Cancer is DEAD: Cancer cures from A to Z

reply to post by j_kalin


Thanks for bringing this information to the forum.

Originally posted by j_kalin
Patent law is the problem; there is no conspiracy. Doctors are mostly trained to use what is promoted by drug companies.

Quite a few physicians over time have said just the opposite - that there is a conspiracy especially at the AMA level. That conspiracy is the actions taken to protect the revenue stream by systematically targetting any alternative practice that threatens their monopoly on "cures." This includes the threat of jail time if an alternative practitioner loses a patient even if they've been sent home to die by mainstream doctors or the intervention of social services if parents choose alternative treatment for their children.

The late Dr Isabelle Moser makes reference to the former in her book, How and When to be Your Own Doctor and the latter is covered by Albert Mosséri in The Fast--Nature's Best Remedy.

Dr Herbert Shelton and numerous other Natural Hygienists have also written about the controlling methods of the AMA which no doubt apply to similar organisations in other countries.

Originally posted by j_kalin
Most people get cancer because of their terrible diet and lifestyle choices; they may be willing to change for a short time, but not long term in most cases. If they can't maintain the new diet/supplements, the cancer recurs as it is a systemic condition, not just an isolated thing that can be plucked out.

With respect, I don't buy this argument. Yes people would rather have a pill that cures them and let's them carry on with their bad habits. Vain (or what I would call sick) individuals will pay to have their faces disfigured in so many ways because it's fashionable. This doesn't excuse the physician from their responsibility to the patient.

Physicians provide these service's because they pay not because they're medically required. Their oath they took should result in them insisting that people accept responsibility for their health. If, as you said, cancer is a systemic condition, why treat just the symptoms without insisting on lifestyle changes? And further, if physicians didn't package the treatments up as "cures," patients wouldn't think that they had a choice between them and natural cures.

Regards,
John

Originally posted by JohnJasper
And further, if physicians didn't package the treatments up as "cures," patients wouldn't think that they had a choice between them and natural cures.

Is the essence of the discussion not the issue of whether or not the 'natural cures' are what they are claimed to be?

Once again, I ask that any ATS member that has personally, they themselves, been cured of cancer through 'natural' means, please step up. I would like to see documentation of both diagnosis and cure provided to the mods, if so.

And if you have been diagnosed...you have the paperwork.

self edit to state that I am not issuing a challenge...simply that we have a population of thousands of presumably aware types on board here so I figure a higher factor of cancer patients would go through alternative therapies. This kind of information would be of serious value to the whole discussion.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by JohnnyCanuck]

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


You know that's not a realistic sample. Only 8,000 members have even logged on in the past 7 days, not all of them have seen this thread let alone your request... how many of them do you think have had cancer... and how many of them even knew there was viable complimentary treatments, AND how many of them do you think have seen you little challenge? And so on. The more you say that the harder it is to take you seriously.

I would agree with j_kalin that it's systemic related... that brings rise to cancer... but once you have cancer now it's a target and destroy issue as each cell line has they own array of triggers, activators, and apoptosis mechanisms.

For instance, we wouldn't want to radiate our entire bodies because it has a 10cm tumor in one tiny location, or Nano-Knife our entire innards... same goes for the more toxic 'chemo' treatments: the PROBLEM is they attack the entire system and not just the isolated thing we're trying to pluck out... preferably by NanoKnife, or at least by surgery. Maybe that argument holds true with Leukemia, but otherwise we're not trying to have our entire system dissected because we might have a stomach tumor.

Originally posted by j_kalin
Patent law is the problem; there is no conspiracy. Doctors are mostly trained to use what is promoted by drug companies.

Wait a minute... I thought that was the conspiracy.

The idea that only that which is patented can be used as medicine sounds asinine and absurd to even a third grader, I suspect. Maybe we should do a scientific survey of what third graders think and laugh when it makes more sense than what these nonconspiratorial collaborators inherently agree on (doctors that agree that only Big Pharm measures are to be considered or encouraged).



[edit on 4-9-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by JohnJasper
And further, if physicians didn't package the treatments up as "cures," patients wouldn't think that they had a choice between them and natural cures.

Is the essence of the discussion not the issue of whether or not the 'natural cures' are what they are claimed to be?

Yes, there is an ongoing discussion about the efficacy of the 'natural cures' which is extremely valid and to which I can only offer "expert" opinion from various sources. There's also room to discuss the efficacy of 'unnatural cures' for which people pay a lot of good money even those of us in the UK via our taxes.

