It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cancer Lover Sugar - MRI Scan Proof

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by beckybecky
these millions listened and TRUSTED their doctors who gave them chemo which don't work and now they are all dead.


Again you seem to be posting out of complete ignorance. Nobody goes into cancer treatment thinking that chemo is a 100% certain cure. No doctors ever claim that it is. It works for some people and not for others. So no they are not all dead because they underwent chemo.




posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by beckybecky

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by PhoenixOD


you can kill cancer by mixing molasses or maple syrup with sodium bicarbonate and kill the cancer and raise body ph from acidic to alkaline.



Also this is not anything new. It's a reason why artificial sweeteners promote cancer growth. Cancerous cells are able to use artificial sweeteners efficiently and it will promote cancer growth.

The whole ph alternative medicine junk is just that, junk.


PROVE IT.


How about the fact your body requires a pH level of exactly 7.4? Anything that alters this pH level will trigger automatic responses to bring the pH back to 7.4.

At 7.35 pH acidosis occurs. Acidosis can and will lead to coma and death.
at 7.45 pH alkalosis occurs. This leads to weakness, cramping, and other complications which can lead to death.

Acidosis is often linked to diabetes, ketoacidosis. Feel free to look it up.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArbitrageurSo unless you stop breathing, your breathing will ultimately regulate your pH regardless of your diet.
Not breathing can't be good for your health.


Kidneys will secrete acids as well. There are quite a few ways your body regulates its' pH level.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by beckybecky

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by beckybecky
HOW DID THE GUY CURE HIS PROSTATE CANCER THEN?
One anecdote doesn't mean much in the field of medicine..


Answer the question instead of trying to evade it with side tracking verbosity.

how did he cure his cancer.

also for a feedback mechanism to occur there has to be a DIFFERENCE to start of with.


He didn't? Easy answer.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

Originally posted by beckybecky
these millions listened and TRUSTED their doctors who gave them chemo which don't work and now they are all dead.


Again you seem to be posting out of complete ignorance. Nobody goes into cancer treatment thinking that chemo is a 100% certain cure. No doctors ever claim that it is. It works for some people and not for others. So no they are not all dead because they underwent chemo.


Just in response Chemotherapy really is a terrible treatment for a number of reasons and needs to be replaced. The whole pH scam is ridiculous, but in my opinion chemotherapy is a scam as well. Not only does it promote later cancer development, it also makes any new cancer cells "supercharged" and much more difficult to kill and promotes metastasising of the cancer.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

Originally posted by beckybecky
these millions listened and TRUSTED their doctors who gave them chemo which don't work and now they are all dead.


Again you seem to be posting out of complete ignorance. Nobody goes into cancer treatment thinking that chemo is a 100% certain cure. No doctors ever claim that it is. It works for some people and not for others. So no they are not all dead because they underwent chemo.


a lot of people are misdiagnosed with cancer when in fact they don't actually have it or it is simply a benign growth which resolves itself.the false positive rate for cancer is quite high and can be from 5% to 20% depending on the cancer and the establishment involved.

check it yourself in google,etc.

with a average 3% success rate over 5 years and a very high false positive of diagnosis of cancer i would say the success rate rate of chemo is actually NEGATIVE.

i.e people don't actually have cancer but they are subjected to radiation and toxic cancer causing drugs which gives them cancer and kills them.

remember after chemo treatment it always comes back even more fiercely.

was it not the Lancet which once had a report which said more people die from chemo than from the cancer?



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by beckybecky
with a average 3% success rate over 5 years and a very high false positive of diagnosis of cancer i would say the success rate rate of chemo is actually NEGATIVE.

i.e people don't actually have cancer but they are subjected to radiation and toxic cancer causing drugs which gives them cancer and kills them.


You are talking about one misquoted study from australia.


Where do these numbers come from??

The “2% chemo efficacy” comes from an Australian study into the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year cancer survival, and the researchers claimed to have found that the average benefit of chemotherapy was about 2%. So: the study is about the contribution of chemotherapy to survival and not about survival of patients having chemotherapy.
For obvious reasons, this study has become immensely popular with alternative therapists and is quoted by them ad nauseam.

A rather strange phenomenon took place after the publication of this study: over time, the 2-3% contribution to survival had somehow become 2-3% plain survival – period. Some of these altmeds now actually claim the outcome of the study was that of all cancer patients receiving chemo, only 2-3% survive for more than 5 years.

In other words: chemotherapy kills an average 97% of cancer patients within 5 years.

Now, as these numbers sound totally weird – to say the least – we decided to find out if there was any truth in them.


Conculsion :


So… now what?

The data from the study are from 1998. We are now in 2009 and progress has been made in those years. There is better medication to diminish side effects of chemotherapy. There is new, sophisticated technology to assess which breast cancers are prone to metastasize and which are not, resulting in less women having to undergo chemotherapy. Scientists are working hard on similar tests for other cancers.

