Italian Doc: Cancer is an easily treatable fungus.

Originally posted by Ayjay

None, Nonchalant. You're repeating the propaganda of alternative therapy providers.

Wait..are you trying to say chemo and radiation 'therapy' hasnt killed anyone??

Please tell me your not saying this.

reply to post by Nonchalant

I've got a better idea: instead of doing the easy thing - asking leading questions - why don't you provide your evidence for how many people you believe the standard treatments kill. I've already done some fact-finding in this thread - presenting Simoncini's history, busting the myth that "elites don't get cancer" - and I can tell you, I'm getting pretty lonely waving my facts in the face of the generally fact-free ignorance in this thread. So here's your chance to stun me with your impeccable scientific studies which show how many people the standard treatments kill. Just leave out the anecdotes about how there's a woman whose fourth cousin knew someone who...

reply to post by Ayjay


Right, so since you have an aversion to answering 'yes' to my question, and reading between the lines in your response I'll take that as you claiming these 'therapies' dont kill people.

Ok, so heres a few links proving such barbaric treatment does kill and as you will see, it is very good at it.

The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity.

"Famed German biostatistician Ulrich Abel, PhD, also found in a similar 1989 study that "the personal views of many oncologists seem to be in striking contrast to communications intended for the public."
Breast cancer activist Rose Kushner wrote that by 1981 "indiscriminate, automatic adjuvant chemotherapy was replacing the Halsted radical mastectomy as therapeutic overkill in the United States."
Thomas Nealon MD, Professor of Surgery at NYU School of Medicine, concluded in 1990 that "The treatment of this tumor now has slipped from too much surgery to too much adjuvant therapy."
Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little good? Well for one thing, drug companies provide huge economic incentives. In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. (See our report: Cancer & Politics.) By 1994 that figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion. This relentless increase in chemo use was accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths.

www.1cure4cancer.com...

The following report presented at the 27th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium illustrates how chemo actually spreads cancer cells, as well as points out how little we are being told about the dangers of chemo:

"German investigators from Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena, have shown that taxol (the "gold standard of chemo") causes a massive release of cells into circulation.

"Such a release of cancer cells would result in extensive metastasis months or even years later, long after the chemo would be suspected as the cause of the spread of the cancer. This little known horror of conventional cancer treatment needs to be spread far and wide, but it is not even listed in the side effects of taxo
As has oft been stated, chemo does not cure cancer - it merely attempts to eliminate the tumors and cancer cells that are symptoms of the underlying causes of cancer, and does so with little success and great risks.

In some instances it may appear to eliminate tumors and cancer cell masses, though most often it merely destroys some of the cancer cells. In the process, it often inflicts a very high price.

www.whale.to...

"Although the standard practice of treating patients with advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma using radiation and chemotherapy may reduce cancer deaths compared to patients treated with radiation alone, non-cancer related deaths and toxicity problems have been shown to increase, according to a recent study published online in The Journal of the National Cancer Institute".

www.ecancermedicalscience.com...

I can add many more links and articles about this mass killer but unfortunately some of these links are blocked at my workplace. I'll add more tonight if your interested..

Originally posted by Nonchalant

Right, so since you have an aversion to answering 'yes' to my question, and reading between the lines in your response I'll take that as you claiming these 'therapies' dont kill people.

You don't have to read between the lines. I already said "None" before you posted your last question. But I'll fully understand if you're unable to make use of the facts in front of you.

Now, let's see what you've given me that supports your notion of the standard treatments killing people...

Abel - talking about communications, not deaths.
Kushner - talking about her preference for mastectomy, not deaths.
Nealon - ditto re surgery, not deaths.

So none of those are relevant. And you got them from a site which is pushing altenative therapies. What did I say earlier about your repeating the propaganda of alternative therapy providers?

Anonymous research from Jena - unacceptable. I have anonymous research from Castle Frankenstein which says the opposite. - Oh, and your article is written by another alternative therapy provider. I see a motif...

The Lee study on nasopharyngeal cancer is interesting. May I congratulate you on producing one study which is both relevant and verifiable. Allow me to quote from it:

The researchers found that the patients taking combined radiation and chemotherapy experienced a statistically significant reduction in deaths due to disease progression.

