Effective Non-Toxic Treatments for cancer available, if you leave North America, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 17-4-2006 @ 07:05 PM by Excitable_Boy

"Since the days of revelation, in fact, the same four corrupting errors have been made over and over again:
- submission to faulty and unworthy authority
- submission to what it was customary to believe
- sumission to the prejudices of the mob
- concealment of ignorance by a false show of unheld knowledge, for no better reason than pride."

Roger Bacon

source: www.energyworkinfo.com...

We as a people tend to believe people that are considered "authorities" on a subject. Like for example, doctors. They were once considered almost super-human...and to some, including themselves, god-like. Today, more people have wisened up and prefer to take their health into their own hands and not just assume someone in "authority" is looking out for their best interest.

By denying ignorance, we can take the authority away from these people that don't deserve it.

The fear, panic and stress of the "likely death sentence" of cancer, contribute to people immediately taking action, usually the strong action of surgery, chemotheray, and/or radiation. The purpose of this report is to help you be aware of some facts about treatment options, some of the causes of cancer upon which alternative treatments are based, and the political maneuverings of the "cancer industry." At the end you will find a list of resources for further information.

The immediate first step to take if you receive a diagnosis of cancer is to get a second opinion. Lab tests can get mixed up or be wrongly interpreted, and this happens more often than you might think.

"Nearly every published study puts the mistake rate of X-ray readers at 20% - 40%. In one research project, it was seen that radiologists working at Harvard University 'disagreed on the interpretation of chest radiographs as much as 56% of the time. Moreover, there were potentially significant errors in 41% of their reports.'"

Troubling information, but also some excellent information on the source I provided. I get concerned when I hear terms like "cancer industry." Cancer is just that, a big industry worth billions upon billions. Maintenance of cancer that is, not curing cancer...is big business.

Be careful who you trust when you read mistake rates like those above. X-rays being misread 20% to 56% of the time? Where are the experts? Why all the guess work? Makes a person feel like a guinea pig, no? We're not guinea pigs, we're human beings.

And remember, there are numerous alternative treatments out there. There are other choices besides radiation and chemotherapy...which in many cases, makes the cure worse than the disease. My source above is a long read, but worth it for anyone that has had cancer in their life or life of a loved one....and worth obtaining the knowledge in case anyone out there does some day get diagnosed with cancer.

[edit on 17-4-2006 by Excitable_Boy]

reply posted on 17-4-2006 @ 07:27 PM by bsl4doc

Be careful who you trust when you read mistake rates like those above. X-rays being misread 20% to 56% of the time? Where are the experts? Why all the guess work? Makes a person feel like a guinea pig, no? We're not guinea pigs, we're human beings.

That's why doctors consult with one another. A radiologist is not trained in cardiology, oncology, pulmonology, etc. in most cases. A radiologist may look at an x-ray and say "Yep, there is definitely an irregular absorption gradient in the lungs. There's either fluid or a cellular mass there". Both of these look similar on x-rays. A pulmonologist, however, is trained to look at these x-rays, along with other tests, and narrow it down. The pulmonologists and radiologists may disagree, but the pulmonologist's diagnosis is probably more accurate. Medicine is a developing science, not a perfected tool.

Doctors are just human, Excitable. That you expect them to be above making mistakes is a little unbelievable. What about the judges who sometimes make poor judgments based on personal bias? Should I expect every single judge to somehow know every circumstance of every case tried before them and make a perfect judgement? No, but I do expect them do their best, just as doctors do.

~MFP

[edit on 4/17/2006 by bsl4doc]

reply posted on 17-4-2006 @ 07:38 PM by Excitable_Boy

Doctors are just human, Excitable. That you expect them to be above making mistakes is a little unbelievable. What about the judges who sometimes make poor judgments based on personal bias? Should I expect every single judge to somehow know every circumstance of every case tried before them and make a perfect judgement? No, but I do expect them do their best, just as doctors do.

Once again med student, the thread is about doctors, not judges. If you want to debate the judgements of judges, start a thread in the proper forum. Otherwise, stick to the subject.

Changing the subject is a nasty habit of yours when you have no argument.

reply posted on 17-4-2006 @ 07:42 PM by bsl4doc

Um, I wasn't aware that using an analogy to show that doctors, like any other professionals, are simply human and can make mistakes going off topic. Sorry. I'll try to remember to refrain from using analogies in any form or sense in the future ::sarcasm off::

So, are you not going to try to disprove my point then? Just make a personal attack and be done with it?

