Study accidentally exposes chemotherapy as fraud - tumors grow faster after chemo!

page: 12
89
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandyBragg

Originally posted by WTFRLY
Of course the cure is being withheld, cannabis is too powerful to release to peons.


You can get it medically in a few states now, the stuff is still not curing cancer.


It's really not helpful for you to do a drive by post that is scientifcally and medically wrong.

Spain Study Confirms Hemp Oil Cures Cancer without Side Effects


The International Medical Veritas Association (IMVA) is putting hemp oil on its cancer protocol. It is a prioritized protocol list whose top five items are magnesium chloride, iodine, selenium, Alpha Lipoic Acid and sodium bicarbonate. It makes perfect sense to drop hemp oil right into the middle of this nutritional crossfire of anti cancer medicines, which are all available without prescription.

According to Dr. Robert Ramer and Dr. Burkhard Hinz of the University of Rostock in Germany medical marijuana can be an effective treatment for cancer.[v]

THC should be included in every cancer protocol.

Their research was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute Advance Access on December 25th of 2007 in a paper entitled Inhibition of Cancer Cell Invasion by Cannabinoids via Increased Expression of Tissue Inhibitor of Matrix Metalloproteinases-1



I suggest you read the link and get educated.

EDIT TO ADD LINK: My apologies:

Source
edit on 28-1-2013 by Julie Washington because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 


Indeed, THC is independently proven by multiple sources to be an effective treatment to cancer but.... you somehow forgot to include the link to that specific study



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Night Star
 


The thread is not about chemo being ineffective on breast cancer. Read the OP. It's about the HOW chemo increases tumor growth rates on PROSTATE cancer.

At the end of the day, chemo was originally an obscenely invasive treatment, and this paper shows that it has adverse effects on a particular cancer cell type. Whether it has the same effect on others remains to be seen, but nevertheless, the results, along with others, continue to raise questions about whether our modern day treatments are really along the correctly chosen path.
edit on 28-1-2013 by Ewok_Boba because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 


Still not seeing it cure cancer and the text your quoted does not say that it cures cancer either.
But it does kind of illustrate the BS that was mentioned earlier. The source you quoted was a blog and it says


It is a prioritized protocol list whose top five items are magnesium chloride, iodine, selenium, Alpha Lipoic Acid and sodium bicarbonate


So baking soda helps cure cancer?

This was the journal they were trying to talk about
jnci.oxfordjournals.org...
and this was in there


Limitations
The relevance of the findings to the behavior of tumor cells in vivo
remains to be determined.

edit on 28-1-2013 by RandyBragg because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandyBragg
reply to post by Julie Washington
 


Still not seeing it cure cancer and the text your quoted does not say that it cures cancer either.
But it does kind of illustrate the BS that was mentioned earlier. The source you quoted was a blog and it says


It is a prioritized protocol list whose top five items are magnesium chloride, iodine, selenium, Alpha Lipoic Acid and sodium bicarbonate


So baking soda helps cure cancer?

This was the journal they were trying to talk about
jnci.oxfordjournals.org...
and this was in there


Limitations
The relevance of the findings to the behavior of tumor cells in vivo
remains to be determined.

edit on 28-1-2013 by RandyBragg because: (no reason given)



Here is the paper that is referenced:

Inhibition of HeLa cell invasion via Cannabinoids

Question:
Although the antiproliferative activities of cannabinoids have been intensively investigated, little is known about their effects on tumor invasion.

Results:
Without modifying migration, MA and THC caused a time- and concentration-dependent suppression of HeLa cell invasion through Matrigel that was accompanied by increased expression of TIMP-1

The stimulation of TIMP-1 expression and suppression of cell invasion were reversed by pretreatment of cells with antagonists to CB 1 or CB 2 receptors

Conclusion:
Increased expression of TIMP-1 mediates an anti-invasive effect of cannabinoids. Cannabinoids may therefore offer a therapeutic option in the treatment of highly invasive cancers

As to whether it offers remedial effects in vivo, well...to conclude that it doesn't would seem far more distant than not. Now, what exactly IS matrigel?

"This mixture resembles the complex extracellular environment found in many tissues and is used by cell biologists as a substrate for cell culture"

Therefore, saying it doesn't cure cancer is elementary. It obviously has an effect, which is what the in vitro analysis has shown. Everybody acts nowadays, that in vitro studies are useless. There are reasons scientists have painstakingly devoted their lives towards re-creating cell environments without using fresh tissue. They didn't do it, to simply be dismissed. It is so that in vitro conclusions can suggest similar results in vivo.

The only reason he said "remains to be determined", is for the same reason at scientific conventions scientists always say "well I'm sure someone here knows more about the question than me BUT..." whenever you're asking them a question about their work. It's so that IF they're wrong, they're not embarrassed. It's purely habitual.
edit on 28-1-2013 by Ewok_Boba because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Ewok_Boba
 


That is the same exact link i provided...



