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 is DEAD: Cancer cures from A to Z

page: 12
477
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Something else to consider.....I highly doubt that cancer is caused by a lack of chilli peppers or acai berry or ginger, etc.

Because the human body is very good at self treatment, with many diseases, simply removing the toxic agent is sufficient for the return of normal health.

For instance: If a certain food, say Sugar, is responsible for cancer development in humans....the simple negative stimulus, or removing it from the diet, should allow the body to naturally cure itself....given that the cancer hasn't progressed beyond control.

By using the data found in the OP, one could conclude that cancer is simply a nutrient deficiency. And that to cure cancer, all one needs is optimal nutrient intake.

Speaking of nutrient deficiencies...where, exactly, was your information regarding vitamin D?




posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
reply to post by soficrow
 


Diabetes is largely a LIFESTYLE disease. Which can be cured by changing the way you eat, exercise, and how much weight you lose.

Cancer is not. You can't cure it by just eating blueberries. Please GET to reality people.



Corporate Liability Defense Strategy Now Public Health Policy?


The standard corporate defense against charges of health damage is the counter-claim that peoples' health problems result from:
1. Diet,
2. Lifestyle, and/or
3. Genetics,
not any chemical, medication, additive or agent that may be named in any charges.



Now, governments and health agencies are saying it too: cancer and other debilitating and disabling chronic diseases result from:
1. Diet,
2. Lifestyle, and/or
3. Genetics,
and everyone with any clout is totally disregarding the effects of micro- and macro-environmental contaminations.



Good thinking mnmcandiez. You get the Smart Parrot of the Year Award.


FYI - environmental contaminations include food-borne infections, which are recognized as factors in BOTH cancer and diabetes.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


YES, I know that diabetes and cancer can both be caused by toxins.

Cancer is all toxins and maybe some genetics.

Diabetes can caused by toxins and can also just be caused by being 300 pounds. Hence why a lot of morbidly obese people have diabetes. They eat processed food, don't exercise, and are just generally unhealthy.


Please get back down to reality.




[edit on 8/23/2010 by mnmcandiez]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 





I'd say that is because they have not been proven to work. That was certainly the case with me. When one has to balance out one's urologost and one's oncologist saying "This will cure you" versus some guy on the net with a just freakin' Jim-Dandyo web site...well, my choice was clear. And I stand by it.


JohnnyCanuck, you cherry-picked from my post and made it sound like I am against conventional methods across the board. That's not what I was saying and I don't believe that's what the OP intended to say by providing this information to everyone in this forum. I clearly stated that I've known people just like you who have survived cancer after being treated with conventional medicine.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightGypsy


That is a valid point, however, I do believe the OP addressed that in his/her introduction with a statement offering apologies to those who's loved ones already have cancer, stating "it might already be too late for them" or something to that effect. I don't believe the OP has stated that cancer patients should disregard their doctor's orders and treat themselves off of the information provided in this post.


I don't think the OP has those intentions either. It is, however, an unintended consequence. I'll say it again, I applaud his efforts and it's an amazing thread. But that doesn't change the fact that there are some basic flaws in the structure and presentation of it.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mnmcandiez
 


Nearly ALL of the diseases of civilization are directly contributed to dietary influences. To be more specific....the westernization of diet through the additions of heavily processed and carbohydrate dense foods.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mnmcandiez
 



Originally posted by mnmcandiez
reply to post by Unlimitedpossibilities
 


Well there is nothing but highly speculative proof that these "elites" want to kill us all. So basing your post on unproven extremely paranoid fringe beliefs I really can't sensibly reply to it.


Population control and 'killing us all' are two different concepts. The former has an ideology that leads to at least a conscious effort to maintain or regulate the mortality rate for a given population, over a "long" term period. The latter is more of an extermination in the very "short" term period. For the "elites", they think, why not hit at least two birds with one stone? If they can make a buck while maintaining their ideology, then they ask why not.

One must remember, these people grew up in a completely different reality. This reality is very condescending from our point of view, and all about superiority from their view. Their is nothing paranoid about this.

Again, based on the premise that humans are innately greedy, especially those who have this "superiority" view, one can follow the money trail right back to these condescending, unempathetic jerks.

It comes down to understanding that reality is relative per person. This is the reason why you can watch videos about cop brutality. SOME cops are living in a different "reality" from those they attack. Fundamentally, one can apply this same concept to the "reality" in which the elites reside.