~Mariella

[edit on 4/17/2006 by bsl4doc]

[edit on 4/17/2006 by bsl4doc]

[edit on 4/17/2006 by bsl4doc]

[edit on 4/17/2006 by bsl4doc]

reply posted on 17-4-2006 @ 08:44 PM by Excitable_Boy

So, are you not going to try to disprove my point then? Just make a personal attack and be done with it?

I didn't make a personal attack. I made an observation. And, you didn't make a point....you made an analogy to deflect the topic.

The thread is about alternative treatments to cancer. Can you stick to the topic? If not, can you find someone else to annoy?

Doctors are just human, Excitable. That you expect them to be above making mistakes is a little unbelievable.

I find it scary that you, a supposed med student, would consider a 20% to 56% error rate in the reading of X-rays to be acceptable and well within a doctor's or radiographer's allowable margin of error. Is this what they teach in medical school? That it's okay to be wrong 20% to 56% of the time? The mistakes are okay? Patients dying as a result of these mistakes is okay? I would expect an "expert" and someone with such a vast education, to be right a lot more often. Sorry if when it comes to my body or the bodies of my loved ones, I expect a little better performance from the "experts!"

reply posted on 17-4-2006 @ 08:49 PM by parrhesia

Let's not ruin another thread, huh?

Give it a rest or I'll close this one up and give you both a 3 day break. I mean it. Enough!

reply posted on 17-4-2006 @ 09:10 PM by bsl4doc

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy

"Since the days of revelation, in fact, the same four corrupting errors have been made over and over again:
- submission to faulty and unworthy authority
- submission to what it was customary to believe
- sumission to the prejudices of the mob
- concealment of ignorance by a false show of unheld knowledge, for no better reason than pride."

Roger Bacon

source: www.energyworkinfo.com...

We as a people tend to believe people that are considered "authorities" on a subject. Like for example, doctors. They were once considered almost super-human...and to some, including themselves, god-like. Today, more people have wisened up and prefer to take their health into their own hands and not just assume someone in "authority" is looking out for their best interest.

By denying ignorance, we can take the authority away from these people that don't deserve it.

The fear, panic and stress of the "likely death sentence" of cancer, contribute to people immediately taking action, usually the strong action of surgery, chemotheray, and/or radiation. The purpose of this report is to help you be aware of some facts about treatment options, some of the causes of cancer upon which alternative treatments are based, and the political maneuverings of the "cancer industry." At the end you will find a list of resources for further information.

The immediate first step to take if you receive a diagnosis of cancer is to get a second opinion. Lab tests can get mixed up or be wrongly interpreted, and this happens more often than you might think.

"Nearly every published study puts the mistake rate of X-ray readers at 20% - 40%. In one research project, it was seen that radiologists working at Harvard University 'disagreed on the interpretation of chest radiographs as much as 56% of the time. Moreover, there were potentially significant errors in 41% of their reports.'"

Troubling information, but also some excellent information on the source I provided. I get concerned when I hear terms like "cancer industry." Cancer is just that, a big industry worth billions upon billions. Maintenance of cancer that is, not curing cancer...is big business.

Be careful who you trust when you read mistake rates like those above. X-rays being misread 20% to 56% of the time? Where are the experts? Why all the guess work? Makes a person feel like a guinea pig, no? We're not guinea pigs, we're human beings.

And remember, there are numerous alternative treatments out there. There are other choices besides radiation and chemotherapy...which in many cases, makes the cure worse than the disease. My source above is a long read, but worth it for anyone that has had cancer in their life or life of a loved one....and worth obtaining the knowledge in case anyone out there does some day get diagnosed with cancer.

[edit on 17-4-2006 by Excitable_Boy]

Almost your entire original post is about rejecting the "god-like" doctors, is it not? I've bolded the portions that are, just in case you don't feel like re-reading the entire thing. I don't think my analogy was off topic at all, it simply showed that doctors, like any other professionals, are likely to make mistakes, which you brought up with the 20 - 56% statement. I don't see why you think doctors are infallible.

No, I don't think 20-56% discrepancy in radiographs is too high. This article doesn't distinguish between two radiographers disagreeing and two different specialists disagreeing. If it were two radiologists disagreeing about the same x-ray, sure, that would be too high to be acceptable. However, if it were two different specialists disagreeing about a radiograph, no, I don't think it is too high. Cardiologists bring a different skill set to the analysis that radiographers don't have and vice versa. That's why I think a better solution than abandoing doctors all together, as you would suggest, is to cross train hospitalists and specialists working within a hospital setting. This would lead to less discrepancy perhaps. Maybe not a perfect solution, but a start.

As far as alternative treatments go, can you show me some studies showing they are more effective at treating cancer than current allopathic methods? I've yet to see anyone post any. Perhaps the reason the alternative methods are still considered alternative is that they are not as effective, right?