I have not personally suffered from cancer or any other major disease or disability so I'm fairly useless as a case history. I do, however, have a threat of cancer holding over me as both my father and his father died NLT aged 63 of prostate cancer. At 53 years old, I conceivably might only have 10 more years ahead of me. I'm probably well ahead of my forefathers as both smoked up to their last few years whereas I quit at age 20 but I suspect I was a heavier drinker than either up to just last year.

I'm more worried about prevention than cure but I'm not actually worried, more keenly interested. So, I read up on the subject and pay attention to what cancer sufferers and survivors have to say. A close friend of the family was "cured" of breast cancer in 2005 and in 2009 she was "cured" of breast, lung and throat cancer. I suspect that soon she will have to be "cured" again.

A friend of my wife was "cured" of uterine cancer a few years back and has now been diagnosed as terminally ill after it recurred and spread to the liver.

Obviously some people are "cured" of cancer and never get troubled again.

It's not often that a physician admits that they don't actually cure the disease, they only treat the symptoms.

Originally posted by j_kalin
Most people get cancer because of their terrible diet and lifestyle choices; they may be willing to change for a short time, but not long term in most cases. If they can't maintain the new diet/supplements, the cancer recurs as it is a systemic condition, not just an isolated thing that can be plucked out.

OK if you have a tumor that's squeezing out vital organs or cutting off blood supply, then removal will have a beneficial effect for at least a short time. But wouldn't it be better if your "treatment" allowed the body to reduce and remove the tumor without invasive procedure and with a good chance of not recurring?

I'll address that in a separate reply to the OP.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I would agree with j_kalin that it's systemic related... that brings rise to cancer... but once you have cancer now it's a target and destroy issue as each cell line has they own array of triggers, activators, and apoptosis mechanisms.

Whoa there buddy! Watching the Conspiracy Chicks interview (congrats by the way) reminded me of your earlier post on this subject which I've been meaning to take you up on. You've missed the point in many ways on this subject and this idea of targetting and destroying a systemic disease is just one of them.

In your earlier thread on page 2 you state:

post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
If you're diagnosed with cancer it's critical you find out what specific cell line it is. Then go to Google Scholar and search for the name / number of the cell line, along with "cancer" "apoptosis". This will bring up papers with results specific to your particular cancer. I you have cancer don't stop with this huge summary, dig further. You need to try to understand potential interactions and such at the very least.

On the 'Chicks show you said "go thru evey study ever published" for your specific cancer line.

You seem to be saying, don't take the word of trained medical doctors, naturopath doctors or holistic practitioners. Circumvent their years of training and experience and go out and become an expert on your specific cancer in the time that's left to you. Hopefully, no one would be unwise enough to take this advice.

But the real problem is that you missed the point about the word "systemic." Don't feel too bad because most of the medical and alternative therapy world have also missed the point. At best, the medical doctors take it to mean that they cannot cut away the offending bit because they would immediately kill the patient. Hence they have to attack the body with chemicals and/or radiation to slowly kill the patient so that nobody notices. They have no understanding of the cause of the systemic illness or they choose to overlook it and only deal with treating the symptoms.

Doctors spend 6+ years training because they have to learn how to diagnose 1000s of "diseases" based on an array of symptoms and then prescribe the appropriate palliative treatment.

Here's what Dr. Herbert M Shelton had to say about this:

(DrBass.com) Dr. Herbert M Shelton - How Diseases Are Cured
What is a system of diagnosis and treatment worth that is based on an etiology that starts with "causes" that are, in truth, but organized effects?

For example, when a surgeon removes a fibroid tumor, or extirpates a hyperplastic gland, or tonsil, or adenoid without a thought, or the slightest knowledge that these enlargements are but organized effects - neoplasms (new tissue growths) - that cannot possibly come into existence without cause, which cause is not touched by the operation - and, then, pronounces his patient well (cured), does he not assume that the growth is its own cause? To remove a gall stone and pronounce the patient cured is tantamount to saying that the stone was its own cause. To remove the thyroid gland and pronounce the patient well of goitre (hyperthyroidism) is to imply that the goiter caused itself. Is it difficult to understand that all of these procedures leave the cause untouched - to result in the building of more pathology?

