The Great Cancer Hoax - There's Been a Cure Since 1977

Be sure to watch this video before 06/13/11. After that it will be removed and cost $20.00. Then someone else can make money from cancer.

I've managed to meet and talk to a few doctors in my life. I see a recurrence of small minded arrogant control freaks.

They like the dosh too. My daughter had an ailment we could have easily cured. Rather than telling us how easy the cure is, she showed us. She then sent us a $200.00 bill.

I was having dinner with a surgeon and my dad. I was making points about the non-existence of God the doctor could not refute. He was visibly shaken. My dad intervened to change the subject and gave me a dirty look. My dad later told me I had no right to argue with a doctor, as his title shows he knows more than I.

The doctor who oversaw the birth of my child tried to steal my wife while we were staying at the hospital.

Many insist upon being called "Doctor". They also insist on being treated as a Doctor and respected as a Doctor. In other words, they want you to do as they say without question or incur their ire.

Look at all the drug companies ironically supporting the drug war. Be sure to talk to your doctor about their advertised product in the way the ad instructs you. If you forget the product name, just look for it on your doctor's pen, clipboard, or other freebie.

I'm glad no one has shut down our local herb shop.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


The wealthy and the politically connected do not get preferential treatment. That's a myth. Two reasons of several -- 'death/estate taxes' and the other is ... politicians are replaceable. 'Big Pharma' also uses them as examples ... "See, if the wealthy and the politically influential/connected can die of cancer, then there is no cure". "How can there be a cure if we allow them to die of cancer ... hmmm?".

Let's keep in mind that 'perception is reality'. It's rare for a Physician to receive chemotherapy or radiation treatments, and if so, I don't believe it. They will just use the doctor as an example. I do know of people who work in the health-care industry who have died of cancer, but I don't know of a single doctor who died of cancer, at least not in the last 20 (or so) years. There's a celebrity doctor (I won't mention his name) who has his own TV show and who recently has been trying to convince the public he might have a form of cancer. I don't believe it -- not for a second. I think people are starting to realize, 'Wait a minute, how come we rarely, if ever, hear of a medical doctor dying of cancer'. So, they propped him up and paid him to lie on national TV and to say he 'might' have cancer. He 'might' have cancer? ... Is that like being -- sort of, kind of, pregnant?

The cancer industry is big business. I figured this -- if 77 Billion dollars and 30 years later they can't find a safe treatment and/or a cure, maybe, just maybe, they are hiding something while raking in the big bucks. I won't donate a dime to anything related to cancer cures or treatments. I believe the money lines the pockets of the greedy, sociopathic 'Pharma people'. Why would greedy Sociopaths (Sociopaths lack a conscience and see people an inanimate tools, as objects) want to reveal a cure, especially when cancer is big bucks?

I had cancer a few years ago. I spent 10 months researching it and I cured my own cancer in 30 days. I did not take 30-60 pills per day like the actress (whom I won't name) and I followed 'the rules' to the letter. I knew nothing about cancer before my diagnosis and my expertise is in the business world -- not health-care, although I did minor in Biology (and got all A's) and I do assimilate, pick up health-care related information quite easily. It is now 4 years later and the cancer still hasn't returned. Ditto for my close friends whom I helped. The ones who didn't believe me and had the traditional chemo or radiation treatments are either bed-ridden or in a cemetery.

reply to post by jude11



cancer typically affects the old, if a young adult comes down with cancer, there's a good chance s/he already has children, who are then one step closer to orphanage - and likely stand with one leg in the poverty trap, maybe even before they can walk.


i urge every overpopulation theorist to be much more precise and depth seeking in their analysis, because as it stands, your thinking is prone to affect only the people who did not contribute to the (real or imagined) problem in the first place. if you turn to cherish the deaths of others, expect at least indifference towards yourself.

reply to post by Jana12

I had cancer a few years ago. I spent 10 months researching it and I cured my own cancer in 30 days.

