Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Cancer is DEAD: Cancer cures from A to Z

page: 7
459
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


may i not shoot my mouth off again
is an emotional topic for many me included
apoligies to any offence on my part

xploder




posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ninthaxis
 


I suggest looking at this thread as more of an 2nd alternative, when chemo fails, there is still hope.

Also, I saw no suggestion from the OP that one should dismiss the "mainstream" treatments, and turn to these. Please point them out.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Horza
 


Thank you for actually reading it before 'disagreeing'.


As far as quantities... I don't know everything. If you're actually sick: as much as you can without it causing side effects or interactions.

Copper, foods, etc: It's all a balancing act. You have to know as much as you can about the foods, and do your best to weigh it all out. +/-.

They don't give us guidelines is the CRIME.

Chemotherapy what they give us as treatments, supposedly to cure us. If it works then you're cured. If it doesn't you're dead. The items I've listed are shown to kill cancer. Kill cancer = cancer cure. If it can kill cancer, especially in combination then it can cure cancer. The specificity of how it is all done is what I'd like to know.

If I get a book deal and therefore funding then I would be able to deliver such. This is what I hope to do.

No matter how much you write, how much time you spend, how ... ..... ... ....., you can't make everyone happy with how it ends up being executed. That's one reason I like posting at ATS before I do in my own sites.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninthaxis
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.


Until now, you've been dodging my refutations to your cynical comments. Since you've taken such a strong stance here it'd be nice to hear you rebuttals.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Unlimitedpossibilities
 


Again, I never mentioned that the OP was telling people to forgo treatment for these alternative methods. Read my posts, read the thread. I said that many in the thread held this view, no person was singled out, and my post was in reply to someone else's (who you can see I obviously replied to and their post is linked in mine).



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horza
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.
...
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.
...
In my opinion prevention is much, much more important than the cure.


Well, I imagine as with anything, the assumption is that a person will use this list as a reference guide for what to look into. To be perfectly blunt, instructions for usage and dosage would not be legal in the united states without a BIG disclaimer that "none of these statements have been verified by the FDA for the treatment for any disease or condition".

I visit my local apothecary quite often. My wife and I take a nightly dose of a very good Acai juice (liquid form) for our wieght and general health. We never ingest anything new in any form (tincture, emulsion, powder, direct, etc.) without first reading about it and understanding the pros and cons from both anecdotal and scientific points of view.

The hardest part of finding natural ways to approach the treatment and prevention of disease is finding out what works and what is a con. Because of that, I find this list to be quite valuable and a great resource of information worthy of a sticky position at the top of the forum. But I will not take ANY of these herbs or supplements (outside of the common ones I already know about) without doing my OWN research. I am responsible for my own body and thus I must do my own work.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
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.
...
...
...


All so well said.

Take oregano for instance. It's one of the most amazing pieces of medicine out there. But we get it in tiny trace amounts. Few realize how useful it is. I encourage everyone to grab their spice rack and go look them all up on Wikipedia or whatever.

One item of my presentation was the tree they used to develop a common chemo drug. I didn't attempt to figure out if the lab version is more effective than the tree version. One might be amazed if they started researching all of the nature-based mimic drugs in this manner.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Come on, think about what you are saying.

Virtually all of the most deadly and toxic poisons known to man are derived from nature.

Nobody (as far as i can tell) is advocating going to forage and chow down on Castor oil beans or deadly nightshade.

If you think about it, the Earth is a huge closed environment, so every poison and toxin known to humanity had it's origins from nature, one way or another.

Even synthetics use naturally derived components to create them.

Everything on the OPs extensive list, is well used and known by humans.

Anything, in quantity could be fatal to us, even plants and substances that most of us consider to be fairly mild or benign, consumed in sufficient quantities, or prepared incorrectly many things can kill us.

Having said that, where Cannabis is concerned at least, the lethal dose (LD 50%) has been estimated at several metric tonnes. In other words, one would have to consume several tonnes of the active components of the plant to cause a lethal dose, which is obviously impossible to achieve by accident, and virtually impossible to achieve deliberately.

Conversely, a single bottle of aspirin or paracetamol can kill you stone dead.




[edit on 22/8/2010 by spikey]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ninthaxis
 


Not sure then. You definitely seem to be implying it here via sarcasm:



And by all means if you are ever stricken with cancer take all the above mentioned plants and forgo any advice a doctor could give you because obviously a post by some anonymous individual on a conspiracy board holds more weight than 8+ years of schooling and hundreds of hours working with humans and their bodies and whatever may be ailing them.