There are over 80 different kinds of chemotherapy. Some are sheer hell, but many are quite doable, including the one I had. Nevertheless: chemotherapy still is the ultimate cancer scare factor and the sooner we can do without it, the better. But it is not true that only 2-3% survive chemotherapy. It is not true that the average benefit of chemotherapy to 5-year survival is as low as 2%. And it is also not true that all chemotherapy is by definition completely and totally unbearable.

If we really want to get anywhere at all, then honesty about the facts, not manipulation, self-aggrandizing and scare mongering, should be the basis for discussion and decision making.


Read about it here

You should always doubble check any facts you dont understand



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 




Just in response Chemotherapy really is a terrible treatment for a number of reasons and needs to be replaced.


I dont think theres a doctor anywhere that would disgree with you. Chemo is a horrible treatment.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


I did check my facts and i said 3% instead of 2% .that is giving you the benefit of the doubt by 50%

in any case here are the facts about effectiveness.

www.oasisadvancedwellness.com...

look at head and neck cancers..first line

victims 5139 survivors after 5 years 97

it's very simple and straight forward to understand.

that is right 97 survivors out of 5139 = 1.9% .


now you will do your best to twist the figures..try statistical tricks or try smear the figures but it does not matter.

remember when YOU get cancer as the chance is 1 in 2 in your lifetime due to increasing pollution of everything all around including the food/drink all your loyalty to the chemo industry will come home to and you will experience its horrors first hand and your fat bank balance won't protect you.

in fact your fat bank balance will be drained by the chemo vendors as every time some one is diagnosed with cancer real or imagined or in error the hospital establishment and their cohorts hit the jackpot as the cost to you will hundreds of thousands and maybe millions.

in fact they have every incentive to misdiagnose you as they hit the jackpot while you suffer the chemo.
edit on 13-7-2013 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by beckybecky
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


I did check my facts and i said 3% instead of 2% .that is giving you the benefit of the doubt by 50%

in any case here are the facts about effectiveness.

www.oasisadvancedwellness.com...

look at head and neck cancers..first line

victims 5139 survivors after 5 years 97

it's very simple and straight forward to understand.

that is right 97 survivors out of 5139 = 1.9% .


now you will do your best to twist the figures..try statistical tricks or try smear the figures but it does not matter.

remember when YOU get cancer as the chance is 1 in 2 in your lifetime due to increasing pollution of everything all around including the food/drink all your loyalty to the chemo industry will come home to and you will experience its horrors first hand and your fat bank balance won't protect you.

in fact your fat bank balance will be drained by the chemo vendors as every time some one is diagnosed with cancer real or imagined or in error the hospital establishment and their cohorts hit the jackpot as the cost to you will hundreds of thousands and maybe millions.

in fact they have every incentive to misdiagnose you as they hit the jackpot while you suffer the chemo.
edit on 13-7-2013 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)


Oh hey I didn't know we were playing the twist numbers game. Let me play too.
Hodgkin's Disease: Victims: 846, Survivors after 5 years: 341
That is right 40.3% survival due to chemotherapy.

Aren't you glad we played?



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   


in fact your fat bank balance will be drained by the chemo vendors as every time some one is diagnosed with cancer real or imagined or in error the hospital establishment and their cohorts hit the jackpot as the cost to you will hundreds of thousands and maybe millions.

in fact they have every incentive to misdiagnose you as they hit the jackpot while you suffer the chemo.


It doesnt cost patients a penny to get chemo in the uk, but we have already covered that.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 




Just in response Chemotherapy really is a terrible treatment for a number of reasons and needs to be replaced.


I dont think theres a doctor anywhere that would disgree with you. Chemo is a horrible treatment.


Cancer's far, far worse than any treatment though.


As for the cancer/sugar thing? (They've been using radio-marked glucose in PET scans for tumours for years, so this is nothing new. The new bit's using it in MRI scans).

Cancer cells' uptake of glucose (the basic sugar which all sugars are eventually broken down into, processed or natural) is because they grow naturally faster than normal cells.

It's not that they grow faster because of the sugar intake.

Even if you don't eat sugar (or any carbs) your body will make its own via gluconeogenesis and the cancer cells will still get precisely what they need to grow.

Depriving yourself of a basic food group (carbs) whilst you have cancer will harm you far more than it helps.
Like at any time in your life, healthy or ill, a well-balanced diet is always the best for your well-being.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



Oh hey I didn't know we were playing the twist numbers game. Let me play too.
Hodgkin's Disease: Victims: 846, Survivors after 5 years: 341
That is right 40.3% survival due to chemotherapy.

Aren't you glad we played?


but instead of 5000 with 97 survivors victims we only have 846 victims. 341 survivors.
as a fraction of the total it still comes to 3% at most.

that is like saying 2 people had cancer and 1 survived
giving a 50% success rate.

also you ignored the false cancer positives just as i expected as if that is taken into account the chemo has a negative survival rate.

also people like you never explain why if your wonderful chemo is so successful why 560000 died from cancer last year in America.



care to explain that?






edit on 14-7-2013 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
All molecular functioning feeds of glucose it seems.