I'm curious on what you did to cure cancer in 30 days. Is it something you can post? Many people say that diet is very important. Many even claim they cured cancer through diet. I believe this is possible. Yet it seems that each person follow a different diet. So which diet is the best diet?

Customized nutritional programs to ensure balanced diet complementing the treatment

Source Burzynski clinic website: www.burzynskiclinic.com...

Even Dr. Burzynski promotes a healthy and nutritional diet regiment as an important addition to his antineoplaston treatment. This diet itself may be helping to boost his success rate.

Originally posted by Jana12
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Let's keep in mind that 'perception is reality'. It's rare for a Physician to receive chemotherapy or radiation treatments, and if so, I don't believe it. They will just use the doctor as an example. I do know of people who work in the health-care industry who have died of cancer, but I don't know of a single doctor who died of cancer, at least not in the last 20 (or so) years. There's a celebrity doctor (I won't mention his name) who has his own TV show and who recently has been trying to convince the public he might have a form of cancer. I don't believe it -- not for a second. I think people are starting to realize, 'Wait a minute, how come we rarely, if ever, hear of a medical doctor dying of cancer'. So, they propped him up and paid him to lie on national TV and to say he 'might' have cancer. He 'might' have cancer? ... Is that like being -- sort of, kind of, pregnant?

So, your whole "reality" with regard to cancer and cancer therapy hinges on the ideas that YOU, personally, have never met a doctor who had cancer, and you refuse to accept any evidence that doctors do, in fact develop and die of cancer?

You know the motto of this site is "deny ignorance" and not "deny all evidence that disagrees with your illogical beliefs", right?

reply to post by Klassified

Because cures and technologies that are too beneficial to the public either disappear, or are falsified in clinical trials.

Sources, please. You can't make vague claims about "cures" that have "disappeared" without giving examples that are verifiable.

reply to post by matito

I would say without a doubt that there was harassment. How many failed grand jury hearings and acquitted lawsuits are required for you to qualify a situation as "harassment"? Ten, twenty or maybe a thousand?

Exactly how many such trials do you think this man was subjected to, out of curiosity?

Of course antineoplastons should be used in clinical trials. Yet, why did it take 30+ years for them to become approved for clinical trials when most big pharmas have FDA trials approved in 5-10 years or less?

It took 30+ years because Burzynski refused to submit them to clinical trials. The FDA doesn't perform the tests, nor do they beg researchers to run trials. If someone has a new therapy they want to test, then all they have to do is apply to test it.

The facts of the matter are that Burzynski never even applied for these trials until the 1990s. The charges he was brought up on were due to his selling of a medical treatment, as a physician, with absoluiely zero verified evidence that the therapy worked. For safety reasons, this is 100% illegal, as it should be.

Are you saying that it's "responsible" to let people die from something that could be cured without harmful effects AND when patients are choosing with their own free agency?

Can you show me where I said that, please?

Of course, this doctor is selling his treatment for $100,000 per year. The CRI is providing $0 funding. I'm actually surprised he's even able to continue his work for a measly 100K. Big pharma studies are getting millions and millions of dollars of research money - mostly taxpayer money. Why don't you tell us how much chemo and radiation treatment costs a year?

Wow, this could not be more incorrect. The foundation of Burzynski's research was federally funded to a great extent:

Upon arriving in the United States, Burzynski quickly landed a job in Houston at Baylor College of Medicine, which in those days was receiving large grants for its pioneering research in anesthesiology and heart transplants. Some of the money also funded research on peptides effects on the brain and memory. Baylor had some of the best equipment in the world for chromatography. Burzynski’s expertise was welcomed, and he worked out an agreement where he was allowed to spend half his time working on the peptides he’d discovered.

