It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
How can the human intestinal fluke cause cancer? This
parasite typically lives in the intestine where it might do little
harm, causing only colitis, Crohn's disease, or irritable bowel
syndrome, or perhaps nothing at all. But if it invades a different
organ, like the uterus or kidneys or liver, it does a great deal of
harm. If it establishes itself in the liver, it causes cancer! It only
establishes itself in the liver in some people. These people have
isopropyl alcohol (often abbreviated IPA) in their bodies. All
cancer patients (100%) have both isopropyl alcohol and the intestinal
fluke in their livers. The solvent, isopropyl alcohol, is
responsible for letting the fluke establish itself in the liver. In
order to get cancer, you must have both the parasite and isopropyl
alcohol in your body.
To understand cancer you should understand the basic facts
about the human intestinal fluke. Its scientific name is Fasciolopsis
buskii. Fluke means “flat”, and flukes are one of the
families of flatworms. On the next page is a photograph of the
human intestinal fluke, made from a preserved and stained
specimen so all the details are visible. It is as flat as a leaf. The
parasite is not unknown, it has been studied since at least 1925.3
Originally posted by Bixxi3
Oh no. did anyone else get this weird uncomfortable feeling while reading this? almost like the microbes where suddenly aware i new they were there!
No misperception here, but I think you have some serious misperceptions given the quack source you quoted. You can't weigh yourself without them so it seems like they are very much intertwined with our bodies from that perspective.
Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
these micro-organisms are not part of our bodies
Any rational person would instantly know that nothing will cure ALL cancers. But I guess some not so rational persons might believe that. And you must be an extremely irrational or uninformed person to quote a book saying it cures all cancers AFTER the author died of cancer:
The Cure For All Cancers
Including Over 100 Case
Histories of Persons Cured
Plus two revolutionary electronic circuits,
one to diagnose and monitor progress,
the other to zap parasites and bacteria!
Hulda Regehr Clark, Ph.D.,N.D.
There are too many examples of BS from clark to post but I suggest you read the quackwatch article and do a serious re-assessment of what you consider to be a credible source.
Clark Dies of Cancer
On September 3, 2009, Clark died of complications of multiple myeloma, a form of lymphoma in which plasma cells become overabundant in the bone marrow. As their volume increases, they destroy the surrounding bone, which releases large amounts of calcium into the blood stream. They also suppress the formation of other blood cells, which leads to severe anemia . The diagnosis is usually easy to make because the affected areas appear on x-ray images as "holes" in the affected bones. The disease eventually kills by producing hypercalcemia, anemia, decreased resistance to infection, and/or several other problems. No cure is available, but most people benefit from treatment, and recently developed drugs have significantly increased survival times....
Although details are lacking, the above information suggests to me that Clark's life was shortened because she failed to seek timely and appropriate medical care.
...I suggest you... do a serious re-assessment of what you consider to be a credible source.
Do you know ANYTHING at all about Quackwatch and the guy who puts up that web site?
But you're ready to accept his words, his assessments, and opinions as honest and true just because they are printed words on a computer screen?
Here's a few more links you might want to read over before accepting the info presented at Quackwatch.
Hulda Clark did not die of cancer. She died at age 83 from complications resulting from a long term spinal injury. Even if she did die of cancer, so what? Does that mean that all of her reserach on cancer is negated and meaningless?
Everyone is going to die of something Adam. The idea is to try and live a normal life span , such as 83, instead of dying from cancer at 53 because you believed in the lies of mainstream, orthodox medicine (oncologists), their mouthpieces in mainstream media, and pharmaceutical disinformaiton shills like Stephen Barrett.
Dr. Bob Beck titled one of his lectures "Take Back Your Power". You should view it. He was addressing people who easily give away their power to others who APPEAR to be authoritative and APPEAR to know what they're talking about, but actually are PROPAGANDISTS out to DECEIVE you in the interest of disuading your from trying NON-PHARMACEUTICAL therapies .
You need to do MUCH more research before jumping to conclusions about Hulda Clark (or any other alternative health researcher or natural medicine advocate) based on the rank lies you might read from Stephen Barrett.
For starters, "Doctor" Stephen Barrett was NEVER a practicing physician. He USED to be a PSYCHIATRIST, but that was BEFORE HE LOST HIS LICENSE TO PRACTICE PSYCHIATRY.
He used to have free rein on the internet for many years, slandering just about everyone and anyone who advocated nature-based medicine and others who were not interested in the pharmaceutical approach.
But then Tim Bolen stepped in somewhere in the late 1990s and began to challenge Barrett's garbage. That eventually led to lawsuits which Barrett.... lost,... big time.
Being a shill of the drug companies, however, does have its advantages. Those include hidden sources of funding and promotion to mount appeals and the like and flood the internet with scurrilous attacks on Bolen for having the audacity to out this rank ringer for the pharmaceuticals.
Yes. When the self-named "Quackbusters" stumbled around to find a derisive name to call their victims, they picked the word "Quack," without ever bothering to discover it's origins. Its original meaning, from Europe, comes from the term "quacksalver" which was used to describe Dentists who were dumb enough to use mercury (a poison) as fillings for teeth. Look at propagandist, and "Quackbuster" king-pin, Stephen Barrett's web site (quackwatch.com), and you'll find that HE IS IN FAVOR of mercury (amalgam) tooth fillings.
Barrett, his cronies, and minions, are not known to do intelligent research.