~MFP

[edit on 4/17/2006 by bsl4doc]

reply posted on 18-4-2006 @ 04:21 PM by Excitable_Boy

As far as alternative treatments go, can you show me some studies showing they are more effective at treating cancer than current allopathic methods? I've yet to see anyone post any.

The source of my original post is full of alternative treatments...and obviously it depends on the type of cancer and how far along it is. Also, it depends if the person has already started the toxic, more conventional methods.

One simple treatment, if someone say has a cancerous lump removed is to give them massive doses of Vitamin C, Lysene and Proline. This was proven to work by Linus Pauling, but many in your profession like to call him a quack because as my other thread about the AMA got into, it's purposeful disinformation to keep big pharma and the likes of the Rockefellers getting richer and richer. Anything that goes against the norm is denounced as quackery by all the major medical organizations. But, Linus Pauling knew what he was talking about.

The truth is out there....one just needs an open mind and to deny ignorance!!

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Excitable_Boy]

reply posted on 18-4-2006 @ 04:33 PM by bsl4doc

Obviuosly the study Icite below deals with advanced cancers and you were mentioning early-stage cancers, but I still think it's worth mentioning:

It has been claimed that high-dose vitamin C is beneficial in the treatment of patients with advanced cancer, especially patients who have had no prior chemotherapy. In a double-blind study 100 patients with advanced colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to treatment with either high-dose vitamin C (10 g daily) or placebo. Overall, these patients were in very good general condition, with minimal symptoms. None had received any previous treatment with cytotoxic drugs. Vitamin C therapy showed no advantage over placebo therapy with regard to either the interval between the beginning of treatment and disease progression or patient survival. Among patients with measurable disease, none had objective improvement. On the basis of this and our previous randomized study, it can be concluded that high-dose vitamin C therapy is not effective against advanced malignant disease regardless of whether the patient has had any prior chemotherapy.

content.nejm.org...

I don't have access to the full text as I am at a cafe', not at the hosptal. I may try to find the full text if you're interested EB, or anyone else for that metter.

Ciao,
~Mariella

reply posted on 18-4-2006 @ 05:46 PM by Excitable_Boy

Vitamin C therapy showed no advantage over placebo therapy with regard to either the interval between the beginning of treatment and disease progression or patient survival.

I love it. Classic disinformation. I already said that all the major medical organizations love to call this stuff quackery. You just proved my point!

The New Enland Journal of Medicine. How much money do they receive from Big Pharma every year??

reply posted on 18-4-2006 @ 05:57 PM by Excitable_Boy

Supression of facts by research institutions and governments.....

"Despite the public's support and growing interest in nontoxic, noninvasive alternative approaches, the medical establishment has waged a fierce campaign against such therapies, labeling them quackery....Official medicine pours billions of dollars into narrow research supporting chemotherapy, radiation and surgery as the major weapons in 'the war on cancer.' That war has been a total failure in slowing the death rate...

"'Everyone should know that the "war on cancer" is largely a fraud,' wrote Dr. Linus Pauling, two-time Nobel Prize winner. Another Nobel winner, Dr. James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA double helix, put the matter bluntly. Watson served for two years on the National Cancer Advisory Board. Asked in 1975 what he thought of The National Cancer Program, he promptly replied, 'It's a bunch of sh*t'"

source: www.energyworkinfo.com...

Edit: Because I forgot to put in my 2 cents. You have 2 Nobel Prize winners calling the nation's cancer program a bunch of BS and fraudulant. Are doctor's afraid they are going to be put out of a job? I don't understand the denial....I do understand that Big Pharma, the House of Rockefeller, etc. have billions upon billions of dollars at stake. Their agenda is no mystery.

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Excitable_Boy]

reply posted on 18-4-2006 @ 06:00 PM by bsl4doc

Well, if you're able to discredit any organization you happen to disagree with on the bounds that it may receive money from a pharmaceutical company, I'm allowed to discredit any organization you cite that I disagree with on the bounds that they may receive money from an alternative treatment group.

See where this logic gets us? The research published in the NEJM is peer reviewed by scientists ranging from public and private university professors to physicians, all the way to nobel laureates. If you want, later today I can do some more research, perhaps on JSTOR so I can get full text, and supply you with various and sundry studies refuting the Vitamin C treatment's effectiveness against cancer.

Granted, I think vitamin C is a good supplement, but this does not mean it should be given exclusively when a patient is diagnosed with cancer. I personally take zinc supplements when I feel like I'm catching a col. However, I don't allow this to supplant amoxycillin when the infection turns out to be streptococcus. Same logic applies to cancer. Vitamins can help, but are not a viable treatment by themselves.