With a more sophisticated laboratory, Burzynski now was able to break the substances down even more precisely into 119 different molecules. The nearby MD Anderson cancer center had just begun receiving huge infusions of federal funding, and Burzynski managed to work out an arrangement with colleagues there, so he could test the peptides on cancer cells grown in labs. Sure enough, they found a few that shrunk tumors, and began publishing the results in medical journals.

Source

Do you do ANY research before you post, or do you just make crap up and pretend that it's fact because you've posted it here? Seriously?

Why don't you look at statistics and obtain "proof" regarding chemo and radiation vs treatment with antineoplastons..

It's awfully hard for me to compare chemo to neoplastons when Burzynski won't make his data public. Odd...

The FDA "trials" and "approval" don't decide for me if something is a possible cure for me. I decide if it's a possible cure for me.

I've got a tiger-repelling rock to sell you. I don't see any tigers around, so it must work. Would you like to buy it? I mean, I don't have any trials that PROVE it repels tigers, but....you don't see any tigers, do you?

There is no such thing has a 100% "cure" of anything.

This is absolutely false. We cure things in the hospital every day. I've cured people of bacterial infections, viral infections, pneumothorax, etc.

And it's interesting that considering how insignificant this treatment was made to seem by the FDA - the US gov attempted to patent it (although it was already patented) at the same time it was being claimed as ineffective

It's also interesting that the only source for this claim is a conspiracy theory board and a biased video.

Instead of reading this ridiculous thread just check out the Wikipedia article for Stanislaw Burzynski. It talks about the actual "cure". Time better spent.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


First off, I am taking the the Burzynski’s film and film transcripts as EVIDENCE and that is where most of my information is sourced from. So please watch it first. If you would like to claim this film is false, then please list your sources as to why. During the entire film there are documents and sources provided to substantiate claims made in the film.

Source - Film Transcripts: www.burzynskimovie.com...

Debating on threads without reading or watching all the posted material is wasting the time of those who do.

Exactly how many such trials do you think this man was subjected to, out of curiosity?

Did I say trials? Either way, if you watch the video, it shows clear evidence that the State of Texas took his case all the way to the Texas Supreme Court. He was acquitted. So was this a frivolous lawsuit? The verdict speak for itself.

It took 30+ years because Burzynski refused to submit them to clinical trials. The FDA doesn't perform the tests, nor do they beg researchers to run trials. If someone has a new therapy they want to test, then all they have to do is apply to test it.

How do you know he refused to submit to clinical trials? Do you have first hand knowledge or evidence or just making personal assumptions? Maybe the FDA refused his application for trials. When you provide a source of this evidence then I will respond to this comment.

The facts of the matter are that Burzynski never even applied for these trials until the 1990s. The charges he was brought up on were due to his selling of a medical treatment, as a physician, with absoluiely zero verified evidence that the therapy worked. For safety reasons, this is 100% illegal, as it should be.

Wrong.

the judge in the case basically said he can treat anybody he wants in Texas, but he can’t ship his medicine in interstate commerce.

Charges were brought up for the interstate commerce of medicine, not selling a treatment. Based on his acquittals, this interstate commerce crime was very questionable. His treatments remained 100% legal. His treatment was never in question. He was never prosecuted for malpractice. There has not been any evidence that he was operating illegally. If he was, he would have had his license revoked years ago.

0% verified evidence? It's obvious you have not research anything about Burzynski. He has documented evidence from the time he started his treatments. His work resolves around proving his treatment is effective and legitimate. He has patient testimonies, MRIs, charts, etc. If this is not proof enough then I don't know what is.

Again, how do you know he refused to submit to clinical trials before the 90's? He was approved for trials in the 90s that doesn't mean he didn't apply before that.

Dr. Burzynski’s dealings with the FDA commenced in 1983.

You seem to have strong feeling about the safety of patients. So, is chemo safe? Is radiation safe? Do you want me to list all the FDA approved drugs and treatments available to patients that are proven to be unsafe?