In other words, combined therapy saved lives which might otherwise have been lost to cancer. The whole "saving lives" aspect gives the lie to your characterisation of these therapies as "barbaric treatment" and a "mass killer."

Now I'll show you how a balanced argument is constructed. I'll also look at the downside:

But they also experienced a statistically significant increase in deaths due to treatment-related toxicities and other causes....The authors also reported a "worrisome increase" in non-cancer deaths in the combined therapies group, including infection, second malignancy and suicide. This finding "could narrow the actual magnitude of survival gain," they write.

So in this study, there were deaths due to the toxicity of the treatment. In other words, the treatment did kill some patients. I stand corrected. I'm not swayed to your view, though, because your hyperbole - "barbaric," "mass killer" - doesn't accurately reflect what the study says: that accounting for the deaths due to treatment-related toxicity and non-cancer causes, the survival gain of the treatment could be narrowed - not eliminated, not reversed, but narrowed. In other words, the standard treatment is still saving lives, but fewer lives than could be saved if the toxicity and the non-cancer deaths could be better addressed.

Post whatever further links and articles you feel the need to. I can't promise I'll respond, because if your strike rate is one good link per batch, which still doesn't support your hyperbole, then I have better ways to spend my time.

reply to post by Ayjay

Definitely good post.
To all ignorant here's rather good website, which explains rather well what cancer is and almost everything about it.
www.insidecancer.org...

reply to post by Ayjay


Its 'motive' not 'motif'..

Ok seeing as your not going to accept anything from those 'pushing alternative therapies' and will only consider 'proof' from those in the mainstream medical profession, perhaps you might review this report from ScienceDaily (I hope its mainstream enough for you): www.sciencedaily.com...

Perhaps you might also like to give me a link to a report from an 'alternative medicine' site/report that shows how natural remedies also cause an increase in deaths while your at it?

Btw, Im sure we could argue this topic for a decade and never agree.

reply to post by Nonchalant

"Motif" as in something repeated.

The development reported in Science Daily sounds promising.

Thanks for the invitation, but I wouldn't like to link to anything from an alternative medicine site.

Perhaps you could argue for a decade and never agree. I agree where I can. I have done so, in my previous post. Perhaps you missed that.

Btw, I mentioned a few posts ago about my six-year-old niece who's just gone into remission. Here she is:

www.dailytelegraph.com.au...

reply to post by Ayjay


No, actually I did see where you agreed. However, there seems little point in discussing this subject any further if you alone are going to dictate our sources of information, and whether I can use examples of a friend of mine who gave himself another 15 years after deciding on self (alternative) treatment, rather than rely on doctors, or my father who took the doctors advice and now has to have his jawbone removed due to the adverse effects of radiotherapy. Its obvious you have no more faith in alternative medicine than I have in mainstream medicine (at least where cancer is concerned).

Im very happy to hear about your niece. Thats great news. I always like to hear stories about people that have beaten this wicked disease, and I wish her a long and healthy future.

reply to post by Nonchalant

I haven't dictated anything. I rejected all but one of your sources because they were either irrelevant or unverifiable. You can use whatever you like. It's just not going to convince me, nor anyone else who critically evaluates such sources. It might convince people who see conspiracies everywhere, but hey, they also reckon mini-nukes took out the World Trade Center, so there's not a high standard of evidence involved there.

You're right - I have no faith in alternative treatment where cancer is concerned. There's a cancer cluster in my family right now - my niece, her great-aunt and great-uncle, her grandfather, and one of her uncles. Our family is all pulling together to make sure they all get the very best treatment they can get. That means doctors and hospitals and a lot of medicine and endurance. It doesn't include shoving into your system whatever some murderous quack from Italy recommends. That's just dangerous, and recommending it to others is irresponsible; and suggesting that it's all over money and he's some kind of hero is not only distorted, it's offensive.

Thankyou for your good wishes.

Originally posted by Ayjay
reply to post by Nonchalant

 

I haven't dictated anything.

I disagree. You asked me to provide you with proof of the negative side-effects of mainstream medicine insisting I provide that proof from a source other than alternative medicine, which I did, then you refused to provide me with proof of the negative effects of alternative medicine from an alternative medicine site. I wont allow you to dictate to me from where I will obtain my information, while you get to choose where you get yours from, and still be expected to have a fair debate.

Originally posted by AyjayIt's just not going to convince me, nor anyone else who critically evaluates such sources.