Dr Isabelle Moser said:

How and When to be Your Own Doctor
The American Medical Association style of medicine (a philosophy I will henceforth call allopathic) has a model that explains the causes of illness. It suggests that anyone who is sick is a victim. Either they were attacked by a “bad” organism—virus, bacteria, yeast, pollen, cancer cell, etc.—or they have a “bad” organ—liver, kidney, gall bladder, even brain. Or, the victim may also have been cursed by bad genes. In any case, the cause of the disease is not the person and the person is neither responsible for creating their own complaint nor is the victim capable of making it go away...

...Hygienic medicine presents an opposite view. To the naturopath, illness is not a perplexing and mysterious occurrence over which you have no control or understanding. The causes of disease are clear and simple, the sick person is rarely a victim of circumstance and the cure is obvious and within the competence of a moderately intelligent sick person themselves to understand and help administer. In natural medicine, disease is a part of living that you are responsible for, and quite capable of handling...

...The Natural Hygienist’s paradigm for the cause of both degenerative and infectious disease is called the Theory of Toxemia, or “self-poisoning...”

...A healthy body struggles continually to purify itself of poisons that are inevitably produced while going about its business of digesting food, moving about, and repairing itself...

...But when toxins are flowed out through secondary organs of elimination these areas become inflamed, irritated, weakened. The results can be skin irritations, sinusitis or a whole host of other “itises” depending on the area involved, bacterial or viral infections, asthma. When excess toxemia is deposited instead of eliminated, the results can be arthritis if toxins are stored in joints, rheumatism if in muscle tissues, cysts and benign tumors. And if toxins weaken the body’s immune response, cancer.

Physically removing cancer/tumors does not cure it because it is a systemic illness. All they are doing is removing the symptoms. To cure a systemic illness you have to remove the underlying cause after which the body will heal the symptoms if it has enough vitality left to do so.

As that cause is basically toxemia, adding other toxic substances to the body will only make things worse. Fasting is a major part of natural healing because it allows the body to focus maximum energy on eliminating toxins and repair any physical damage. Regardless of the type of cancer, the treatment is basically the same.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The idea that only that which is patented can be used as medicine sounds asinine and absurd to even a third grader, I suspect. Maybe we should do a scientific survey of what third graders think and laugh when it makes more sense than what these nonconspiratorial collaborators inherently agree on (doctors that agree that only Big Pharm measures are to be considered or encouraged).

Your derogatory comments to someone who was making a valid reply to your thread just shows your arrogance and lack of respect. The "asinine" and "third grader" comments were completely uncalled for and you'd have done better to reply with a respectful argument as to why you disagreed with them.

Just saying!

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


IgnoranceIsntBlisss.....

G'day again me ol' mate!

The "systemic" approach has beenn mentioned many times.

I addressed some potentially very powerful new aspects to this in my interview with Johnny Anonymous for tonight's ATS Live.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by JohnJasper
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

 

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The idea that only that which is patented can be used as medicine sounds asinine and absurd to even a third grader, I suspect. Maybe we should do a scientific survey of what third graders think and laugh when it makes more sense than what these nonconspiratorial collaborators inherently agree on (doctors that agree that only Big Pharm measures are to be considered or encouraged).

Your derogatory comments to someone who was making a valid reply to your thread just shows your arrogance and lack of respect. The "asinine" and "third grader" comments were completely uncalled for and you'd have done better to reply with a respectful argument as to why you disagreed with them.

BTW: I had grabbed that quote from your quote, not even having read his post on the preceding page. The third grader comment wasn't directed towards that person in particular, that's directed to the entire segment of the medical establishment that have people paying $1,500 for a single "chemo" treatment that involves little more that sticking an IV bag into their arm, while not even knowing the cell line in advance.

That's the reasoning behind the $895 billion a year cancer industry that lets millions a year die anyways.

They're giving people treatments when they don't even know the cell line. People are dying.

The party is over.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by JohnJasper

post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
If you're diagnosed with cancer it's critical you find out what specific cell line it is. Then go to Google Scholar and search for the name / number of the cell line, along with "cancer" "apoptosis". This will bring up papers with results specific to your particular cancer. I you have cancer don't stop with this huge summary, dig further. You need to try to understand potential interactions and such at the very least.

On the 'Chicks show you said "go thru every study ever published" for your specific cancer line.

