My "Dad" got lung cancer.

As far as alternative treatments, I have very little to offer.

The same week last September that I learned my mom was terminal I learned that my love was stage four metastatic breast cancer. I have learned from Johns Hopkins and other sources that cancer cells eat four to five times as much sugar as healthy cells, then they produce lactic acid which the liver then converts into more glucose - sugar.

So if anything, try to make sure his diet is limited in sugar intake. This is not new-age, fairy-tale bs: this is fact along with the glucogenesis cycle of the human liver and the propensity of cancer to eat glucose.

reply to post by setibuddies


Unfortunately there is a well-known fake email purportedly originating from John Hopkins about cancer and sugar (amongst other things).

www.hopkinsmedicine.org...

Whilst it's true that cancer cells need sugar, specifically glucose to thrive, every other cell on the body does too.
On a per cell basis, they don't actually consume more than normal cells.
The confusion arose from the fact that since cancer cells tend to grow faster it means they consume glucose at a greater rate than the surrounding tissue not that feeding them glucose causes them to grow faster.

Hope everything goes well.

reply to post by PtolemyII


Yea, the new stuff is a red seaweed and isn't the same as the stuff they used to eat in the UK area. I read a WHO article on it. It is not a harmless product. You're right about it being harmful to the GI tract also. It shouldn't even be legal to add it to food. I even tried to see if it would help people with autoimmune disease because of how it works killing Macrophages, but it actually causes an increase overall in those diseases till it burns out the marrow. There appears to be no good to Carragennan at all, except for the fact that it does suppress short term reactions to foods....It is only a good thing for food manufactures continued sales since the reaction is delayed and people don't realize that they have acquired food poisoning till long after eating the product. Since Macrophages program T cells, people do not build up any immunity to new strains of microbes which is very dangerous.

I probably read the woman's article. I read at least fifty articles on Carraggeanan over a year period, including at least half of those being research articles themselves. I was trying to find if it could be used to treat a disease or condition. It has only negative effects as far as I can tell. I consider it one of the more dangerous food chemistries out there. The manufactures have been duped into using it, it would be much better to use what they used before. They only save a penny a product, that could be passed on to their customers.

I hate that word..I can never remember how to spell it

Originally posted by Pardon?
reply to post by setibuddies

 

Unfortunately there is a well-known fake email purportedly originating from John Hopkins about cancer and sugar (amongst other things).

www.hopkinsmedicine.org...

Whilst it's true that cancer cells need sugar, specifically glucose to thrive, every other cell on the body does too.
On a per cell basis, they don't actually consume more than normal cells.
The confusion arose from the fact that since cancer cells tend to grow faster it means they consume glucose at a greater rate than the surrounding tissue not that feeding them glucose causes them to grow faster.

Hope everything goes well.

I appreciate your input, but this is not from an email. This is from a face to face meeting with metastatic breast cancer specialists at JH. Cancer cells eat four to five times the amount of glucose as normal cells according to the people we spoke with after her latest MRI and PET scans. The cancer then secretes lactic acid, leading to the fatigue associated with cancer, then the liver takes that acid and turns it into more glucose via glucogenesis.

reply to post by Phage


weeksmd.com...

Well, according to this site, it's 2.1%

And by your logic of your personal story of curing cancer with Chemo, that would mean chemo would be some high success rate cute. Your is only one case though.

So I could say the same thing with eating apricot kernels. Like this women here.




Can people die by eating Apricot Kernels? No, they cannot. Can people die from putting radiation in their body? Yes they can. What's the big deal exactly concerning apricot kernels?


This is from a youtube comment on another video, because I'm guessing your response is going to entail cyanide within the kernels.

Laetrile contains traces of cyanide wich is poisonous. However sodium and chloride are also very poisonous. But if you chemically bond both sodium and chloride, it yeilds salt, wich is perfectly edible. The same is true for water. Hydrogen and oxygen are highly flamable, but when together, it is right the opposite. The cyanide within the compound is harmless. The only thing that can break the bond is the protein coat of cancer cells. Thusly the compound actually "targets" the cancer killing it.

So again, what's more logical? Using radiation as a medicine that has a low success rate, or eating apricot kernels that naturally ward off cancer cells by cyanide being released when it encounters a cancer cell?


