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: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by beckybecky

Originally posted by Pardon?


So, if you're what you like to consider opposite to big pharma (i.e. you care about people's health more than you do about money or fame), do people a service by telling us your secret method.
If it works (and I'll know pretty much immediately if it does or not) I can gurantee I will be your biggest advocate.
And you can believe me on that.




but you have already said only chemo works in your book.this automatically means that anything that is not chemo does not work in your book.


Can you do me the honour of actually reading my posts before you reply to them?
It really is black or white with you isn't it?

I'll spell it out again.

Chaemo can be effective for very specific types of cancer.
Most of the time though it is used in conjunction with other therapies such as rad and surgery.

Show me an alternative that works and I will back you to the hilt.
You may need to lose the chip on your shoulder first though otherwise there will be no progress whatsoever.




posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 


Your reply and attempt to attack the credibility of Ely does nothing to discredit the science behind my ex-quote.



Dr. John Ely, emeritus professor at the University of Washington, has also shown that sugar depletes vitamin C from white blood cells and makes them sluggish. White blood cells are the very cells that attack tumor cells and destroy them.

The cancer cell-killing effect of vitamin C is realized by the transient production of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) within connective tissues (not in blood), which then destroys tumor cells, and subsequently turns to harmless water (H2O), ensuring non-toxic therapy.


Opinions and credibility do not matter. It is the science behind the facts that matter, and unless you can disprove this statement, your opinion on such means nothing to me.

More on this subject : Dr. John Ely Research - Glucose-Ascorbate-Antagonism (GAA) theory

Not to mention that this study was done over 40 years ago in the 1970's. Very little likely exists on this man, because the Internet didn't even exist at the time, and his experiments weren't likely published widely.

arxiv.org...

orthomolecular.org...

The man exists...You just gotta know how to look for him.

www.zoominfo.com...

My, my, my, and lookie here too...


New research published in the journal Nature Medicine has confirmed that processed sugar is one of the primary driving forces behind the growth and spread of cancer tumors, so much so that the future of cancer screening could rely on scanning the body for sugar accumulation.

Scientists from University College London (UCL) in the U.K. made this discovery after experimenting with a new cancer detection method that involves utilizing a unique form of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). After sensitizing an MRI scanner to look specifically for glucose in the body, it was revealed that cancer tumors, which feed off sugar, light up brightly as they contain high amounts of sugar.

"The new technique, called 'glucose chemical exchange saturation transfer' (glucoCEST), is based on the fact that tumors consume much more glucose (a type of sugar) than normal, healthy tissues in order to sustain their growth," explains a recent UCL announcement, noting that tumors appear as "bright images" on MRI scans of mice.


Cancer Loves Sugar MRI Source
edit on 18-7-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


As I said to becky, please do me the courtesy of actually reading my posts before you reply.
It's almost like you already had your reply to me composed prior to my posting.

I'll go through the points you've made.

Firstly I can't see anywhere that I've discredited or attacked John Ely.
I said all I can find was that he was a professor of physics (strangely, I also found that out at Zoominfo in my previous post....).
I can't actually find the specific study in a credible format other than what's linked on vitamin sites.
Red flag for me.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I have seen numerous individual studies which show some promise in the fight against cancer, the one you've posted is an example of one that I saw several years ago.
What tends to happen is that an initial study is performed, generally in vitro on individual cells in a very artificial environment.
If it shows some promise, further studies are done which are more stringent and generally more specific.
This is done for two reasons; a. to check reproducibility and b. to confirm the first's conclusion.
Somewhere around 90% of all studies don't make it past the "2nd round".
When they get past this it's time to start thinking about about moving from in vitro testing to in vivo.

There are thousands of substances which cause tumour cell death in vitro (paracetamol's my favourite) but when exposed to the comparatively hostile environment of the human body, they show completely different behaviours or even none at all.
So far, I haven't found one single reproducible study which confirms that vitamin C reverses, cures (use whatever word you like) cancer in people. Not one.
The only ones I've seen recount case histories which can't be verified.
A case history needs to have the following to hold credence; a confirmed diagnosis is imperative and then a complete follow-up in every stage documenting therapy, histological and/or radiological confirmation of stage and/or tumour etc size. Then a confirmed diagnosis or remission. All stages need evidence to support them too.
If even one piece of evidence is not present this casts doubt on the whole case history.
Generally the diagnosis is the one piece missed out on a lot of cancer websites.

