Cancer is DEAD: Cancer cures from A to Z

page: 6
453
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


No, actually, I work at Burger King and a local tax office while obtaining a degree in accounting. I have been on these forums for quite sometime now, so your accusations are really quite baseless. Do a little research (not hard to view posts by a given user) before making baseless (and idiotic) accusations. Do you really think your opinion that you post on this forum matters enough to a corporation to pay someone money to argue with you? Get out of your self-centered universe and take a breath of reality.




posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninthaxis
If these really did cure cancer, it would be mainstream right now.


That is an extremely ignorant statement.

Don't be so naive.

Big Pharma + Mainstream Media = Corporate America

You don't seriously think they would jeopardize their massive profits and power to inform you of a cure?

If the cure is eating healthy...who would buy all the drugs?

This isn't really that complicated...



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
There is NOT going to be any attacks on members...

Period..

Any further will result in warnings and possible loss of posting privileges..


Thank you

Semper



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Perhaps you could take the time to read my many posts on this thread already. Every single one of your arguments are touched on as every single one of your points has already been mentioned by other members. If it helps you at all, mainstream does not equal mainstream media.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Almost all of the chemicals used in pharmacology are derived from plants or animals -- even chemotherapy treatments. In fact, many of the plants and minerals listed here are a vital part of a normal diet and are not consumed in enough quantity in modern diets to have a theraputic dosage anymore.

Certain people would have one believe that this is all voodoo new age pseudo-science, but the fact of the matter is that this is just proper eating. Everything in nature serves a purpose, whether it is to power our cells, contribute to the replication and control systems of our DNA and RNA, or even contribute to the controlled destruction of cells.

There is a very good reason why this is not "mainstream" medical treatment -- Westerners are lazy and impatient. We want our miracles prepped, packaged and delivered to us ready for cunsumption. We do not (as a general culture) want to have to prepare our medicines.

Thus, the "cure" for cancer does not exist because it is not in a pil, liquid, or gelcap. We must eat a balanced and varied diet full of the necessary vitamins, nutrients, and minerals. Such a thing cannot be validated and approved by the FDA, cannot be considered "medicine", and thus, in the eyes of "traditional medicine" there is no "cure".


[edit on 8-22-2010 by rogerstigers]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Wonderful, I've been trying to put together an herb manual for personal use- this post gives me a lot of info . would have taken hrs- thanks!



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by sjorges2002
 


I would be interested in a copy of your reference manual when you are completed, to add to my library. If you don't mind, that is.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


bravo- proper eating is the key, but with limited space which foods should a person grow in order to mitigate the damage done by eating readily available foods? The value of the OPs info for me is that now I have some ideas for new additions to my city garden.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninthaxis
Every single one of your arguments are touched on as every single one of your points has already been mentioned by other members. If it helps you at all, mainstream does not equal mainstream media.


Arguments?

I didn't make any arguments.

I was simply pointing out how extremely naive it is to think that a cure that doesn't involve expensive drugs or treatment would be "mainstream".



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Maybe-what agricultural zone are you in? I prefer perennials- less work. I couldcheckandsee what I've got for your zoneif you like.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Thier never going to have cures for these things cause they cant make money that way. Even if you use all these natural remedies its not a sure thing nothing is.

Once technology gets deeper in nano tech (which has begun) drugs will be in the past and micro machines will take care of all deseases. We will probably be all dead before this happens, thats if TPTB let this happen and dont hide it away like all the other great ideas that might have empowered the people.

But what if this happened and people lived to lets say 150 to 200 years. If this technology ever did come to rise then thier no telling how long a human could live. If you had little robots in your blood cleaning and repairing you all the time. You could possibly live forever.

Thats when all the real problems will start when nobody is dying and this planet becomes even more infested with human beings. Even right now to many people live to long and are born at a rate so fast that even with all the death and desease our population grows out of control. People are starving to death right now and we have and had the means to feed everyone on this earth with no problems for a long time, but yet, PEOPLE ARE STILL STARVING. so do you really think thier gonna cure everyone or better yet do it cheaply. NOPE !!!!!!!!

The fact is we need to die it is a natural process, although, its too bad that some die sooner then others but thats just a fact of life. The sad part is if the deseases dont get you youll probably be shot, stabbed or some be inkind of accident. Thiers even a good chance your spouse might take you out. lol

Great thread with boat loads of new info for me to digest and i get what your saying. but your tring to get blood from a stone my friend. Money rules all life, liberty, and happiness. Get rid of money and we may have a chance.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
A very informative and well put together thread lots of information to devour, Stars and flags Excellent work



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sjorges2002
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


bravo- proper eating is the key, but with limited space which foods should a person grow in order to mitigate the damage done by eating readily available foods? The value of the OPs info for me is that now I have some ideas for new additions to my city garden.


Aye, that is the rub. I gotta admit, I could be using my large backyard for growing a garden, and in fact I did try a few times, but Dallas weather was not condusive to a large backyard garden.. too much water needed. So we grow some peppers and tomatoes in pots on the back porch in the shade and bring them inside in the winter.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninthaxis
But so many is this thread think that these things are cure alls being suppressed by TPTB because there is no money to be made. The profits would be astronomical.