You have a personal story, I have mine. This doesn't mean either story is wrong, but you can't use it to base your claims. For example my Grandma had chemo for her cancer, but the cancer didnt't kill her, it was the chemo. This is why I'm pissed. Alot of people dieing and there's multiple cures out there.

But you make more money treating the disease then you do curing it.

And you wont proof of how it works?

I already linked a study in my previous post.

informahealthcare.com...

Originally posted by setibuddies

Originally posted by Pardon?
reply to post by setibuddies

 

Unfortunately there is a well-known fake email purportedly originating from John Hopkins about cancer and sugar (amongst other things).

www.hopkinsmedicine.org...

Whilst it's true that cancer cells need sugar, specifically glucose to thrive, every other cell on the body does too.
On a per cell basis, they don't actually consume more than normal cells.
The confusion arose from the fact that since cancer cells tend to grow faster it means they consume glucose at a greater rate than the surrounding tissue not that feeding them glucose causes them to grow faster.

Hope everything goes well.

I appreciate your input, but this is not from an email. This is from a face to face meeting with metastatic breast cancer specialists at JH. Cancer cells eat four to five times the amount of glucose as normal cells according to the people we spoke with after her latest MRI and PET scans. The cancer then secretes lactic acid, leading to the fatigue associated with cancer, then the liver takes that acid and turns it into more glucose via glucogenesis.

Apologies, I mes-read your post.

Saying that, glucongenesis also occurs when you have a very low or no-carb diet so like all things neither too much nor too little is best.

reply to post by Skjord

But you said a 10% success rate. I'll ask you again; What is your source? What type of cancer? At what stage did the treatment start?

Well, according to this site, it's 2.1%

Maybe you should read the actual study instead of reading about what someone thinks it says. The actual finding was that chemotherapy patients had a 2.1% better survival rate than those who used radiation therapy alone. That's an average rate. The actual figure is highly dependent on the type of cancer.

For each malignancy, the absolute number to benefit was the product of (a) the total number of persons with that malignancy; (b) the proportion or subgroup(s) of that malignancy showing a benefit; and (c) the percentage increase in 5-year survival due solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
In other words, out of all 154,971 patients, 3,306 of these, 5-year survival could be attributed solely to chemotherapy.

or eating apricot kernels that naturally ward off cancer cells by cyanide being released when it encounters a cancer cell?

Did you read that study you posted about amygdalin? Do you see anything in there about cyanide being released? Do you understand that the study is talking about using a single substance and applying it directly to cervical cancer cells in a test tube?

You have a personal story, I have mine. This doesn't mean either story is wrong, but you can't use it to base your claims.

I also have statistics.

reply to post by Skjord

I think youre referring to a Forum Moderator who mentioned "scams' Not only is that from a moderator, but one whom has posted over 16,000 times here. Take it in context here against your 40 or so posts.

The mod was correct. Listen to no one and go to a doctor or several...add a shamman or two. But dont get professional medical advice from a conspiracy forum.

MS (EMT-Advanced Life Support)

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Dwalton

 

Makes me sick to see all doctors are into it for their profits and kickbacks.
Do Not do cemo or rad. it will kill him. do your study...

Makes me angry when people accuse the doctor who saved my life of being in it for nothing but the profit. You have no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea of the relationship between me and my doctor.

I had both radiation and chemotherapy. It saved my life. Last treatment was 26 years ago.

The Baking soda and maple syrup gives the torgen horse effect,

What's a torgen horse?

edit on 6/17/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Same here! I had chemo and radiation and am still alive! My doctors and nurses were an amazingly supportive and caring group of people. They cared not only about my health, but about my emotional well being as well.