I'm afraid I find it difficult taking orthomolecular "medicine" seriously.
I've not seen one study from an orthomolecular author that would stand up to scrutiny outside their world.
If they wish to be taken more seriously this is the one aspect they need to address and this should be very easy to do.
Since they haven't addressed this issue properly that really does tell me something.

Now on your last point (if I were you I wouldn't be so full of yourself on this one)......
What do you think this thread's about?
Oh yes, what you've just linked to (seriously people, at least read the thread's title post).

As I said before (which I've also said before...too many times now in fact), the increased sugar uptake from cancer cells has been known about for a very long time indeed. I've already told you why that is and just to reiterate, it's glucose and glucose only irrespective of which carbohydrate it's metabolised from.

One of the gold standard tests for tumour detection is viewing radio-tagged glucose via a PET scan but since PET scanners are extremely expensive and only found in relatively few hospitals this test is readily available to all who need it.
This is why the use of MRI scanners (using the same theory of glucose-tagging, just not with radio-markers) is proving such big news. Most decent hospitals have MRI scanners these days and this is an easy test to perform. Therefore it will available to more and more people hopefully increasing the detection rate and at an earlier stage than usual.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by beckybecky

Originally posted by Pardon?






but you have already said only chemo works in your book.this automatically means that anything that is not chemo does not work in your book.




I'll spell it out again.

Chaemo can be effective for very specific types of cancer.
Most of the time though it is used in conjunction with other therapies such as rad and surgery.
.




Seems your chemo is creating a group of the living dead.Terrible side effects:-

Studies have found that women who suffer breast cancer are almost twice as likely to get heart failure compared to those who have not had it, while men who have had prostate cancer are more than twice as likely to get osteoporosis compared with those who have not had it...

www.telegraph.co.uk...


As regards treatment of cancer there is an A to Z cancer treatment list here on ATS.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


And don't forget that it causes changes to the gut fauna, less than fruit salts but some...



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by beckybecky
 


I'm more than aware of the side-effects of today's standard treatments for cancer.
Some can be terrible.
But if you read the article, it's actually saying that becuse today's therapies are becoming more successful, we need to become more successful at
I'm also aware of the consequence if no treatment is taken.

Not one listing in the A-Z on here can be proven to be effective.
I've been through it with a fine tooth-comb.
If there was one, I'd be shouting it to anyone who'd listen.

So, you still haven't divulged your method yet.
Shall I wait?



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pardon?
reply to post by beckybecky
 




Not one listing in the A-Z on here can be proven to be effective.





Not one listing in the A-Z on here can be proven to be effective.


Proven by who?



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by beckybecky

Originally posted by Pardon?
reply to post by beckybecky
 




Not one listing in the A-Z on here can be proven to be effective.





Not one listing in the A-Z on here can be proven to be effective.


Proven by who?


The person who posted it.
The people who have put these "cures" on the internet in the first place.
Anyone with cancer who takes the treatment to cure themselves.


Yours might work but no-one will know as you won't say what it is.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by beckybecky

Originally posted by Pardon?
reply to post by beckybecky
 




Not one listing in the A-Z on here can be proven to be effective.





Not one listing in the A-Z on here can be proven to be effective.


Proven by who?


The person who posted it.
The people who have put these "cures" on the internet in the first place.
Anyone with cancer who takes the treatment to cure themselves.





so when a company posts something anything it does not have prove anything but a person does.

the people posting are posting information just like you do.they don't have to prove anything.heard of newspapers with the latest telling about the latest wonder drug at 1000% mark up with massaged figures to support its alleged effectiveness.

you said any person who cures themselves is just some sort of magic spontaneous remission and nothing to with any action they took since chemo is the god standard in your book.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Anyone saw this docu?
Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business
vimeo.com...

Didn't yet had time to research some points made in the docu and the credibility of it, maybe it has already been covered on ATS, what do you guys make of this?

I have a strong guess that Big pharma is one big corrupt, profit making bussiness, where the real descision makers care much more for power and creating a monopoly than curing people from their disease. There is no money to make in a cure.
I also believe there are other alternative, less expensive and safer cures for for example cancer.
Which those are i don't know but i would put my money in nature.