Again, thats your opinion. I'm not in the 'convincing' business. I simply put alternative forward ideas and suggestions. No-one is forced to believe or accept anything I say. To be honest I couldn't care less if you personally dismiss my ideas and beliefs.

Originally posted by AyjayIt might convince people who see conspiracies everywhere, but hey, they also reckon mini-nukes took out the World Trade Center, so there's not a high standard of evidence involved there.

If I'm not mistaken I detect a certain degree of cynicism with this statement, however I dont believe nukes brought down the towers, as you would see if you bothered to read my recent posts. But hey, stereo-type away if it makes you feel better..you can rest assured, unlike you, I won't be offended..

Originally posted by AyjayYou're right - I have no faith in alternative treatment where cancer is concerned. There's a cancer cluster in my family right now - my niece, her great-aunt and great-uncle, her grandfather, and one of her uncles. Our family is all pulling together to make sure they all get the very best treatment they can get. That means doctors and hospitals and a lot of medicine and endurance.

Again, your choice, and again I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise. It's your decision to make. As in the case of my father, I suggested 'alternative medicine' to him once or twice in conversation then dropped the subject..he too was set in his ways and when someones at that point no argument in the world is going to change it. Besides, I dont want to be responsible for someone dying from their cancer because they rejected mainstream medicine & chose alternative therapy on my suggestion. There are too many variables to take into account that can affect the outcome and even alternative medicine isnt foolproof or guaranteed. If someone dies because of the treatment they chose its their choice at the end of the day, not mine.

Originally posted by AyjayThat's just dangerous, and recommending it to others is irresponsible;

Recommending what? A referral to a 'quack in Italy'? Where did I mention that? You obviously have done little investigation into what constitutes 'alternative medicine'. Their may well be plenty of 'quacks' out their, quite possibly just as many as their are incompetent or disinterested doctors, but that's no reason to dismiss the whole profession.

Originally posted by Ayjay and suggesting that it's all over money and he's some kind of hero is not only distorted, it's offensive.

Again, more assumptions. Weigh up the cost of natural treatments versus the cost of mainstream treatment. The difference is enormous. I'm sorry if I offended you, but when it comes to the war between truth and lies there will always be casualties..

Originally posted by AyjayThankyou for your good wishes.

Your welcome.

[

Alpha68-
I have read about "radio-tagging" viruses and he effects of frequencies to disrupt and alter the virus. I have spent years looking into alternative and conventional medicine as well as the occult to come to my conclusions about the human body and how we can treat it and help it heal itself. I read some of your post on H.I.V. and some of your experiences with Lab creations and that is something I have feared as far as isolated victims through DNA. I used to live near Edgewood Arsenal years ago and always felt scared knowing the research that has gone on in that place.

ATS-
Back to the original point of the post though Sodium Bicarbonate used to treat cancer has proven to hurt people in some cases. Chemo has too. Countless FDA approved medicines have caused myriads of horrific side effects and still stay on the market. Look at Omeprazole. Treating side effects will get you no where. Destroying the immune system is also foolish. As I posted before though Allopathic medicine serves a purpose when it is an emergency situation. Alternative meds will never be be approved by the FDA due to them WORKING a majority of the time. Big Pharma has a good thing going. Codex Alimentarius is proof that preventative medicine in the form of herbal/vitamin supplementation can prevent big diseases as well as treat them.Long term use of pharmaceuticals poison the body and disrupt the ph balance. Most problems stem from a lack of proper WATER intake. Then when you look at Magnesium and Potassium levels most people are low. Vitamin C and B deficiencies are common as well. Start taking those supplements everyday along with Ginger and Turmeric for the anti-inflammation effects as well as other health benefits. Garlic is another good everyday one as long as you are not on blood thinners. Probiotics too.

The vid showed that cancer on the inside of the body is white - for those of you that are more knowledgeable than myself, my question is why is skin cancer black? Would the treatment suggested work for skin cancer or would it not fit into the same category as the cancers inside the body? To think we could treat skin cancer with bicarb, is it possible?