You seem to be saying, don't take the word of trained medical doctors, naturopath doctors or holistic practitioners. Circumvent their years of training and experience and go out and become an expert on your specific cancer in the time that's left to you. Hopefully, no one would be unwise enough to take this advice.

Oh?

What can any of those people tell you without knowing the cell line? Damn near nothing. Nothing certain, for sure.

That's why people die. That's why cancer is close behind heart disease as the top killers.

Cancer specialists giving one size fits all "chemo" drugs?

There is no single silver bullet magic drug, no single compound. I doubt there ever will be short of nanobots, but they aren't a compound anyways.

Cell line is critical. Each has different apoptosis mechanisms, in particular genetic pathways that need to be 'attacked', OR not tinkered with.

A cell line can be proliferated by either androgen, or estrogen, or neither. If you don't know this how do you even know what foods to eat or not to, and I'm talking just to eat??

And so on. There's even more to the importance of cell line dynamics.

Without that data it's all a shot in the dark.

With that data you can go thru the literature, and see what has worked, even with 'chemo' drugs, and most importantly WHY. With that info you can now dig up specifically what foods/compounds/etc may excite or may kill your cell line via the different known mechanisms. You can look at the mechanisms the chemo drug they're giving you, and cover the other mechanisms that it misses.

I'm having a hard time understanding your critique.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The more you say that the harder it is to take you seriously.

Suit yourself. Hopefully you will not ever have the need to take a seriously pragmatic assessment of your topic. I think it's considered walking the walk as opposed to merely talking the talk. Over and out.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


You keep saying that as if it has any meaning. The whole point of it is irrelevant. This is ATS: the top conspiracy forum. This is NOT the top cancer survivors forum on the net... Go start a thread requesting such first hand accounts at whichever forums that would be, and please link it in because that would be an interesting read. If this were a large forums where everybody has had cancer then your little challenge would have meaning, but since this is not it makes you look silly to keep saying that over and over.

I say complimentary, you say kookery.

You had early stage cancer, meaning you were lucky to have found it, yet you wont even talk about the alternative treatment you attempted, and whether or not it at least slowed or stopped the proliferation.

Now if anyone tries to critique the medical establishment, you critique them, while basically telling me that I'm committing moral crimes bringing this info, and people are insane if they do anything beyond what their physicians tell them.

You could at least attempt to answer my hard arguments. Last time you skipped them altogether. So how am I to take you seriously? We need debate on this, but to keep repeating your deeply flawed argument is doesn't make sense at all.

Go to the top survivor cancer forums, start a big 'challenge' thread. Let it play out, and perhaps you might be able to cite that when you say that from now on...

[edit on 4-9-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Bless alternative treatments that work. All I ask for is a first person singular report from any of our pals here. While you are doing an admirable jpb of researching and reporting, what you are collating is not new, available elsewhere and is accessed already by those with a need who have some awareness. So if any of these protocols cured an ATS member's cancer, I'm certain we'd hear about it. Conversely, we do have folks that will tell you how cut/burn/poison saved their lives.

It is reprehensible to deter someone from accepting standard treatment when it could well affect a cure. As I've said, that is my point and the nature of my comments. Save your hyperbole, please.

What a cancer sufferer makes of your 'cancer is dead' theme is your particular knife edge, whether you want to accept it or not.
Our discussion is through...as I said, 'over and out'.

The problem with these studies is that most of these experiments were done on cell lines and nothing was done on animals and then eventually humans. Just because you see success on the level of an assay plate, doesn't mean you will see the same success in a human being. This doesn't mean that these studies are bad, but basing health advice on these studies is not a good idea. If a cancer patient quits current therapies prescribed by an oncologist for some pre-clinical, that would like writing a definite dead man/woman notice on yourself.

Also, remember there is no single magical pill or antibody that will cure ALL cancers. Cancer is big puzzle that cannot just be stopped by preventing an expressions of so and so factor or protein, there may be more pathways involved that we do not know of yet because we haven't discovered it yet.

Can anyone explains this for me:

Cancer costs the U.S. over $225 billion annually, and the world over $895 billion. Yet every year over 550,000 people die in the U.S., and over 7.5 million die worldwide. It should be noted that about half of all people in the U.S. diagnosed with cancer die, after spending an average of roughly $187,000.

