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.

 

Cancer Cause and Cure - Could it be this Simple?

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adam_Schneider
If there was a cure for cancer we would never hear about it unless a for of disease or virus or somthing that could off set the money lost from curing cancer.


Well, probably not.

Cancer treatment is a booming industry that big people in high places would not allow to be jeopardized.....if they could help it.




posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Take it from a pancreatic cancer (thats a 99% death rate) person who is still living strong...its all b.s. You got medical insurance or you don't.
Take all your herbs and teas, I got the massive multiple chemo/radiation every freaking day for six weeks that burned my skin off from Mayo Clinic, and still living with one of the most nasty.
Rub on your egg plant, take the wheat germ, good luck. Most good folks end up in a cold casket. Wow, end of story.
No one knows why some live, I ask God every day why I am so lucky.
There is no answer, and probably never will be.
I took the massive expensive medical treatment, and a neighbor of mine did nothing to cure her "cancer"...both of us are still alive. Don't feel she is truthful, pushes God wee-bit too hard for me. Heart-burn in my book, but maybe her uncooked veggies w/no salt for her followers...
Someday will be your choice, good luck. In the end, no one cares but your family.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I worked with Cancer patients for many years. It really made me upset when I found out that most of the money collected for Cancer did NOT go for a cure it went toward prevention.

I remember having to sit with the first patient in our hospital when they tried the new medicine it was made from the bark of a tree.

I am going to go by what the Grey I go to who told me to remember this:

"All diseases can be cured from the roots of plants."

edit to add: I was told this when I was little so it would be in the early 50's and I have been waiting to ssee how long it takes for this to come to fruitation.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by observe50]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Critical_Mass
I do know for sure that all of the current cancer treatments are more a form of euthanasia than anything.

Well, that's not what I'd call a 95% cure rate after 10 years. Maybe you need to talk to some survivors to get a little perspective. Again...what would you do for your kids if they came down with cancer?


Originally posted by observe50
I am going to go by what the Grey I go to who told me to remember this:
"All diseases can be cured from the roots of plants."
I was told this when I was little so it would be in the early 50's and I have been waiting to ssee how long it takes for this to come to fruitation.

Don't suppose you'd like to add to that statement?


Originally posted by lyingunderoath
Someday will be your choice, good luck. In the end, no one cares but your family.

Amen to that. Congrats on your survival...good luck!!

[edit on 19-1-2008 by JohnnyCanuck]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


I don't think this is correct.

The reason is even if the pharm. companies in US would ignore it, surely other countries would not.

Surely they would do clinical trials.
If the results were very good, they would announce the results.

Even if all the news agencies in the US ignored it-to big to ignore imo- it would go out on the web, they can't stop that.......yet.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by mrmonsoon
 


You are correct, and they are to some degree. I have been following this thread and doing some reading. Sodium bicarbonate is used for treatment of a few other ailments as well. Source

Dr. Tullio Simoncini did get himself into hot water when he denied treating a New Zealand woman with his injection for breast cancer. She died from his treatment and not the cancer. Source

Personally I feel most cancer patients die from the cure. If I were to be diagnosed with cancer I would seriously consider the least most invasive treatment as possible. Even have a AlkaSeltzer Gold™ now and then can't hurt. Restoring acid and chemical balances in children is wild! From treating autisum to allergies with over the counter remedies that have been available to the population for decades seem to easy and good to be true.

Studies do need to be conducted on these. But will they? No. No money in it.

[edit on 19/1/08 by Rhain]


apc

posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by mrmonsoon
 

They wouldn't just announce the results. They would do the trials and hold a parade in Times Square to tell the world.

So many seem to think the "only reason" so many alternative, natural, homeopathic, etc treatments aren't accepted is because nobody can profit from them or because there's some vast conspiracy to suppress them. In actuality many of them have undergone clinical trial testing and have been proven to make little to no difference over placebo. Many however are shown to indeed work, but not always for the ailments they are advertised to treat. Ginkgo for instance, which I use to treat my tinnitus, is marketed as a memory and concentration aide. Studies however show it only does so on patients with corresponding brain disorders. A wonderful effect indeed, but not something the everyday Joe is going to benefit from.

So when some doctor opens his cancer-curing thesis with "My idea is..." and then makes wild claims with zero legitimate study data to back it up, don't be surprised when he says all he needs to cure you is your credit card. Manslaughter charges fall far short of what this guy is guilty of, in my opinion. But I suppose anything to help his patients realize, "Hey... this nut is going to get me killed," is a step in the right direction.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by AccessDenied

Of course,will we ever see this method of treatment become the norm? Of course not.Too many hospitals, drug companies, doctors and research centers would become obsolete.Horribly sad.No one should ever lose their life or that of someone they love to something completely curable.


I don't buy it, for a couple of reasons. First, if all of these 'cancer cures' worked as well as is said, there would be an overwhelming refusal to deal with the system. Period. Folks would avoid the hospitals in droves, simply because one of their neighbours would have cured his illness with...whatever.

