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.


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

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 06:00 AM
.. to 714X.

The principle is easy even though probably hard to swallow by most. Cancer cells rely on stealing nitrogen compounds from neighboring cells and excrete an enzyme (dubbed Cocancerogenic K Factor by its inventor) to do just that, with the 'neat' side effect of immunosupression...

now, giving the cancer cells all the nitrogen they want may seem counter-productive, but it stops them from excreting CKF.

The real difference here is that cancer therapy is not some kind of warfare against an ever evoloving set of tumors, it's based on fulfilling cellular needs. (apply social analogies here

Ok, i'll stop here not to unnecesarily hijack the thread.

"714X is a derivative of camphor with an extra nitrogen molecule attached. Theoretically, 714X supplies the body with the nitrogen it needs to neutralize the nitrogen hungry tumor cells and stops cancer cells from producing CKF. Naessens believes that if the CKF substance is neutralized, the immune system will be able to recognize cancer cells as foreign entities and attack them. 714X also contains organic salts which fluidify the lymph to carry away the toxins accumulated during the illness. 714X is reportedly nontoxic. . .Naessens recommends that cancer patients adopt a largely whole grain, vegetable, and fruit diet with small amounts of meat as needed."

additional link

PS: 714X has to be injected into lymph nodes, for best results which was apparently too hard to do in animal tests... therefore it failed official examination (on purpose?) and no more testing was undertaken, the substance is now banned in the US, even though it's completely harmless, something which cannot be said of conventional therapies.

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 04:30 PM

the substance is now banned in the US, even though it's completely harmless, something which cannot be said of conventional therapies.

Not a surprise it's been banned. Great information Lance. I'm always interested in new information regarding cancer cures.

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 04:37 PM
an update is available: probably the most comprehensive list i've ever seen:

necroposted, but why not?

posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 12:01 PM
Although I don’t have time to point out all the scientific flaws with that website I will focus on 714-X (also known as Trimethylbicyclonitramineoheptane Chloride) which it purports has potential uses in cancer therapy. Supposedly the inventor of 714-X, Gaston Naessens, has the ability to counteract the affects caused by “Somatids”, however, the existence of Somatids is a completely fictional idea and there is no medical literature that proves that they exist. In fact, there have been no reports published in peer reviewed scientific journals that show the safety or effectiveness of 714-X or that proves the existence of Somatids. In the few studies conducted with 714-X on animals with Lymphosarcoma or Lymphoma it was found to be totally ineffective and inactive in producing quantifiable results. Good science consists of being able to repeat results and those results being tested by independent sources. One piece of advice…Don’t trust the credentials of dodgy and supposedly non-profit websites who offer little scientific explanation of their findings, and whose claims cannot be verified by scientific scrutiny. You can consult with the American Cancer Society for a little more information on this topic:

American Cancer Society

The real reason that little effort has been put into this by American researchers is not that they do not want to explore the benefits of alternatives. It is, in fact, that samples sent to the FDA from CERBE showed variable impurities from one sample to the next. According to the Food and Drug Act no products can contain mislabeled information or chemicals that can vary from one sample to the next. This is to ensure quality control, and to make sure that every sample of a certain product remains closely monitored for impurities. 714-X fails on all accounts…both because it demonstrates a lack of quality control in its production and because one sample can vary from the next. Until these qualifications can be met then it will be illegal to import it into the United States, and for good reason. On top of that the FDA also reviewed these samples and found what they contained; the toxicology report found results as follows: 94% Water, 5% Nitrate, 1.4% Ammonium, less than 1% of combined Ethanol, Sodium, and Chloride, and .01% of Camphor. Here are some of the legal issues behind this and a list of verified ingredients: FDA . This is quite funny when you consider the fact that the manufacturer states that Camphor is the main ingredient used in the production of 714-X. Would you take a medication or therapy that has not been properly tested, is imported from a foreign country, and fails all quality control tests? As the last article states, “While FDA believes that 714X does not pose an immediate danger to patients, its use can prevent patients from receiving proper medical treatment. Two doctors who complained to FDA about 714X expressed concern about two of their cancer patients who refused conventional therapy in lieu of treatment with 714X. Both patients died.”

According to the FDA:
FDA again...

In Canada the sale of 714-X is legal under certain circumstances and can be purchased under the Emergency Drug Release Program: EDRP . This program allows the sale of treatments that have not been tested or shown effective against any disease, and the alternative medicine fad has quickly gripped onto the strings of this program. The inventor of 714-X, Naessens, has publicly stated that he graduated from the University of Lille, but there have never been any records found that proves he was a student at that University. He has been repeatedly convicted of illegal sale and administration of unproven drugs in France, Corsica, Canada, and the United States.

Three prerequisites exist for the evidence of any claim by the National Cancer Institute:
1. Evaluate a therapeutic outcome, such as tumor response, improvement in survival, or carefully measured improvement in quality of life.
2. Be reported in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal.
3. Have its clinical findings published in sufficient detail that a meaningful evaluation can be made.
National Cancer Institute

As stated before, this particular alternative has been tested and proven to not be of sufficient quality and of little to no help in combating cancer. In the case of 714-X, it completely fails to meet any of the requirements for being considered an effective alternative treatment method for any disease, let alone cancer.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by Jazzerman]

posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 12:53 PM
i can't vouch for the effectiveness of something i haven't tried.

the key to any method, even alternative ones, is of course knowing about them, that is why a multitude of options is better than just a few, which are chosen by someone else. i'm certain that a fair share of these treatments do not work or are not 'alternative' at all with the exception that they are banned, because anything that revolves around targetting cancer cells is following the mainstream approach.

“While FDA believes that 714X does not pose an immediate danger to patients, its use can prevent patients from receiving proper medical treatment. Two doctors who complained to FDA about 714X expressed concern about two of their cancer patients who refused conventional therapy in lieu of treatment with 714X. Both patients died.”

two patients died: emotionally appealing but statistically insignificant, obviously.

when talking about quackery, one should always look for comparisons, infact from what i've seen and heard, there is little if any reason to elevate conventional medicine into a postion which not only aims to restrict access to blacklisted treatment but to decide what ends up on the blacklist. this is of course a conflict of interest, even though you'll probably deny it vigorously, along with the following two tables:

survival of patients cytotoxic chemotherapy, timeframe: 5 years

table1: Australia

total: 2.3%

table2: USA

total: 2.1%

what you wrote about 714-X is exactly what you'd expect from sources adhering to conventional medicine, isn't it? the problem, afaics, is that there is plenty of reason not to trust them, otherwise, 'quacks' wouldn't have so many followers, would they? even if it was useless or depended on the placebo effect, it can't be much worse a casualty rate of 97.7 - 97.9%, can it?

speaking of quacks, and FDA sources, are you familiar with EMS in 1989? or the FDA's reaction, which is fully described in the follow-up?

please tell me why i should trust an FDA source? after all they are known for banning an essential amino acid, which everyone consumes on a daily basis and considering that 714X is advertised to work only when injected into lymph nodes and misapplication would be the easisest way to sabotage, obviously. combining these aspects gives plausible deniability, imho, and i hope that anyone seriously investigating _any_ cancer therapy would get in touch with people with experience, beforehand, because their effectiveness is always questionable. this applies to both sides of the fence of course.

[edit on 13.7.2007 by Long Lance]

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in