So in effect, in the U.S. a quarter of a trillion dollars is spent for 550,000 people to die. It's damning that the U.S. makes up about 4.5% of the global population, spends a quarter of worldwide spending on cancer, yet still accounts for over 7% of world cancer deaths.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by j_kalin


Good post. I started to respond to it earlier today, and it's turning into an entire piece. My solutions to the system, in their current form. I like most of what you said, although I disagree strongly with things having to be patented to be considered viable, at least my interpretation of it as quoted by another. I sometimes tend to be a bastard, but don't get me wrong.

reply to post by gsup1


If anyone can quote me as saying for people to not do their doctors poison, please do so.

If any of you would really like to debunk my cell line arguments, and other elements to all of this, please do go thru my citations a provide percentages of how many were merely in vitro as opposed to in vivo. That would be great. You can even all collaborate and assign letters to dig into, although it might do you all some good actually reading my citations.

Mechanisms triggered in vitro do show how they die. It just doesn't always work inside the animal, particularly in terms of delivery. Yes, other factors and chemical reactions come into play that change the variables assuming some of the material gets to the target, but that doesn't quite mute the mechanisms.

I keep repeating there are multiple mechanisms that need to be attacked, which none, not one single chemo compound on earth attacks them all in any given cell line.

In vitro is perfect case scenario, direct delivery, and some other issues of course. Note that I repeatedly scream for a true drive in delivery research.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

If you really wanted to know about people surviving cancer with alternative treatments only you'd be on a cancer survivors forums, notdemanding it disparately on ATS. To continuously do so and bring it up in the same thread repeatedly amounts to pure hyperbole, which supposedly you're against.

[edit on 5-9-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by gsup1


I encourage you to read of my some sets of studies. Most of these in vitro studies allow them to study HOW it kills cancer, and many sets include in vivo results. They aren't as able to study the complex happenings of agents and their effects when they're inside a persons body.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
What can any of those people tell you without knowing the cell line? Damn near nothing. Nothing certain, for sure.

That's why people die. That's why cancer is close behind heart disease as the top killers.

Cancer specialists giving one size fits all "chemo" drugs?

No! The reason so many people die is because they don't allow the body to heal itself!!! Each human was built in all its complexity from one fertilized ovum. There's nothing that we can teach our bodies about how to maintain health. We survived for millenia without so much as a medicine man just the same as millions of species of living creatures who depend on nature to keep them well.

What I'm trying to point out in my post is that once we stop poisoning our bodies, it will do everything in its power to eliminate the poisons and repair any damage and will do an exceptionally good job in the process. The body doesn't need a diagnosis, it doesn't have to be fed a different food for one cancer as opposed to another. It just has to be left alone to get on with healing itself.

However, the task of assisting your body to do its work does require a certain amount of knowledge and for critical cases, supervision by an experienced practitioner.

Tens of thousands of people have had the benefit over the last 150 years but everytime the medical associations get wind of successful practitioners, they get shut down. So far, the AMA and their ilk have not been able to stop the knowledge from being passed on but just give them time.

Please note that poisons (Toxemia) can be from external toxins which are anything that the body doesn't recognise as food or internally-generated toxins e.g. alcohol from fermenting fruit that was eaten shortly after other types of food, normal body waste that cannot be eliminated due to overload or other health issues, etc.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I'm having a hard time understanding your critique.

In order to be absolutely clear, my point is:

Once we stop poisoning our bodies, it will do everything in its power to eliminate the poisons and repair any damage. The body doesn't need a diagnosis, it doesn't have to be fed a different food for one cancer as opposed to another. It just has to be left alone to get on with healing itself.

I've read the first article that you posted regarding acai berries. I had to search through my university's article database to find it. In the future, please post ALL titles of the papers ( instead of the articles mentioning a study was done etc etc ) so that people can view the papers themselves.

In this paper, they performed the assay in a 96-well plate, hence in vitro, and not in the organism and they only use ONE cell line. In order to propagate this as a potential treatment and maybe for further clinical studies, you need to test in animal models, monkeys, and then finally in humans who are undergoing chemotherapy for many different oncological malignancies to see the difference. If there results are statistically significant, Only then can doctors begin to prescribe acai extract as part of therapy.

It's not how science works, you can't just jump from pre-clinical to market right away.

The title of the paper is this, so everyone can read it.

Acüai (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) Polyphenolics in Their Glycoside
and Aglycone Forms Induce Apoptosis of HL-60
Leukemia Cells. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 1222-1229

[edit on 5-9-2010 by gsup1]