Your user defined "reality" is telling you that I am paranoid. Please reconsider.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by Unlimitedpossibilities]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
reply to post by soficrow
 


YES, I know that diabetes and cancer can both be caused by toxins.


Not what I said.


...environmental contaminations include food-borne infections, which are recognized as factors in BOTH cancer and diabetes.



Infections are not "toxins." Toxins are poisons. Infections involve the multiplication and spread of 'alien' agents in the body.

FYI - Cancer and diabetes are multifactorial



Cancer is all toxins and maybe some genetics.


Cancer is multifactorial, with genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors interacting to cause disease..




Diabetes can caused by toxins and can also just be caused by being 300 pounds. Hence why a lot of morbidly obese people have diabetes. They eat processed food, don't exercise, and are just generally unhealthy.


"Type 1 diabetes is a multifactorial disease"

"Type 2 Diabetes: A Multifactorial Syndrome"

Heads up: Koch's Principles do NOT apply to modern chronic disease; all are multifactorial. Again, there is no single cause-and-effect for chronic disease; diabetes causes obesity - obesity does not cause diabetes; ...and your prejudices are showing.




Please get back down to reality.



Moi? You want moi to get back down to reality?!? When you're the one getting your info from The Redneck Handbook for PseudoScience?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 





I'd say that is because they have not been proven to work. That was certainly the case with me. When one has to balance out one's urologost and one's oncologist saying "This will cure you" versus some guy on the net with a just freakin' Jim-Dandyo web site...well, my choice was clear. And I stand by it.


JohnnyCanuck, you cherry-picked from my post and made it sound like I am against conventional methods across the board. That's not what I was saying and I don't believe that's what the OP intended to say by providing this information to everyone in this forum. I clearly stated that I've known people just like you who have survived cancer after being treated with conventional medicine.


Sorry...I understood you to be inferring that a conventional cure was 'miraculous' by nature of it being 'conventional'. Mea culpa. I tend to get a little testy at the alternating breathless/conspiratorial nature of many threads like this.

Cancer kills. Punkt. If you can beat it by any means, then Hallelujah. But if you jerk around with the wrong treatment so that it ends up getting you when you could stood a chance, that's a bigger shame. And those who promote those actions without an investment in the result are verging on the criminal.

Just sayin'...and again, my apologies for misreading your intent.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Nearly ALL of the diseases of civilization are directly contributed to dietary influences. To be more specific....the westernization of diet through the additions of heavily processed and carbohydrate dense foods.



True, nutrition -and the lack of it- is critical.

BUT

You are parroting a deflection-distraction-and-disinformation sound bite: in fact, chronic disease is pandemic -endemic worldwide- and all the evidence shows that the global food production, processing and distribution industry is responsible, and spreads the infectious contaminants linked to chronic disease.

From another thread:

Once thought to be "diseases of civilization," cancer and other chronic diseases are now endemic worldwide. More and more people are debilitated and disabled, at younger and younger ages, and governments are struggling to pick up the tab and fill the gaps.


Chronic diseases are the leading causes of death and disability worldwide. Disease rates from these conditions are accelerating globally, advancing across every region and pervading all socioeconomic classes. The World Health Report 2002 ...indicates that the mortality, morbidity and disability attributed to the major chronic diseases currently account for almost 60% of all deaths and 43% of the global burden of disease. By 2020 their contribution is expected to rise to 73% of all deaths and 60% of the global burden of disease. Moreover, 79% of the deaths attributed to these diseases occur in the developing countries.

The World Health Report 2002: "Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life" - Integrated chronic disease prevention and control



The USA is bad too.


Chronic diseases – such as heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, and arthritis – are among the most common, costly, and preventable of all health problems in the U.S.

Chronic Diseases are the Leading Causes of Death and Disability in the U.S.

* 7 out of 10 deaths among Americans each year are from chronic diseases. Heart disease, cancer and stroke account for more than 50% of all deaths each year.
* In 2005, 133 million Americans – almost 1 out of every 2 adults – had at least one chronic illness.

CDC REPORT: Chronic Diseases and Health Promotion



And cancer now heads the list.





[edit on 23-8-2010 by soficrow]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Me and my brain cancer thank you IgnoranceIsn'tBliss. I had been trying to ignore it rather than go through an operation that has a 50/50 chance of destroying my hearing. As a musician going deaf would absolutely devastate me.
You have given me some tools to fight back and I will! I'm going to completely undo my old dietary habits and create one that has as much cancer-fighting goodies in it that I can.
You've probably saved more than one life with your hard work. Even a few better prognoses will have made your efforts worthwhile.
I will keep your mother in my prayers. I'll let you know how things work out for me.
Thank you & God Bless!