I have a sister who has dealt with cancer and I know first hand how well her non-gluten low sugar diet has helped her stay healthy.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by beckybecky
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



Oh hey I didn't know we were playing the twist numbers game. Let me play too.
Hodgkin's Disease: Victims: 846, Survivors after 5 years: 341
That is right 40.3% survival due to chemotherapy.

Aren't you glad we played?


but instead of 5000 with 97 survivors victims we only have 846 victims. 341 survivors.
as a fraction of the total it still comes to 3% at most.

that is like saying 2 people had cancer and 1 survived
giving a 50% success rate.

also you ignored the false cancer positives just as i expected as if that is taken into account the chemo has a negative survival rate.

also people like you never explain why if your wonderful chemo is so successful why 560000 died from cancer last year in America.



care to explain that?






edit on 14-7-2013 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)



How many would have died without treatment?
I would hazard a guess at every single person who had cancer.

Give me a 2:1 chance of living if I had cancer and I'd take it like a shot.
Wouldn't you?

Just to put it on record, the only demonstrable and reproducible treatments which have success are unfortunately surgery, radiotherapy and chaemotherapy or any combination of the three. I know I'm being controversial here but as yet, there is no alternative treatment which has been proven to have ANY success whatsoever (naturally discounting the usual YouTube videos and "patient" testimonials).

(By the way, you can't lump all cancers together since they are effectively different diseases. For example, childhood leukaemia has a greater than 90% chance of being successfully treated whereas pancreatic cancer is less than 10%. The most important factor in how successful a treatment will be is how early it's started).
edit on 15/7/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by beckybecky

(By the way, you can't lump all cancers together since they are effectively different diseases. For example, childhood leukaemia has a greater than 90% chance of being successfully treated whereas pancreatic cancer is less than 10%. The most important factor in how successful a treatment will be is how early it's started).
edit on 15/7/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



also you ignored the false cancer positives just as i expected as if that is taken into account the chemo has a negative survival rate.

also people like you never explain why if your wonderful chemo is so successful why 560000 died from cancer last year in America.



care to explain that?



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by beckybecky

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by beckybecky

(By the way, you can't lump all cancers together since they are effectively different diseases. For example, childhood leukaemia has a greater than 90% chance of being successfully treated whereas pancreatic cancer is less than 10%. The most important factor in how successful a treatment will be is how early it's started).
edit on 15/7/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



also you ignored the false cancer positives just as i expected as if that is taken into account the chemo has a negative survival rate.

also people like you never explain why if your wonderful chemo is so successful why 560000 died from cancer last year in America.



care to explain that?


Is this a reply to my post?
I really don't have a clue what your post means.

You need to re-post and make it a bit clearer as all you've done is quoted previous posts out of context.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
That is very interesting, I mean the OP, as there is a green grocer who lives in our town who has had a blood cancer for the last 35 years. Occassionally he becomes unwell and has a blood transfusion, BUT he says he only eats vegetables, NEVER eats fruits or anything sweet and to be quite honest, he doesn't appear to have aged in the years that we have known him. He is at least in his mid 70's, still delivers some groceries on his bicycle, but ask him about fruits........he says he wouldn't touch them with a barge pole, though he does sell them.

For a cancer suffer of that many years he is doing amazingly well!



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
You have no clue...


Originally posted by beckybecky
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


I did check my facts and i said 3% instead of 2% .that is giving you the benefit of the doubt by 50%

in any case here are the facts about effectiveness.

www.oasisadvancedwellness.com...

look at head and neck cancers..first line

victims 5139 survivors after 5 years 97

it's very simple and straight forward to understand.

that is right 97 survivors out of 5139 = 1.9% .


now you will do your best to twist the figures..try statistical tricks or try smear the figures but it does not matter.


Please review the full PDF, notably the the title and abstract... The study was done by doctors specializing in RADIATION ONCOLOGY, think that there might be a self serving interest somewhere in there? To ascribe anything to a study in which the focus is cases treated solely by cytotoxic chemotherapy is absurd (as is the study). It has been well accepted within western medicine that a comprehensive approach, holistic even, with a combination of surgery, radiation, chemotherapy , nutrition and mental wellness is key to treating carcinomas and is necessary to garner the best results.

Please review the conclusion in the aforementioned PDF:



Conclusion: As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes
a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy,
a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required. Morgan, G. et al. (2004). Clinical Oncology
16, 549e560


Please note the comment "To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required." Obviously this study was meant to sway politicians and bureaucrats.

As far as your OP, you have even less of an understanding of that study. The focus of the glucoCEST study is for diagnostic and staging purposes, it has nothing to do with a therapeutic process.

As long as there is ignorance, there will be threads like this

:shk:



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Mirthful Me
 



also you ignored the false cancer positives just as i expected as if that is taken into account the chemo has a negative survival rate.

also people like you never explain why if your wonderful chemo is so successful why 560000 died from cancer last year in America.



care to explain that?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join