Secondly, I work for a University, I know cancer researchers, and what's to prevent any one of them from achieving sainthood by putting away the conventional methods and announcing...Bicarb of Soda!! Such talk impugnes those who do work hard within the system to cure cancers. Further, it causes pain to those who have lost loved ones, or ail themselves because all of their suffering becomes perceived as needless misery brought about by a supposedly criminal health system. Slash/burn/poison may be the gold standards today, but people are working pretty hard to find a magic bullet.

What I have not seen here is a member of ATS posting medical documentation of his/her cancer cure using any of the constantly touted guaranteed alternative cures...and this would be the forum to do it. Further, all of this bluster about alternative treatments is pretty easy when you're healthy. Try maintaining that when a doctor tells you that radiation therapy will give you a 95% survival rate in 10 years.



what member has the money needed to prove this?????natural cures are never documented because there's no monet to be made or patents to be had----who would spend a few mill to explore if eggplant would cure cancer---no one-----yet if it did and you could patent it somehow----sure drug companies would----seems all medicine is linked back to natural things we have in this world---so there probably is a natural cure ou there--for instance, if it's true- that company spent years trying to alter graviola extract to be abvle to patent it----they couldn't and it got buried----supposedly they spent millions

also ,,my dad's chemo doctor new nothing of natural alternatives----they're not taught that---and i think they're engrained for years only "drugs" work,,, and eventually buy into thazt theory

i only wish i knew more of the things we may have tried as chemo only prolonged and worsened my fathers suffering


also,,,it seems a new theory lately we all have cancer already and antibodies,, or this fungus trheory---i sure need to do some more homework on it

butsomeone needs to find something. it's becoming an epidemic and the suffering involved is heart wrenching



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 

No, curing cancer can't be that simple. If Dr Simoncini could cure cancer with baking soda I'm sure I would have heard about if before now. It is true that many of our current drugs are derived from natural sources such as plants, but that does not mean you can always use those plants directly and achieve the same results. The potential problem with using herbal remedies (and I do use them) is that liver damage can occur from alkaloids present in many of these plants. The benefit of purified drugs is that some of these poisonous alkaloids can be avoided, so that you can now take therapeutic quantities of the drug with less risk of liver damage. One contributor to the cost of drugs is the testing that has to be completed before they can be marketed to the public. I know someone who has discovered two plant extracts that will kill five different types of cancer cells! Yet we are looking at several years down the road before these can be approved as cancer therapies!
The problem with someone at home self-medicating with baking soda is the potential for metabolic alkalosis, as occurrred in one of Dr Simoncini's patients (www.dokterlutser.nl...). Remember the Nobel prize is there for the taking if you think you have found the cure for cancer!



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by Fada126
I thought that cancer or the suseptibility to it was genetic? and this quak comes along and tells me it's a F-ing mushroom! He's either got really low self esteem or there was some really strange statistical anomalies for him to have cured his patients with baking soda!

Or it could be that you just don't know alot about mycology and mycotoxins, or his research.

oh please fill me in so, i yearn to be thought the ways of the mushroom, and i know enough about his research to know that he has killed quite a few of his patients with his experiments and has been stricken from the doctors list( under pain of death if he ever returns....LOL) and is being charged with murder



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I have read the posts in this thread,and this subject could be debated either way.There are those who have been cured by the use of allopathic medicine,and those who have been cured by use of Naturopathic medicine.
There are also those who have passed on despite all treatment.
I believe cancer does have a cause.I do not claim to know what that cause is.I do not believe though that it is one specific thing, or that everyone who develops cancer does so for the same reason.It is very hard to find a cure without knowing the cause for each specific person.
Everyone's body is different,and reacts to their environment differently.
This explains why certain cures work for some and not others.There will never be universal cure for cancer or anything else.Not just because there is no profit in it, just because it is impossible.
The cause of the cancer in each person would need to be identified,and caught early enough, for any treatment to be effective.
That should be where cancer research money goes.
Just my 2 cents.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fada126
oh please fill me in so, i yearn to be thought the ways of the mushroom

First off, it's Fungi, mushrooms are a type of Fungi which are completely irrelevant to the thread and frankly, trollish. Second off, educate yourself, skepticism is one thing, ignorant skepticism however is a serious problem that can, fortunately for you, be easily remedied.
Google is a great tool for that, here I'll start you off....
www.google.com...
Or if you like more specific information, here's one good example of a an entire class of mycotoxins called Aflatoxins which the IARC has listed as a known carcinogen upon reccomendations made by a reputable field of science we call Mycology...
Cornell.edu
And finally, do you know how many doctors have been 'accused' of murder? Mucho.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
First off, it's Fungi, mushrooms are a type of Fungi which are completely irrelevant to the thread and frankly, trollish.


Oh really, I never knew, you are so clever!
!
!