Did you actually read the thread?

I showed the proof positive example of DCA which isn't getting proper trials because the patent has expired. The FDA approval system is designed to only work if patents are involved meaning: if it can't be patented then it's done.

And it turns out that there are regulations in place that keeps the insurance industry from funding trials so they can save a fortune.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ninthaxis
 


I suggest you calm down, take a deep breath and picture a happy place.

That was one very long and irate paragraph! Did you breath between bullet points at all?

I was going to bed, but since you seem about to pop a blood vessel, i'll do you the courtesy, one last time, of addressing your rant.



..holds more weight than 8+ years of schooling and hundreds of hours working with humans and their bodies and whatever may be ailing them.


Let me start by saying that i respect someone who will spend 8+ years of their life, learning and studying with dedication and passion in order to fulfill a dream of helping people.

Unfortunately, during that 8+ years of dedication, what do you think they are going to be predominately taught?

Conventional, Pharma backed methodologies? Or under publicized, rubbished and in some cases illegal, although natural backed methodologies?

Their dedication is not something i have issue with. What they are being taught, or more to the point, what they are NOT being taught, is what i have a problem with...try not to confuse the two if you wouldn't mind.



I guess it never made sense to create the small pox vaccine to rid the world of small pox. Would have been a much more lucrative deal to just treat the symptoms right?


Smallpox is a contagious infection caused by the variola virus. It's swift, deadly and indiscriminate in it's selection of victim, whereas cancer is not a virus, although it can be triggered by some (HPV for example).

A town with a single smallpox infected person, has the potential to eradicate the entire town, and quickly. A town with a single cancer sufferer will not.
Again, your argument is a completely different kettle of fish, and is irrelevant.
Please do not go off track, we are talking about cancer here, not every virus, disease and human ailment in the medical cornucopia, let's stick to the topic, cancer and natural cures raised by the OP, if you please.



It makes no sense for a company to not come out with these cures if they work because they would make billions upon billions selling these things or their active compounds in a daily suppliment and have 6.5 billion customers taking these daily for their entire life


Yes it does make perfect economic sense to withhold these cures, for the reasons i've already stated at least twice in this thread.
As for 6.5 billion people taking these supplements daily for the rest of their lives?! Surely you jest!

The majority of these '6.5 billion people' cannot afford to provide themselves and their families the bare essentials, in terms of foods and shelter, let alone selling out the majority of their meager resources to enable daily pill popping!

Again, many of these cures would be free to the end user, or very nearly free. There IS NO profit in free, natural cures - period.

You are wrong, there is every reason for the medical establishment, governments and even charities, economically speaking, to keep knowledge of natural, cheap and effective remedies and cures silent.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


I have read every post on this thread, thank you. The post wasn't directed toward you, but if it struck a chord, perhaps there is some truth in my statements that bother you. I have quoted those who needed to be quoted, and replied to those I was referring to.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I have to partly agree with ninthaxis but I take a different angle

I do agree that there is evidence that some of the components of these plants and animals could have a positive effect on cancer when applied in the appropriate way.

However ... How can we, the public, use these things to cure cancer? Do we just ingest them? If we do, how much do we need? Can we take too much of one things? Are there side effects? etc etc etc.

Take some examples of my concerns:

Aloe-emodin - If I drink aloe vera juice, will my body extract the aloe-emodin from the aloe plant? How does my body then utilise this compound so it interacts directly with the cancerous cells? How much aloe vera juice do I need to drink everyday for this to work?

B-Glucan and copper - on one hand you say that mushrooms are great because they contain B-Glucan which can help with cancer, but on the other hand you say copper is bad and the link you provided with a list of high copper foods has put mushrooms as a food to avoid.

How do I reconcile this contradiction?

I think it is irresponsible to give people a list of things that some people say there is some evidence of it having some sort of effect on cancerous cells without giving guidelines on how to use these things.

Although I do appreciate the time you have put into this thread, I don't think that it has been presented in an appropriate way. As I read it, you are saying that if you have cancer then eat these foods and it will be cured and the fact is, you have no proof of this. And presenting something as fact without proof is very dangerous.

There is one thing about your list that I am surprised you haven't emphasised ... That is Prevention.

A lot of the things that you have on your list are excellent for IMPROVING your health, BOOSTING your immune system and PREVENTING cancer.

And if you concentrate on those three things then the likely hood of you not getting cancer and therefore not having to worry about the cure is greatly enhanced

In my opinion prevention is much, much more important than the cure.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Great posts, but I'll never take pot. Sorry, whatever the benefits, the mental decay and degeneration is horrid and my pot friends all can't remember anything and the decay over a few years is horrible. I'm sure whatever it is I'll find it elsewhere.

Other then that, I eat most of this stuff and I must say that even though I am a bit fat I am incredibly healthy.

Hey brosky, anything for fat?





new topics
top topics
 
453
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join