My point is, if you do indeed think the OP is suggesting to "forgo any advice a doctor could give you...", then that is your perspective.


reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


You should make a disclaimer so as not to seem to suggest that people should forgo doctor's advice and use these alternatives, in the begging of your thread. Just a suggestion, since I have seen many threads like these get shut down because of the very fact that people thought the OP's were dishing out medical advice. Just saying....

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Unlimitedpossibilities]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


I think you have the spirit of my posts reversed.
I agree with everything you said.

An interesting anecdote comes to mind... I used to have a bunch of Foxglove plants in my backyard.. Beautiful plants and very useful in heart surgery.. also kills ants rather effectively..


I also think this spirit is alive and well in the medical establishment in an informal way. All of the Internal Medicine docs I have seen in the past dozen years have all been very strong advocates of using natural medicines. My old doc used to carry a reference book of natural herbs and minerals in her coat. My current one is *very* hesitant to prescribe anything to treat a condition if there is a simple home remedy.

[edit on 8-22-2010 by rogerstigers]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


wow... just wow..

great thread...

thanks for all the info...



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ninthaxis
 





And lets be honest here, the 60's and 70's, marijuana use was very wide spread, yet cancer still remains. Tell me how a generation of pot smokers are developing cancer in their bodies?


For the answer to that, you might want to search for a video called 'Run from the cure', and research the people featured.

I'm not an expert by any stretch, but i'd hazard a guess that smoking it, especially mixed with tobacco, is not the preferred method of ingestion to reap it's anti-cancer properties.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
The sad part is big pharma trying to isolate these compound and selling
them to us in a pill form, when all we should be doing is ingesting most
of them.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


My apologies roger,

Honestly mate, i can barely keep my eyes open..i was gonna go to bed a few hours ago and got sidetracked by this thread..just looked at the clock and almost had a heart attack!

Sorry mate.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Lol, no worries, mate. I was doing the same thing last night.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel
If we could roll this into a miracle cure .. one pill .. or maybe a series of pills to target specific cancers ..... Why would the medical establishment not market this pill/pills and make a fortune...they could then move onto the next disease.. after all there is ALWAYS another disease.... it is the nature of the beast....


If it can be made dirt cheap, and anyone could grow it, and it can't be patented so they can dictate the price, then it won't fly. That's just the way it is.

It's kind of like with illegal recreational drugs: make them illegal and they cost more due to artificial scarcity. If there were "proven" herbal methods as part of established "medicine", then all we'd need doctors for would be to have them advise us on interactions, dosages, etc (of stuff we could grow in our yards). When they control the methods and the means, they control the costs and they control us. Typical socio/psychopath behavior.


People tend to Group Big pharmacy / main stream medicine . as being an evil entity .. it is not so..... many human beings work for the medical profession and sometimes human beings make mistakes... but many of them swore oaths and passionately believe in Saving lives.


And in school journalists swear oaths to tell the truth... then they get hired by CNN and things change. Now "investigative journalist" is a title actual journalists have to wear on their sleeves, when investigation is the nature of true journalism.

Back on sociopathy: Most people can't afford the treatments they prescribe, and not telling them that they can boost their odds and lessen their need for the massively expensive hospital treatments is disgusting. When they go on as peoples only hope, when that isn't true, that's control freak mania.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ninthaxis
 



And lets be honest here, the 60's and 70's, marijuana use was very wide spread, yet cancer still remains. Tell me how a generation of pot smokers are developing cancer in their bodies?


Everyone of these alternatives the OP suggested must be taken in balance, relative per person. By singling one of these alternatives out, you are not taking into account the balance that must be maintained, which would incorporate many, or perhaps all, of the alternatives the OP listed.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Unlimitedpossibilities]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Unlimitedpossibilities
 


Exactly.

When I responded to that I didn't think to mention that his statement was flawed without statistical data showing pot smokers who quit in their later years, and who kept on using, and then how many died between them. That would make a cool study.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
I see the problem as "he said, she said."

In the case of the alternatives (which have often had real scientific trials), there's a "this doctor says it cures all this without the need for pills and expensive medicine!" but when you go looking for "okay, who did he cure and where's the documents and who was he unable to cure" you get more Inspirational Stories.

There are countries where there are few medical doctors and where the people rely on herbal medicines. Their life expectancy is lower than people who live in countries with "big pharma."

I think you can try these but I think the percentage of cases cured or improved by these is fairly small compared to the "big pharam" drugs. I can tell you from personal experience that "natural means" didn't control my blood pressure, blood sugar, or a host of other things and that they didn't help my mom or my husband.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
I have to say something. While I really do not agree with the points that ninthaxis is bringing up, I am very happy that they are bringing them up.

This is a subject that NEEDS to be discussed and reviewed and shared. Without a foil to bring up counter arguments, our knowledge and wisdom on the subject is impaired by the assumption that we already know the answers.

or something like that






top topics



 
459
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join