia......Well its the frequency of for every action there is a re-action........So do not say EVER that there can NEVER be cure for cancer......It is nothing but an obsticle for mankind to try and hop over but some 'powers that be' DO NOT WANT a direct cure for cancer as millions upon millions will loose jobs and even more money will be lost. For its not the companies that control these cures....its the banks. Banks Control everything.

The reason I quote vibrational frequencies is due to the genius that is Dr Raymond Royal Rife.

For EVERY action THERE IS a re-action.

There HAS TO BE a vibrational frequency that kills Cancer cells AND everything for that matter even matter itself must have a vibrational frequency.

So yes I would say there is a cure for cancer. We just havn't found it yet.......or......someone is hiding it either way THERE MUST BE A CURE.

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:31 AM
well I would agree on that about a frequency that shoud be able to destroy cancer. however. there was no big bang. first of all, you cant prove it. second, its a part of the evolution theory which again has not been proven, I dont know why they call is science. its not testable, its not observable and its cannot be repeated. its based upon assumtion and is not even a good theory.

if you want to discuss evolution over a U2U ill be happy to do so. its a lot easier than doing it over a thread.

anyways, about cancer. there are a lot of cancer causes. I agree, there are many things that cause cancer.
there are also a lot of causes for headaches. one fix is an aspirin. its not fixing the problem, just the symptom, but people think it helps the problem.

Scurvey (however you spell that) is from the lack of Vitamin C.
medical experts tried to deny that fact at first, but later accepted it.

what im trying to say is that, just because there are multiple causes for one thing, or multiple triggers, does not mean that one thing cannot cure it. yeah. Radioactive things can trigger cancer, radiation can trigger cancer.
but one thing can fix it all.

see there is something cool about cancer. all cancer cells have the same
protein coating on the outside of their cells, its called beta-glucosidase.

Cyanide is toxic to cells, pure cyanide is toxic.
Cyanide that is bonded with B17 molecule is no longer toxic, so when B17 is taken into the body, it is at a non-toxin.
Beta-Glucosidase is the only thing that can break with bond between the cyanide and B17 Molecule. and since its the cells that breaks the bond. its the one that gets the toxic insert.

A Vitamin can cure cancer.

now I do not disagree about this whole vibration deal. they use vibrations to break kidney stones. im sure it would work too.

but energy from a big bang would not create anything, energy is destructive unless there is something to utilize the energy.
the 2nd law of thermal dynamics states that "everything tends to disorder"

cancer has many causes but and is probably just symptom of some sort, but it can be cured with B17 found in fruit seeds.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in