Wow, this could not be more incorrect. The foundation of Burzynski's research was federally funded to a great extent:

Actually you can't be more wrong... Again. I'm not referring to past-tense research. I'm referring to "Burzynski’" not "Baylor". Baylors funding was Baylors funding not Burzynskis. Baylor was considerate enough to allow him to use THIER funding. Burzynski was lucky enough to have the support of Baylor to test his chemicals and substances. I'm specifically referring to direct funding to Burzynski for his Antineoplaston cancer studies and treatment of patients at his practice. And I am specifically referring to funding from CRI. Now debate me on what I was really saying.

Do you do ANY research before you post, or do you just make crap up and pretend that it's fact because you've posted it here? Seriously? It's awfully hard for me to compare chemo to neoplastons when Burzynski won't make his data public. Odd...

I watched the video. Seems you are the one grasping at straws without relevant or accurate data. So where is this research you have done? Please post it. My “made up crap” was actually facts obtained from the film transcripts. Did you even watch the video? If you did then this would be quite obvious. Do you realize that he has been attempting to make his data available for decades? He is on his 3rd series of FDA trials. If Burzynski is asked to participate in a honest peer-review, then maybe he would provide additional data. Blame the critical mainstream medical field for preventing his data from becoming public, not him.

I've got a tiger-repelling rock to sell you. I don't see any tigers around, so it must work. Would you like to buy it? I mean, I don't have any trials that PROVE it repels tigers, but....you don't see any tigers, do you?

Your analogy attempt does not even make any sense. I think you should stick to what you do best. Clever comments are clearly not one of them.

This is absolutely false. We cure things in the hospital every day. I've cured people of bacterial infections, viral infections, pneumothorax, etc.

False? So you do have a 100% cure for cancer? I was emphasizing a 100% cure. Not a 100% cure 50% of the time. I meant 100% all the time, every time. If you have a 100% cure for cancer that works 100% of the time then you should be published in the next issue of The New England Journal of Medicine.

To be more specific, you really don't cure anything - the medication and treatment does. You provide the diagnosis and recommend a treatment plan that you learned in medical school and medical books. You prescribe drugs that someone else developed. Your combined actions may result in a “cure” yet saying “I've cured” is far from accurate. More accurate is “My diagnosis and treatment plan resulted in the medical cure of my patient”.

My comment was on topic for CANCER not bacterial infections or viral infections. I don't remember discussing anything else other than cancer in this thread. Either way, I ask this; is every case of influenza cured 100% of the time. No. If you would like to dispute this then show me that influenza deaths have never occurred under treatment. To be clear, treatment does increase the odds of being cured, yet does not guarantee being cured. Next time you you have a patient with pneumothorax try telling the patient “I WILL CURE YOU of your pneumothorax!”. This stipulates you will succeed without a doubt. A doctor who speaks like this is not going to be in practice very long without getting hit with a malpractice lawsuit.

It's also interesting that the only source for this claim is a conspiracy theory board and a biased video.

Where in the world did I mention that my source was a conspiracy theory board? You link Wikipedia as your “source” and you try to invalidate my source? Yes, my main source is a film that may be somewhat biased, yet factual. Being biased does not mean the presented data is false. Go to the website and read the text transcripts and sources for all the claims and information presented in the film. How would a film that includes lies and misinformation help the cause of Dr. Burzynski? If you do find and can confirm false information in the film, please bring it forward and I will officially apologize.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by Klassified

 

Because cures and technologies that are too beneficial to the public either disappear, or are falsified in clinical trials.

Sources, please. You can't make vague claims about "cures" that have "disappeared" without giving examples that are verifiable.

Actually I can. But I shouldn't without a disclaimer. So you are right. **Tips hat** I should have said IMHO.

In addiction to what VneZonyDostupa said (and well said), and as a Medical Doctor hard working wannabe, e have something else to say in response to:

Originally posted by Long Lance
reply to post by jude11

 

i urge every overpopulation theorist to be much more precise and depth seeking in their analysis, because as it stands, your thinking is prone to affect only the people who did not contribute to the (real or imagined) problem in the first place. if you turn to cherish the deaths of others, expect at least indifference towards yourself.