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by RandyBragg
 


Yeah I was typing a response to you long before you began editing your first response to that woman.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by SunnyDee
 




It's companies like Natural News that at least are getting the attention to things out there. It would seem that creating catchy headlines might be the only way us laymen, on a large scale, will read up on these things.


Oh please, most people will take the article at face value, ATS is full of threads like this, just look at the replies through these 12 pages to see what I mean.



I admit it's argueable, but it seems that sensational headlines get read over dull ones.



There's sensationalist headlines.

And then there's outright lies.

The natural news article is spreading outright lies.


edit on 29/1/13 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Using a genome-wide analysis of transcriptional responses to genotoxic stress induced by cancer therapeutics, we identified a spectrum of secreted proteins derived from the tumor microenvironment that includes the Wnt family

The expression of WNT16B in the prostate tumor microenvironment attenuated the effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy in vivo, promoting tumor cell survival and disease progression.

Source

What outright lies are you talking about? Is Nature not a good enough scientific source for you? Did you bother to even research the original source document before you decided to post?



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


Even as a kid when I heard about this it felt 'wrong' to see folk having such harsh treatment. The msm would have childrens shows encouraging the chemo-treatment back in the early 1990s.

This could be of the magnitude of the thalidomide outrage of the 1960s and 1970s...



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
not trying to influence anyone:
but - back in the 70's - two of my friends got some form of cancer and both received chemo - they both died w/ the year.
rip



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Ewok_Boba
 


Natural News, not Nature.

The OP article.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Ewok_Boba
 


Natural News, not Nature.

The OP article.


What scientific publication is the OP article referencing?
edit on 30-1-2013 by Ewok_Boba because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Chemo worked for my mother, and so many others



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Ewok_Boba
 


The one at Nature.

The problem is, natural news' conclusions differ from the actual paper, which is what I have issues with.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Ewok_Boba
 


Does it NOT worry you that the site has it's own shop
promoting it's products by GENERATING FEAR of other methods also have you read the sites disclaimers consider that before you swallow what they say!



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


"As it turns out, chemotherapy does not actually treat or cure cancer at all, according to the study's findings Learn more: www.naturalnews.com..."

...Definitely not correct.

"fuels the growth and spread of cancer cells Learn more: www.naturalnews.com..."

Correct.

You might call it the "smoking gun" that proves, once and for all, the complete fraud of the conventional cancer industry Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

This would imply that they already knew of it's ineffective nature, which isn't true. Doctors genuinely believed that this could eliminate tumor growth before it reaches certain stages of development based on probability statistics.

So, you're right, in that the people at natural news are a little trigger happy and not entirely accurate with their use of words. As one of the previous posters had said, you really need to sift through their material to see what's accurate, but the material they publicize is still worth the read and does lay credibility to their claims to some degree. In this case, it isn't "outright lies". I would ask that you use accurate words as well so as not to dissuade people from taking their reports seriously enough to actually look the sources up themselves.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Ewok_Boba
 


Does it NOT worry you that the site has it's own shop
promoting it's products by GENERATING FEAR of other methods also have you read the sites disclaimers consider that before you swallow what they say!



Without looking up the products themselves, let's say that what you say is true, for argument's sake. If I had a website dedicated to the release of news pertaining to the corruption and poisonous nature of our medical fields, would it not make sense to also sell products that I believe would be better alternatives? That way, people would come to me for important news as well as alternative treatments, remedies, etc?

The evidence released would spark controversy and fear regardless of how I spun it in my article or headline. The question is, is the site doing it intentionally, or are the writers just extremely trigger happy, undisciplined, and with a little too much passion in their "style"?

I'm not supporting their efforts, nor am I against them, because it seems there could be at minimum, two possibilities here, they either have good intentions, or not. Because I can't determine that, I can't conclude whether natural news as a whole should be dismissed if ever mentioned by the people of ATS.
edit on 30-1-2013 by Ewok_Boba because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by RandyBragg
 



Originally posted by RandyBragg

Originally posted by WTFRLY
Of course the cure is being withheld, cannabis is too powerful to release to peons.


You can get it medically in a few states now, the stuff is still not curing cancer.


I guess you didnt see my post about rick simpson oil!? Please watch this video, just because the mainstream says it doesnt cure cancer... Doesnt mean it does not.

Thanks for your time
edit on 1-2-2013 by Ap0c0les because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
A friend of my has prostrate cancer.

They treated it by putting radioactive seeds in the tumors. The tumors shrunk radically.

His life has been returned to him.

Although I don't have a problem questioning conventional medical care, I'd like to see published repeatable results on alternative medical practices before I'd put my life on the line.

Steve Jobs initially chose the alternative treatments and in my opinion, it cost him his life.





top topics
 
89
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join