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

reply to post by blackrain17


You can absolutely cure people of harmful infections. Perhaps if you would read my posts, rather than pretending I said something else, you would have a more productive time here. I never said we could eliminate all bacteria and viruses from the body, I said we can cure some infections. An infection, by definition, is caused by a pathogenic bacteria. The commensal bacteria, which we don't try to remove, are not causing an infection.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

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.

I was just giving an example since you said there is 100% cure. Once again, you might have eliminated certain bacteria or virus from one's body but you can't call that a cure. You can't cure someone from bacterial or viral infections. If that were the case, he or she would never get infections again...

reply to post by blackrain17


Look, you're obviously not understanding a word of what I'm saying. I apologize if English is your second language (it's my third, so I completely understand if something is unclear). Let me break it down a bit more for you.

1) You (or some other poster, can't recall) claimed that there is nothing we can cure.

2) I said we can cure most bacterial and viral infections.

3) You said curing these infections is impossible.

4) I explained that when you have an infection, we give antibiotics/antivirals, and when your symptoms have resolved and there is no detected infection by that bacteria/virus, you are cured, since the infectious agent is no longer in your body.

Originally posted by jude11

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by jude11

 

Ah I see, reduce the increasing population while making billions.

One question I have, since there are dozens, if not hundreds of cancer cures, many of them natural and organic, why are there cancer cure organizations? People donate millions of dollars to cure something that's already been cured, and where does it go? I would guess straight into the bank account of the man who keeps the cure a secret.

edit on 11-6-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post

Him and many more at the top of those organizations. Cancer makes money for a lot of people. A cure doesn't.

The funny thing is it would make a lot of money in time - but people are obsessed with instant gratification. Over the long run curing cancer would make us leap forward in medicine, people would live longer and do more for the economy and maybe more for the world in general, also all the money being pumped into curing cancer would free up for other things.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately, you don't understand what I'm saying.

Regardless, if you haven't watched the video, you shouldn't really judge on his techniques. Do you know what I'm saying here?

In the past I would laugh this off or even be offended being that my wife is a cancer survivor. These days however I would not be surprised. I don't personally believe that the claim is valid, but if it were, I would not be shocked. Sad times.

Originally posted by blackrain17
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Unfortunately, you don't understand what I'm saying.

I understand perfectly what you're saying. You're trying to imply that the fact that humans naturally have a certain level of bacterial flora means that we can't cure bacterial infection. The problem with this, though, is that the natural human flora is not pathogenic, which you don't seem to understand.

Regardless, if you haven't watched the video, you shouldn't really judge on his techniques. Do you know what I'm saying here?

The video is a piece of trash. I'd prefer to read his research, which doesn't show much promise, to be honest.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Listen you don't understand what I'm saying!!!!!! English is your 3rd language and I can understand why. I'm not talking about the benign microbes that are present in our bodies. I'm talking about other pathogens that can infect us and get us sick. Just because you get cured from some types of bacteria or virus doesn't mean you are permanently immune to other bacterium and viruses. So ultimately, you can't be completely cured from bacterial or viral infections. Now do you know what I'm talking about or do I have to repeat myself again? Cause I will.

You are part of the system where you profit from the big Pharmaceutical companies. Of course you are gonna discredit someone like Dr. Burzynski.

Here is a great quote from a doctor that knows what's going on with cancer research...

"There will never be a CURE for Cancer until the Establishment can accomplish their objectives by permitting it. Their primary goals are money and control. What big conglomerate will get the blessings of the Big Establishment? Nothing happens on the world scene that is not planned and designed by The Big Establishment. After 30 years of planning Metabolic Programs for some 33,000 Counselees and developing the scientific Paradigm for the PROPER CURE AND TREATMENT OF MALIGNANCY, I would like to share some of the conclusions. First, we fall victim, not only to cancer, but also to the very clever brainwashing of our number one ENEMY. The Medical Establishment and the unending barrage of the conspiracy with the MEDIA and support groups such as the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the American Medical Association and an unlimited number of organizations that make their income from the crumbs that fall from the establishment’s table," Dr Kelley, DDS

reply to post by blackrain17


What the hell does permanent immunity have to do with being cured of an infection? If I have a pneumonia, and I am treated for that pneumonia to the point where I am back to physiologically normal, then I am cured, plain and imple. "Cured" has nothing to do with "immune".