Does someone here ever heard about Thomas Malthus? Well, this great political and economical scientist made a diagram wich predicted the world population growth and studied the resources available growth too, as we can see:



With the Food Required line equals the Population Growth exponential growth...

Well, it's easy to see that, if the population grew like it was supposed to grow (without the wars, the diseases, the hunger, etcetera...), it would be a MAJOR crisis of overpopulation...
So, in my point of view, the cure for cancer won't be discovered in the next decades and the discovery of it probably will shake a precious equillibrium in nature...

reply to post by TheLodger

Does someone here ever heard about Thomas Malthus? Well, this great political and economical scientist made a diagram wich predicted the world population growth and studied the resources available growth too

Thomas Malthus (1766 – 1834)
You are really going back in time. Yes Malthus was a recognized historical figure that wrote extensively on population growth. I'm not going to delve into the full complexities of all his theories, only that a large part of his views on population revolved around reproduction and a perpetually growing population resulting in limited natural resources and food. This was in the 1800s when “modern day” contraceptives and other technology advancements did not exist as they do today.

Malthus established “positive checks” and “preventive checks” theories, yet the availability of viable “preventive checks” during his lifetime were extremely limited, so his only real option was to emphasize “positive checks”. These “positive checks” are not proactive. Malthus theories were highly confined to his era.

With all our technological advancements today, anyone who solely relies on “positive checks” is basically placing random and unpredictable acts of man and nature in charge of population control. I think a more proactive and preventive approach would be more successful. If population was managed by intellectual means, then we would not need to rely on war or famine to do the work for us.

Well, it's easy to see that, if the population grew like it was supposed to grow (without the wars, the diseases, the hunger, etcetera...), it would be a MAJOR crisis of overpopulation...
So, in my point of view, the cure for cancer won't be discovered in the next decades and the discovery of it probably will shake a precious equillibrium in nature

So it seems that you are proponent the Malthusian Principle of “positive checks” and accept wars, diseases, and starvation as a rational and logical means of population control.

the cure for cancer won't be discovered in the next decades and the discovery of it probably will shake a precious equillibrium in nature

A “cure” for cancer is not going to “shake a precious equilibrium in nature”. If that is your personal opinion, then fine, yet the number of cancer survivors is not going to outnumber new births anytime soon. This a statistical fact that you can look up. As a “doctor” you should be more concerned about promoting safe sex than waiting for cancer to reduce the population. How sad it is that teaching family planning does not make a physician that much money, yet treating cancer does. Of course most physicians accept disease, famine and war, since those are huge money makers for the medical field.

“Without the wars, the diseases, the hunger, etcetera...), it would be a MAJOR crisis of overpopulation”

A major crisis? What wars are keeping the population in check? Would you recommend starting a war every few year to manage the population? How about we set off a few nuclear WMDs to get started? What about starvation? When people stop starving, would you implement a starvation campaign to manage the population? When people start living longer and surviving diseases (which is already happening) would you start creating new diseases or stop treating existing diseases to keep the population numbers in check? I hope not.

Those who rely on disease, war, famine, and natural disasters to manage the world population are relying on random acts of “fate”. These “positive checks” basically absolve humans from real action.

The practice of just waiting for “positive checks” to take place leaves a heavy burden on the current population as a whole while inefficiently and inconsistently managing population growth levels.

Any real threat to overpopulation would be unchecked birth rates. The real proactive resolution to overpopulation is education, family planning, prevention, technology and innovation.

If we choose to take no action and sit back and wait for population reduction though depleted resources and disease epidemics, it will only go to show that maybe we humans are not as smart as we think we are.

This answer is full of ad hominem fallacies, but still I will answer ...
First things first.