Originally posted by twitchy
Or if you like more specific information, here's one good example of a an entire class of mycotoxins called Aflatoxins which the IARC has listed as a known carcinogen

Oh so one Alfatoxin(B1) counts as an entire class does it? I suggest you read the links you give out before your arrogance shows you up!
!

And as i stated in my last post most cancer is genetic!
www.stvincent.org...
So I was right about that!

And I never mentioned how many doctors have been accused of murder I just mentioned that this one was! So in conclusion my so called iggnorance does in fact not exist, and scepticism is a good thing!
So wallow in your arrogance and have a nice day!



[edit on 22-1-2008 by Fada126]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fada126
my so called iggnorance does in fact not exist, and scepticism is a good thing!

I feel so much better about your learned medical opinion regarding the apparently singular cause of Cancer now. But just so you know, Alfatoxin B1-DNA is just one type of Aflatoxin, and yes it's a classification for closely related mycotoxins produced by Aspergillus Fungi. I'm not sure I understand your point, but if you have something to the contrary let me know and we can email all the Universities and Research labs to let them know that their information is innacurate according to FADA126.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
[
I feel so much better about your learned medical opinion regarding the apparently singular cause of Cancer now. But just so you know, Alfatoxin B1-DNA is just one type of Aflatoxin, and yes it's a classification for closely related mycotoxins produced by Aspergillus Fungi. I'm not sure I understand your point, but if you have something to the contrary let me know and we can email all the Universities and Research labs to let them know that their information is innacurate according to FADA126.

where are you drawing your conclusions from? You said that all Alfatoxin are carcinogeic and yet the link YOU provided said that there was only one on the list added in 1988? Seriously where are you getting this conclucion that i stated that there is a single cause for cancer, your makeing stuff up now, your argument is getting weaker and weaker,I never said any universities were wrong, I never said the research labs were wrong, i said YOU were wrong! And do you actually understand any of this or are you just dropin links?The later i think

I still cant believe how arrogant you are!



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Sodium bicarb is a blood buffer, you can get better results from potassium citrate. Yes, blood buffers control the acidity of your blood, which controls disease, the more acidic the more prone to problems. The key is to get your blood to base via a buffer.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Or if you like more specific information, here's one good example of a an entire class of mycotoxins called Aflatoxins which the IARC has listed as a known carcinogen upon reccomendations made by a reputable field of science we call [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mycology]Mycology


So is that the royal we, or are you, in fact, a biologist? Cuz I'm hearing a whole bunch of internet experts here...



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   
I bet it leaves the corpse's meat tender and succulent!

On that note, I have often wondered what negative effects this meat tenderizer might have on human tissue?

Changing the alkalinity is an excellent method of killing off fungi. I once cured my dad of killer stink foot using baking soda in all his shoes!
It bleached all the hardened skin on the soles of his feet snow white!

I would be extremely heistant to use it in large doses internally.

I buy the antifungal aspect. I question the cancer fighting aspect.
If given proper scientific scruteny there could be something too it.

People with cancer dieing is not unheard of. But then again, neither is voodoo. I reserve judgement, but might be tempted if I were carrying a death sentence anyway!

I believe it is every persons right in desperation to grasp at straws. I wish the system were wise enough to guide them to "Optimized Desperation" and record the outcomes for posterity.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Doctors? Have you ruled out familial infection as opposed to genetic predisposition in your analysis of the cases wherein the deadly cancer mushrooms were purportedly pickled?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Scott, there are very few cancer cures or treatments that make it to the point of treating everyone. When any drug is developed it has to go through numerous clinical trial stages, see this link for the basic details en.wikipedia.org...

When dealing with cancer there are so many different forms that it is complicated to provide one drug that cures any one particular type for general consumption. I know of one drug at the moment that is at human trial stages but many are still dying either from treatment or the disease. Even if this drug is successful it will still not be available for public consumption for at least another 5 years as for example, the last test could have been performed on 100 people from different areas, people from iceland eat different, are exposed to different enviroments etc than people from africa, the results will be different for each of the sets of volunteers. The next test would be performed on mabye 1000 people from different backgrounds. Only after numerous trials and a death to cure ratio that is acceptable would it get to the public consumption part. Because of the tests etc and expenditure used to make the drug it wont be cheap and will probably never hit the market like for example paracetmol.
I hope this sheds a little light as I dont want to go into to much details. Basically all I am trying to say is that there are a lot of theories but a cancer cure theory would take at minimum 10 years to hit the shelves and usually much longer as there are clinical trial setbacks constantly so even if this guy has the cure it wont be seen for decades.
When you open a new pack of tablets read the instuctions for side effects, this will list all the things that someone has suffered at clincial trial stages but this has been deemed acceptable as for example out of 10000 people one guys eye began to expand. This doesnt mean to say that there is no risk. Clinical trials are in place to make sure that the risk is minimal.




top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join