As for the quote you posted by a "great doctor", you should look at the three letters that follow his name: DDS.

Figure out what those letters mean, and then explain to me why this person would have any education on cancer and cancer research.

If this is true then i will think differatly about the american government. Sorry but its just not right and something needs to be done ASAP.

blackrain17, you and VneZonyDostupa are arguing semantics, stop it, this is what leads to unproductive never ending debates.

matito is IMO the most neutral/middle ground here.

He sees that Polish researcher Burzynski offers treatment, like other Pharmas using what would be standard chemotherapy in critics' views.

The movie is good for one thing, shows a patient that participated in a Big Pharma Bristol Myers Squibb cancer campaign and appeared on CNN.

So at least 1 Pharmaceutical corporation recognised a case.

He is known in Canada's Quebec region, searching in French language news from there reveals a number of failed attempts but a temporary, long successful case who used his treatment first, only to try other treatments and dying nearly a decade later.

This is a complex case. Division in infamous 'pseudosceptics and pseudoscience categories' leads nowhere.

If he had submitted case reports to journals, critics would be less aggressive. But won't factor medical politics into their judgement.

One of them was published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, but reading Burzynski's reply in a later issue would provide another point of view.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by blackrain17

 

What the hell does permanent immunity have to do with being cured of an infection? If I have a pneumonia, and I am treated for that pneumonia to the point where I am back to physiologically normal, then I am cured, plain and imple. "Cured" has nothing to do with "immune".

As for the quote you posted by a "great doctor", you should look at the three letters that follow his name: DDS.

Figure out what those letters mean, and then explain to me why this person would have any education on cancer and cancer research.

edit on 6/20/2011 by VneZonyDostupa because: (no reason given)

Dr. Kelley though he is a dentist, "cured" his own pancreatic cancer and "cured' thousands of cancer patients. What have you done besides use Saline as your primary weapon against sick people?

Maybe you recognize this guy then. This is his quote about cancer research...

Dr James Watson won a Nobel Prize for determining the shape of DNA. During the 1970's, he served two years on the National Cancer Advisory Board. In 1975, he was asked about the National Cancer Program. He declared, "It's a bunch of #." Nobel Prize Winner Dr James Watson

I'm new to ATS. I didn't list 'my alternate cure' details for two reasons: I don't think this is the appropriate Thread, ie.-- "Alternative Cancer Cures" AND it's 5 (MS Word) pages, too lengthy to post here. There's no way to condense it -- it is, what it is -- 5 pages of detail. I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't care if others believe me. I have no feelings about that either way. I know I cured my cancer a few years ago and I've also cured a few friends, as well as a very young child. I tried to help a few other people who went off the program after a week, so it didn't work for them. I do not advertise, nor do I mention it to others unless they ask. I am not 'the cancer cure lady".

The nutritional part of the program is not about caloric restriction -- it's actually more difficult than calorie restriction b/c all of the foods/liquids must be home-prepared -- no eating out or take-out food for 30-days early stage ... and 60-days for later stage cancers. Most people want a quick-fix instant gratification and this program requires lots of patience. It is 'inconvenient'. My program also requires taking the month off from work, or working out of home but limiting work hours to 20 hrs per week. The 4 Components are as follows: Nutritional/Diet - Herbal/Homeopathic - Body/Mind/Exercise - Emotional/Spiritual.

It's based on the theory that all cancers are caused by excessive stress + a weakened immune system + bodily toxins + parasites -- (Candida Albicans + the 'Fasciolopsis Buski parasite' to be exact) -- remove toxins from the body and take homeopathics/herbals to kill the fungus and parasites and the cancer is gone in one week, although completing the 30 - 60 day cycle is necessary.

One would need to remove bodily toxins, while simultaneously preventing more toxins from entering the body. There are several ways to achieve this and it must be done properly. It took me 5 months to learn how to do this, especially since my education and work background is in business, not medical research. I had to research an incredible amount of information -- but my program works IF it's followed to the letter and IF the patient does not smoke or use drugs. It might not work for alcoholics or those who have less than 3-months to live or those with brain cancers. It is not recommended for pregnant women. It's not a 'one-size fits all' and it won't work for the previously mentioned. So, it's NOT this -- "It works 100% of the time for 100% of the population".