1 - The contraceptive methods also contribute to the accuracy and application of the Malthusian graphics to our day, because they decrease the slope of the curve responsible for population growth.

2 - If the theories of Malthus are confined his time, I challenge you to present theories that better apply to our day.

3 - Events such as war, disease and hunger, are beyond our control. And unfortunately, there will always be problems.

4 - Do not blame me for things to work how they work. Somethings just are.

5 - I did not realized the mixture of safe sex and cure for cancer that you've just done. I'm not a doctor, but I am a medical student, and you don't know me from any side to make judgments about the way I practice medicine. If you have the idea of ​​the stereotype of the doctor marketer, this reality does not apply everywhere ... In Portugal, where I live, the doctor doesn't occupy the top of the pyramid of the highest paid. On the contrary! Still, congratulations! You have mastered the art of using fallacies, especially the ones against the man and the ones supported by the ''supposed'' ignorance of him.

6 - There will be epidemiological and immunological unbalances, when the cure will be found. Not to mention the repercussions in the global gene pool. Is it my turn to use fallacies? When you know what is immunology, let me know.
No disrespect, though.

7 - The last paragraphs are ridiculous... You speak as if I had recommended the existence of wars, famine and disease. Like I said, there is no way to control this. In war, human nature will take care of the start and the end, as a cycle, like history. The diseases and natural disasters are nature's way of controlling populations. Whether human or nonhuman. In spite of it seems a nihilistic view, that's how it works...

8 and final and the most important point - It is obvious that we must find ways to mitigate any attacks on the human condition. It is imperative. No doubt about that. But what we are talking about here is a very delicate matter. Because the only therapy likely to have any effect in curing cancer is based on virus genetically programmed to repair the codons or triplets of DNA that are erroneous. And only the good effects are known, the adverse effects are not.
I never said that the search for a cure for cancer should be boycotted. All I said what you said about overpopulation. I do not know why, you hyperbolized what I said to matters completely absurd.
But that's okay.


Cheers!

reply to post by TheLodger


From your previous short post, I was unable to effectively discern what message you were conveying, so some of my original responses may have been presumptuous.

The contraceptive methods also contribute to the accuracy and application of the Malthusian graphics to our day, because they decrease the slope of the curve responsible for population growth.

Yes, i agree, yet Malthus himself did not encourage contraceptive use in his day and that resulted in some dissidence among Malthusian followers. The theories of Malthus and overpopulation are extensive and I was not wanting to delve into them. Overpopulation theories in general are diverse and elaborate (if you include all social and economic elements).

If the theories of Malthus are confined his time, I challenge you to present theories that better apply to our day.

I should have said that many of Malthus “ideas” were confined to his century due to the lack of the advances that we have today. Theories from any time period can be applied to modern thinking. Yet still, many scientists and economists believe that the traditional theories of Malthus were lacking. That is why Neo-Malthusianism was created. Also there are many strong opponents of the Malthusian theories as a whole. His theories have been debated for decades. Overpopulation theories in general are usually very controversial and hypothetical. There are many studies that are more relevant to our century. I personally take credence with formal studies and research than theoretical reasoning.

Events such as war, disease and hunger, are beyond our control. And unfortunately, there will always be problems.

Yes of course, man can't predict ALL the detrimental threats to the population, such as epidemics and natural disasters. That is understandable. Yet many events such as war, known diseases and famines ARE within our control and have been mitigated and will continue being mitigated. If you were wanting to say that these unfortunate events will never be 100% under our control, then yes i would agree with that.

Do not blame me for things to work how they work. Somethings just are.

I was not attempting to blame you, I apologize if that is what came across. My intention was to debate what i perceived as your viewpoint. It's nothing personal.

I did not realized the mixture of safe sex and cure for cancer that you've just done. I'm not a doctor, but I am a medical student, and you don't know me from any side to make judgments about the way I practice medicine. If you have the idea of ​​the stereotype of the doctor marketer, this reality does not apply everywhere

I was not my attention to judge you. My safe sex reference was an attempt to demonstrate the prevention of births in regards to population control. Preventive measures are an important aspect to population control efforts. Safe sex practices can lower the number of births and therefore decrease population growth.