~Mariella

[edit on 4/18/2006 by bsl4doc]

reply posted on 18-4-2006 @ 06:05 PM by Tea

I think it's appalling that the US is the richest country in the world and we have to leave to get alternative medical treatment. The medical establishment including the pharmaceutical companies should be ashamed of themselves for putting their greed before the patient.

reply posted on 18-4-2006 @ 06:11 PM by Excitable_Boy

Same.......applies to cancer. Vitamins can help, but are not a viable treatment by themselves.

I didn't say vitamins by themselves. I said one vitamin: Vitamin C and also 2 amino acids: lysene and prolene. High doses of all three. I don't have the figures on me, but can scrounge them up on the amounts recommended after a tumor/cancer is removed. It obviously depends on the sitaution too...if the cancer is throughout the person's body, then it would be a waste of time. But, let's say I am pretty sure I have one tumor and it is malignant.....I would have it removed and then use Linus Pauling's program. I wouldn't allow anyone to further damage my body with toxins from chemo or radiation.

reply posted on 18-4-2006 @ 06:30 PM by Excitable_Boy

"The truth about cures without drugs is suppressed, unless it suits the purpose of the censor to garble it. Whether these cures are effected by chiropractors, Naturopaths, Naprapaths, Osteopaths, Faith Healers, Spiritualists, Herbalists, Christian Scientists, or MDs who use the brains they have, you never read about it in the big newspapers."

source: educate-yourself.org...

Notice, it includes many types of healers, including "MDs who use the brains they have." That's the kind of doctor I want - one that uses the brain he or she has......Doesn't just get everything out of the textbooks that are written and printed by companies owned by Big Pharma.

reply posted on 18-4-2006 @ 07:22 PM by bsl4doc

I would be genuinely interested if you could find the procedures and amount of the aminos and ascorbic acid recommended. Also, it would be great if you could do it without the MD slurs. I understand you are of the opinion that they are evil or brainwashed, but that's a bit off topic on this thread. So, if you could post a link or even just copy-paste the treatment information into your next post, I'd definitely like to read it.

~MFP

reply posted on 18-4-2006 @ 07:38 PM by Excitable_Boy

Also, it would be great if you could do it without the MD slurs.

Haven't used any slurs. Just stating facts. I can get that dosage info shortly......

reply posted on 18-4-2006 @ 07:48 PM by Excitable_Boy

As requested......I forgot the green tea!

RATH VITAMIN C PROTOCOL
There is a sensible high-vitamin-C protocol that has been found to arrest cancer growths. It doesn't cure or digest the cancers, but according to former Linus Pauling associate Matthias Rath, MD, this protocol restricts or halts the growth of malignant tumors by deactivating the enzyme that cancer tumors emit, malignin, which allows the tumor to “eat” through ordinary tissue. Malignin is the mirror image (sterioisomer) of trypsin. Rath's therapy may allow the body to digest the tumors more slowly, or the tumor may calcify.
While the jury is still out, with large tumors, the risk of toxemia may be less using the Rath protocol than the Beard/Wolf/Kelley enzyme therapy all by itself. However, only the enzyme therapy has the 100-year track record of success. This author would recommend Brewer's cesium therapy for 30 days as an adjunct to enzymes before starting the Rath therapy.

The daily protocol from Dr. Matthias Rath is reportedly
14,000 mg Vitamin C
12,000 mg Lysine
2,000 mg Proline
1,000 mg Green Tea Extract (EGCG)

No doubt, this vitamin-C protocol improves the health of the pancreas.

source: www.thecureforheartdisease.com...

I've talked on here before how important a healthy pancreas is. It helps fight off heart disease, cancer, diabetes and others......

I like this part: "However, only the enzyme therapy has the 100-year track record of success."

There's another quite effective non-toxic treatment. Enzyme therapy with a 100 year track record of success. I'll have to get into enzyme treatment another time....play time is over. Good night everyone!!

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Excitable_Boy]

reply posted on 18-4-2006 @ 08:29 PM by parrhesia

Look up 12 posts. See what I said?

You both need to either take a step back from discussing things with eachother or learn how to do it while being nice and not taking threads off topic constantly because you don't get along! The petty bickering is tiring and you've ruined enough threads with it.

Keep on topic, don't discuss each other or you are going to be taking that 3 day break I mentioned above because this isn't going to fly anymore.

reply posted on 18-4-2006 @ 08:31 PM by bsl4doc

You both need to either take a step back from discussing things with eachother or learn how to do it while being nice and not taking threads off topic constantly because you don't get along!

Umm...example of me being off topic after the original warning, please?

~Mariella

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^