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


ah, sofi. Were you disagreeing with me? Cause it seemed like you were just echoing my points.....

(Nice to see you posting!)



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 




friends who went the alternative way aren't.

I wish I could have included more of your post but I can only think of Susanne Somers when I read this. Don't knock the alternative cures either. I don't know why they are not responding to your request but I hear about spontaneous remission and the like very often. My cousin works for an insurance company. Two women with a microwave between their desks each get cancer of the eye closest to the microwave.
Nobody is saying it was their fault but if you suspect something or there is word of something on the wind you don't always have to listen and heed it, but if it is a matter of life or death ,I should think you would want to know all you can and listen to the old wives tales. Sometimes old wives know stuff.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Awesome thread!!!
I have started to digest a bit of the info, but the amount of research in this thread is amazing.
It will take a month, at least.

You should convert this into easier reading (for the masses) and then publish it.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by soficrow
 


ah, sofi. Were you disagreeing with me?



Nahhh. ...Well, a little.




Cause it seemed like you were just echoing my points.....


Not at all!!! I was expanding, extrapolating, clarifying, correcting and exPOUNDing.

BTW - that infectious bit is just as critical as nutrition - never mind those pesky environmental toxins.




(Nice to see you posting!)


Hi back.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Great list. Thank you for taking the time to put it together!

Some (very few) countries enjoy medical freedom of choice. Which means if a professionally trained medical doctor believes that an intense nutritional approach is the patient's best chance at cancer survival; then they are ALLOWED to administer it if the patient so wishes.

That is completely illegal in the United States and Canada.

Citizens of Japan are of the very lucky few where successful therapies are embraced and not suppressed.

A perfect example of a highly successful cancer therapy, using many items from the OP's list, in a methodical, very precise approach is the following video -

This video visits with Dr. Tominaga, Director of the Loma Linda Clinic in Japan, Dr. Takaho Watayo, Director of the presegous Toritsu Ohtsuka Hosptial, in Tokyo and Prof. Yoshihiko Hoshino, M.D.

All highly respected, mainstream medical physicians and surgeons.

Dr. Tominaga alone monitors some 500 patients currently on this particular therapy, over half of which now show no signs of cancer.



(click to open player in new window)



In Japan they openly test the therapy and substances via intense scientific methods as they should do here. However, absolutely no profit whatsoever could be made from these completely natural and widely available items. This makes the therapy and all others using non-patentable methods, completely illegal in North America and most other countries.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
To all of those who underscore that attempting to treat each type of cancer is specific to each possible cell line, and each individual person:

At my prodding she finally tried to read the papers they've given her, to find out what cell line she has. There are about 200 different possible cell lines of lung cancer.

It wasn't in the paperwork.

So she called shortly ago, and they told her they'll have to do testing to know what it is.

The problem with that is, they've already started "chemo".

I guess they have some magical one size fits all known cell lines possible solution miracle drug that didn't make international headlines?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeBrew
Some (very few) countries enjoy medical freedom of choice. Which means if a professionally trained medical doctor believes that an intense nutritional approach is the patient's best chance at cancer survival; then they are ALLOWED to administer it if the patient so wishes.

That is completely illegal in the United States and Canada.


On the other hand, I asked my oncologist if he approved of my being on a naturopath-prescribed regimen to ameliorate the potential side effects of the radiation in my therapy and his response was "sure...can't hurt".



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


Oh man!


Brain cancer is no joke. Nobody wants to go out like that.

What have they done for you so far, and all of that stuff?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


This piece wasn't just about showing people more weapons they can use in their personal war.

It's also about providing insight into How vast the field of promising-natural-safe-etc things there are out there with scientific evidence and even proof of fighting cancer, and beyond some curious university researchers doing their nifty little experiments the medical community isn't gung ho about any of it.

They all seem to sit around waiting for Big Pharm to cook up some new synthetic (often based on natural things), and recommend to them (the doctors) what to do.

That is conspiratorial in nature, when they could help people do more natural based Full Spectrum assaults on what is likely to kill them, yet instead they opt for wanna-be silver bullet "chemos" that can kill them.



new topics

top topics



 
477
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join