I said that doctors generate earnings by treating cancers, illnesses, diseases, and injuries. Maybe these earnings are not-for-profit and only go towards paying salaries and keeping medical facilities operating. The point is that the existence of cancers, illnesses, diseases, and injuries provide the demand that keeps physicians employed. Preventive patient care alone would not provide adequate revenue for a physician. I understand that each country is unique. Also I understand that pay scales differ in each country. Medical doctors everywhere do depend on illness, injury and disease to be employable. Without this demand, many doctors worldwide would be unemployed.

There will be epidemiological and immunological unbalances, when the cure will be found. Not to mention the repercussions in the global gene pool.

You are going into a lot of future theoretical possibilities that I never argued against. A new thread would need to be created to address all this. There can be other serious consequences, if a perfect cancer cure was ever discovered, yet the exact consequences are still only a hypothesis. My argument is referencing new cancer treatments and not “cures”. I'm interested in the discovery of more innovative and effective treatments that can lead to higher cancer cure rates.

You speak as if I had recommended the existence of wars, famine and disease. Like I said, there is no way to control this. In war, human nature will take care of the start and the end, as a cycle, like history.

I was trying to make a point that wars, famine and disease is not a viable, reliable, humane or rational means of curbing population growth. Population will always be at the risk of nature and chance, yet that doesn't mean people should sit back and let it happen.

I disagree with you that there is no control over wars, famine and disease. We can and have deterred wars, famine and disease. It's not 100% mastery, yet as a people we can prevent war, treat illnesses, educate, quarantine epidemics, develop new vaccinations, treat diseases, etc.

The diseases and natural disasters are nature's way of controlling populations. Whether human or nonhuman. In spite of it seems a nihilistic view, that's how it works

Death rates from disease, injury, war and famine have dropped exponentially. This itself attests to the fact that we have some authority over these perils

Yes, nature's does have it's way of naturally regulating populations within suitable conditions. Especially in the animal species. Yet nature is unpredictable and man is unpredictable. Unlike animals, we have the capability and intelligence to protect ourselves from mother nature and human nature if we put forth the effort.

It is obvious that we must find ways to mitigate any attacks on the human condition. It is imperative. No doubt about that. But what we are talking about here is a very delicate matter. Because the only therapy likely to have any effect in curing cancer is based on virus genetically programmed to repair the codons or triplets of DNA that are erroneous. And only the good effects are known, the adverse effects are not.

I completely agree.

As I said in a previous post, I did cure my own cancer in 30 days and I do not have a background in the medical field. Yes ... it is mostly based on diet, however, there are 4 critical components, diet being just one of the four. It's not a "one size fits all'. The program I know of doesn't usually work for druggies, smokers or heavy drinkers or for those in the very final stage, nor is it effective for brain cancers (blood-brain barrier issue). The history of how I came upon this is based on an unusual experience I had -- another time/post. So, my 'formula' is based on the theory that all cancers are caused by a weakened immune system (due to stress, environmental factors, toxic overload in the body, and so on) PLUS parasites. It depends on what you decide to believe. I happen to believe in this 'parasite theory' because of an experience I had a few years before I was diagnosed -- hence the above statement about an unusual experience years prior to my diagnosis. I do not know for certain if this theory is true, as I'm not in the medical research field, nor do I have any training in the medical/health-care field. I just put a program together after months of intensive study and research and information given to me years before I was diagnosed and my cancer was gone in 30 days ... although I had to stay on the program for 60 days. It's not an overnight quick-fix by any means. It was very hard and very risky. It took determination and courage. I do not actually know if it is in fact true that 'all cancers are caused by a parasite'. I simply chose to believe this theory because I didn't have any other path or choice -- other than chemo and radiation and since I do not pollute my body with drugs, cigarette smoke or drink soda or alcohol, I certainly wasn't going to poison my body with chemo and radiation, knowing that most mainstream doctors based in the U.S. wouldn't do it themselves. I've never heard (and neither have the hundreds of people, including doctors I know) of U.S. doctors undergoing chemo treatments. In the U.S. doctors don't typically receive chemo, they just administer it to their patients and then make a bundle of money. But, this is in the U.S. I do not know anything about cancer/doctors/treatments in other countries. Perhaps they do get cancer and do receive chemo treatments in other countries. In the U.S. you'd be hard-pressed to find a doctor who had chemo treatments. The program must be repeated every 18 months or the cancer might return. It's not a one-time deal.