Hi Nikolaj,

Thought I'd give you a heads up on a cancer cure your dad can give a shot while still trying (if he has chosen to) the chemotherapy. It's called get rid of Candida and Cadidiasis. Dr Simoncini (www.curenaturalicancro.com...) can give you some insights int the program. The rundown of it is candida is a yeast (also on the lungs) that causes the body's immune system to 'cyst' the candida in an attempt to combat the disease, leading to 'cancer' and tumors and #. You can fight candida with altered diet and medicine. there are prescription meds available against candida. I dunno how effective they are though... Diet is simple: raw greens, fruits and vegs. Stay as acid as possible (lemon, grape fruit, apple vinegar, orange, etc.). Lay off processed foods as much as possible and LAY OFF ALL sugar, carbonated water (incl. beer and sprizzled wine). The more raw the food and the more acidic, the better... The more extreme on the vegetarian-vegan-raw axis, the better... As for meds, bi-carbonate (like baking powder) kills candida and the associated candidiasis disease. bi-carbonate in an enema-kit with luke-warm clean water administered four times a day. Check out Dr. Simoncini's work to find out how much bi-carbonate to use. Candida is found in over 90% of all people but sometimes the internal system is too acidic so the yeast infection can overgrow and become a MAJOR PROBLEM leading to death. By restoring the Ph of the internal system yeast regrowth will be difficult and since bi-carbonate also kills the yeast outright, there might be a real chance for the lungs to get some rest from that infection. By eating acidic foods, one decreases the amount of acid in tissue and muscles of the body, alkalizing ones body long-term. Like cures like sort of... Best of luck to you and your dad.

Originally posted by Somethinganon
Hi Nikolaj,

Thought I'd give you a heads up on a cancer cure your dad can give a shot while still trying (if he has chosen to) the chemotherapy. It's called get rid of Candida and Cadidiasis. Dr Simoncini (www.curenaturalicancro.com...) can give you some insights int the program. The rundown of it is candida is a yeast (also on the lungs) that causes the body's immune system to 'cyst' the candida in an attempt to combat the disease, leading to 'cancer' and tumors and #. You can fight candida with altered diet and medicine. there are prescription meds available against candida. I dunno how effective they are though... Diet is simple: raw greens, fruits and vegs. Stay as acid as possible (lemon, grape fruit, apple vinegar, orange, etc.). Lay off processed foods as much as possible and LAY OFF ALL sugar, carbonated water (incl. beer and sprizzled wine). The more raw the food and the more acidic, the better... The more extreme on the vegetarian-vegan-raw axis, the better... As for meds, bi-carbonate (like baking powder) kills candida and the associated candidiasis disease. bi-carbonate in an enema-kit with luke-warm clean water administered four times a day. Check out Dr. Simoncini's work to find out how much bi-carbonate to use. Candida is found in over 90% of all people but sometimes the internal system is too acidic so the yeast infection can overgrow and become a MAJOR PROBLEM leading to death. By restoring the Ph of the internal system yeast regrowth will be difficult and since bi-carbonate also kills the yeast outright, there might be a real chance for the lungs to get some rest from that infection. By eating acidic foods, one decreases the amount of acid in tissue and muscles of the body, alkalizing ones body long-term. Like cures like sort of... Best of luck to you and your dad.

edit on 19-6-2013 by Somethinganon because: spelling

Let me start off with saying that the acid-alkali "theory" of cancer is utter and complete nonsense.
Without going into all of the details (as I have several times on this website) the human body keeps it's pH levels in a very tight range using something called homeostasis. If the pH goes out of this range then EVERY cell in the body is affected, it doesn't matter whether the pH rises or decreases. The only way to remedy this is to alter the person's pH by direct intravenous injection of a neutralising substance.
Eating foods will NEVER alter your body's pH (see homeostasis).
This has got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with cancer (or the "fungus") at all.
The whole pH/cancer nonsense came about when it was discovered that as a byproduct of metabolism, cancer cells created a transient acidic environment in surrounding tissues.
NOT cancer metabolises because of an acidic environment.

How do I know this?
I have a PhD in human physiology (amongst other things) and I do not learn from dodgy sites and/or Youtube videos.

Unfortunately, "Dr" Tulio Simoncini is the epitome of a quack.
His medical credentials are suspect to say the least.
He's completely incorrect when calling cancer a fungus.
His IV sodium bicarbonate "therapy" is ineffective and dangerous.
His "case studies" are works of fiction.
He lost his medical licence around 10 years ago for malpractice.
He was convicted of wrongful death and swindling by an Italian court.

The simple fact is that cancer is not but one disease but many.
So to suggest that there is a single panacea for them is utter nonsense.
Not only will this fraudster deprive you of precious time and your money, he will undoubtedly take your life too.