It's not difficult, but it is quite involved, and as I mentioned, 5 pages of detail. I am not interested in a debate. My reason for mentioning this program is awareness -- there ARE alternative cures out there and people need to be aware that they DO exist AND some do work. Cancer patients request mainstream techniques -- they DON'T want to take homeopathic remedies and drink veggie juices. Remember the guy back in the 70's who was selling 'pet rocks'? People actually paid a high price for a rock that they could have picked up off of the ground and washed it off and hand-painted their own saying on it. But, instead they paid good money for a 'pet rock'. Mainstream medicine knows there's a demand for cancer treatments. People want it, so they sell it -- just like the character who sold over a million pet rocks.

Mine is just one of many alternative cures. I was not interested in Burzyinski's or Simoncini's programs. Simoncini's program requires bicarbonate - baking soda but I had an issue with the possibility that one can take too much or too little.With the program that I put together that isn't possible. It was a matter of choice. Sorry, I cannot provide more detail. This forum/thread is not about "How To Cure Cancer". I'll leave you with this thought ...

IMO -- "The health of a nation's citizens should not be a 'for-profit' industry. Otherwise, food, insurance and pharmaceutical companies conspire to create an atmosphere that promotes sickness rather then wellness, all to grow their bottom lines and produce profits for the shareholders".

reply to post by Jana12


How do you confirm that the cancer is "gone"? Do you have a CT machine in your home?

Jana12, I wish it were that simple. Since Easter, I've lost both my father and a favourite aunt to cancer - melanoma in the lung, and brain tumour, respectively. Neither involved fungus or parasites.

reply to post by Jana12


American Cancer Society is like the Federal Reserve when it comes to cancer. This society does more harm than good for cancer. Not only was this Society found in 1913 like the Federal Reserve but it was found by no other than John D. Rockefeller Jr. Their motive isn't to cure cancer...

"The American Cancer Society is one of the most powerful and corrupt organizations in American society. It operates as a behind-the-scenes force, influencing powerful politicians, imposing its views and prejudices on governmental research, instigating government suppression and harassment of independent researchers, making newspaper editors cower, and all the while asking the public for money through its public relations image as the leading cancer fighter. Its key people must bear heavy responsibility for the millions of American lives lost while potential alternative therapies for cancer were "ground under" the ACS's heavy boot," Dr Barry Lynes

One questions though, how would you treat Leukemia or Lymphoma?

reply to post by blackrain17


Since Blackrain17 apparently doesn't like disclosing where he gets his/her quotes, or who the people are he/she is quoting, here is a bit of information on the above "doctor".

Barry Lynes is NOT a doctor of medicine, biology, chemistry...or anything similar. He is an astrologer. Additionally, he may be just a TAD biased against the ACS as it cost him quite a bit of money by exposing his fraudulent cancer "treatment".

Barry Lynes

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Why do the wealthy actually have HIGHER rates of cancer incidence (and thus cancer death) when it comes to certain cancers?

Don't you think the wealthy and politically connected would be the first to benefit if there were a cure?

Not at all.

Cancer is a moneymaker. The more wealthy the customers the better.

reply to post by NuclearPaul


Why would a wealthier patient make you more money? There isn't really any variation in cancer therapies based on economics. I've seen patients for other issues who had cancer, ranging from the lowest ta bracket, as well as millionaires, and they've all gotten the same treatment plan.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


So you don't dispute James Watson? How about Dr. Glenn Warner?

"Chemotherapy is an incredibly lucrative business for doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies…..The medical establishment wants everyone to follow the same exact protocol. They don’t want to see the chemotherapy industry go under, and that’s the number one obstacle to any progress in oncology," Dr Warner, M.D.

Dr. Warner


If Dr. Warner isn't to your liking, how about Linus Pauling?

"Everyone should know that the 'war on cancer' is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." --Dr Linus Pauling, the only person in history awarded two unshared Nobel Prizes.

I'm beginning to wonder why you are so against alternative therapy for cancer but I realize that the big Pharmas give you a paycheck.