I'm glad for the enlightment.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
This is absolutely false. We cure things in the hospital every day. I've cured people of bacterial infections, viral infections, pneumothorax, etc.

This is a false statement. How do you completely cure someone from bacterial infections or viral infections? This is impossible. Do you see why? If you are gonna discredit someone, at least watch the documentary before you spew out some nonsense. Thank you have a good day...

reply to post by Jana12

As I said in a previous post, I did cure my own cancer in 30 days

Yes, I remember and I also remember you not providing any useful information on that post either.

it is mostly based on diet, however, there are 4 critical components, diet being just one of the four.

What does this diet comprise of? What are these 4 critical components? Please divulge them.

So, my 'formula' is based on the theory that all cancers are caused by a weakened immune system (due to stress, environmental factors, toxic overload in the body, and so on) PLUS parasites.

There are many known causes of cancer. There are cancer causing carcinogens and cancer promoting carcinogens. There are genetics, UV and radiation exposure, and various health factors to name a few.

I just put a program together after months of intensive study and research and information given to me years before I was diagnosed and my cancer was gone in 30 days

Can you disclose the results of your intensive research? Also, why would you extensively study cancer cures years before being diagnosed with cancer? Just curious.

”The program must be repeated every 18 months or the cancer might return”

What program? You mention “diet”, “theory”, “components”, “program”, and “formula”, yet nothing about what they constitute. You haven't provided any specific clarification on diets, methods, treatments, or contributing behaviors. Can you please elaborate on what exactly your cure consists of?

It would be great if you could provide additional data or links to sources where people can research your 30 day cancer treatment in further depth.

Originally posted by blackrain17
This is a false statement. How do you completely cure someone from bacterial infections or viral infections? This is impossible. Do you see why? If you are gonna discredit someone, at least watch the documentary before you spew out some nonsense. Thank you have a good day...

It's quite simple. You provide an antibacterial or antiviral agent that targets that specific subset bacteria or viruses (for example, oseltamivir for some flu viruses or metronidazole for some anaerobic bacterial infections), monitor for symptoms, and check white counts, viral levels, and so on. When the patient is no longer symptomatic, their blood panels have returned to normal, and cultures come back negative for the bacteria or virus, they are cured.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by blackrain17
This is a false statement. How do you completely cure someone from bacterial infections or viral infections? This is impossible. Do you see why? If you are gonna discredit someone, at least watch the documentary before you spew out some nonsense. Thank you have a good day...

It's quite simple. You provide an antibacterial or antiviral agent that targets that specific subset bacteria or viruses (for example, oseltamivir for some flu viruses or metronidazole for some anaerobic bacterial infections), monitor for symptoms, and check white counts, viral levels, and so on. When the patient is no longer symptomatic, their blood panels have returned to normal, and cultures come back negative for the bacteria or virus, they are cured.

You can't completely cure someone from bacterial or viral infections period. I think you are having hard time understanding what I mean so I'll explain myself. You might be able to get rid of certain bacteria or virus but you can't cure from bacterial or viral infections. You don't think I know how the system works? Just stick with hydrating people with Saline and giving Benadryl for 99% of your patients...