I do not really think we will have only one "Cure" for cancer.There are many avenues to go down to beat the dis-ease. The FDA will not do much though because the Sick industry depends on people being sick and there is little money in a cure.

i think we are trying to frame this rare cure as a Panecea treatment for cancer

i also think the good doctor is influenced by his hope over his objective reason

i have learned that medical doctors are required to treat patients with chemical medicines,
the act of using a bi-carb actually breaks the law that the practicing physician took to gain the right to practice medicine... by rule and ethics, he should be stripped of his license & bounced out of the profession

~so he can practice his treatment outside of the cult of chemical/pharaceutical adepts~

reply to post by Nonchalant


"You are right about CHEMO, but there is plenty more to it my friend.

All Chemotherapy is straight uP "POISON", and any oncologist will tell you that its vial, and "YES" it can most certainly kill you, and "YES" it has in-fact killed many. The deaths caused by it are quite simply just chalked uP to cancer, case closed.
The only reason that its allowed to be given as a treatment in the first place is due to the fact that your only alternative to death is just a slower death with a poor quality of life tacked on to it, in many & most cases.

"THE MEDICAL SCIENCE PROFESSION" simply can't do any better (#1.), and they see it like this...
"DO YOU HAVE A CHOICE ? NOT AS FAR AS WERE CONCERED YOU DON'T, AND IN MOST CASES THEY ARE RIGHT TO ! They feel that if you don't do as they advise & instruct, your dead anyway, those treatments can buy you some time, as sure as they may kill your ass dead on the spot that you reside.

AYJAY sees it all in a different light of course because of the fact that it helped family members.

What it all boils down to is that there are very low & very high grade cancers, the cancer types that are fast growing & very aggressive require VERY AGGRESSIVE treatment with re EXTREMELY TOXIC forms of chemo, while the opposite hold true for the low grade slow growing forms of cancer, and "YES" there is also an unhappy medium as well.

For Example - People who come down with a form of cancer called "Mantle Cell Non-Hogkins B-Cell Lymphoma" have some pretty big issues to deal with, the medical profession dictates that this form of cancer to be rare, and my research group & I say "That any certain type of cancer is only considered rare to a person who hasen't just been told that they have it". This type of cancer is very fast growing & aggressive to just about no end, surgery is useless and so is radiation.
By the time its detected in just about all cases the unfortunate person who has contracted it is given a three to five year survival period, but it usually ends up being no more than a year in most cases, and thats only going to come to pass through the use of an ULTRA AGGRESSIVE CHEMO TREATMENT REGIMEN called a C.H.O.P. regimen which is a four chemo drug combination, which four drugs however depends on the stage in which the medical profession deems the person to be in at the time of diagnosis / treatment.
Oncologist will just about always have the person admitted into a hospital for the chemo treatments required for Mantel Cell, rarely if ever are chemo treatments for it administed at an oncologists office as treatments are for most other cancers.
Oncologist will even tell a person straight uP who has Mantel Cell that they have to be admitted into the hospital for treatment because they have to be closely monitored and may in-fact NOT survive the treatments their going to be given as well.
Cancer drugs "Chemotherapies" only hold off Mantel Cell and other forms of very to ultra aggressive forms of cancers for a short time because the cancer will get wise to it and eventually get around it, when it comes back (AND IT WILL) it's going to come back raging, thats why they mix & match the drugs, when they run out of what they deem as proven combinations of drugs for which ever form of cancer they are battling , unfortunately, that be it.

On the lighter side of course there are are lesser forms of cancer that can be managed quite well by the medical profession, if not completely cured alltogether by a battery of treatments, luck also plays a major role in all for sure as well.

If you want to see for a absolute fact how lethal chemotherapy drugs are you need look no further than want was given (AND IN SOME PLACES STILL IS GIVEN) to H.I.V. +'s. The failed cytotoxic chemotheraputic drug, the Azidothymidine (AZT) produce by Burroughs Welcome which actually CAUSED what the medical profession deemed to be AIDS, then came another DNA chain terminator of the same exact type produced by pharmacutical giant Bristol-Myers Squibb called ddI , followed by yet another, dideoxycytidine (ddC) which was marketed by Hoffmann-La Roche. (ddC was approved by the FDA to only be used in combination with AZT & ddI, though however. THOSE CHEMO DRUGS ARE WHAT PRODUCED THE AIDS DEATHS NOT H.I.V., WHY DO YOU THINK PEOPLE ARE LIVING SO MUCH LONGER WITH H.I.V. NOW ? THERE IS WAY MORE TO THAN SIMPLY JUST THAT THOUGH.