This is also an interesting docu i saw the other day.
War on Health - Gary Null's documentary exposing the FDA
www.youtube.com...

I will pardon myself now for just posting 'some youtube videos' and not the actual paper reports and other research material. When more time is available for me i will look a bit deeper into it, for the meantime maybe some other members did their research and care the share.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 





Firstly I can't see anywhere that I've discredited or attacked John Ely. I said all I can find was that he was a professor of physics (strangely, I also found that out at Zoominfo in my previous post....). I can't actually find the specific study in a credible format other than what's linked on vitamin sites.


The study was conducted in 1979, well before the Internet was even up and kicking....The first line is the most important to me. Unless you can discredit either John Ely's work or the Science behind both posts I explained, then I will move forward with my contention, and you can see the whole 'therapy' as being iffy.

Essentially, I will be content with what I believe is correct, unless you can somehow prove it incorrect other than your personal opinions and convictions. Preferably, with objective facts and "science" as to why John Ely's work is wrong, or that sugar does not rob Vitamin C from white blood cells, the same cells responsible for attacking cancerous ones.
edit on 20-7-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Pardon?
 





Firstly I can't see anywhere that I've discredited or attacked John Ely. I said all I can find was that he was a professor of physics (strangely, I also found that out at Zoominfo in my previous post....). I can't actually find the specific study in a credible format other than what's linked on vitamin sites.


The study was conducted in 1979, well before the Internet was even up and kicking....The first line is the most important to me. Unless you can discredit either John Ely's work or the Science behind both posts I explained, then I will move forward with my contention, and you can see the whole 'therapy' as being iffy.

Essentially, I will be content with what I believe is correct, unless you can somehow prove it incorrect other than your personal opinions and convictions. Preferably, with objective facts and "science" as to why John Ely's work is wrong, or that sugar does not rob Vitamin C from white blood cells, the same cells responsible for attacking cancerous ones.
edit on 20-7-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)


So there are no studies avaiable online pre-Internet days?
Think about what you've said.

Whilst I don't wish to discredit anyone's work the example you've chosen is a classic ruse of pseudo-science.
focus on unimportant minutiae without addressing the actual problem itself.
Whilst it may be true in vitro that sugar robs vit C, in the real world things happen a little differently.
Unless you're diabetic, your body maintains pretty constant serum glucose levels and that on its own pretty much quashes the cancer theory.
Also, basic physiology tells us that white blood cells don't fight cancer cells (they may in some circumstances try to but they're not very good at it).
White blood cells attack foreign invaders, cancer cells look very much like normal cells to them.
In cancer, white blood cell levels increase due local inflammation in surrounding tissues, not because of the cancer cells themselves.
In fact, there was a recent study suggesting that the increase in white blood cells as a result of cancer can actually promote and spread cancer.
Do white blood cells spread cancer?

Feel free to look up my points above. Even though the science behind my first couple of points is older than the Internet, you'll have no problem finding them.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by beckybecky

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by beckybecky

Originally posted by Pardon?
reply to post by beckybecky
 




Not one listing in the A-Z on here can be proven to be effective.





Not one listing in the A-Z on here can be proven to be effective.


Proven by who?


The person who posted it.
The people who have put these "cures" on the internet in the first place.
Anyone with cancer who takes the treatment to cure themselves.





so when a company posts something anything it does not have prove anything but a person does.

the people posting are posting information just like you do.they don't have to prove anything.heard of newspapers with the latest telling about the latest wonder drug at 1000% mark up with massaged figures to support its alleged effectiveness.

you said any person who cures themselves is just some sort of magic spontaneous remission and nothing to with any action they took since chemo is the god standard in your book.


I think this may have to be my last reply to you as you're becoming quite ridiculous.


If you have any idea whatsoever about trial and study data you would understand that it's not a case of a company or person writing something and suddenly it becomes accepted.
That's what happens on fake health sites. They're called "testimonials" and they are as fake as the moon being made of green cheese.
Proper studies have to be published and subjected to peer reviews where any and usually every part of the study is challenged by others not connected with that study but with expertise in the field. If a study gets through this stage, then further studies are undertaken to prove the premise further and verify that everything said is correct.
So no, it's not a case of a person having to prove it but a company not having to.
If you publish it, prepare to back up and verify what you've said otherwise it's worthless.
Like I said, you are being ridiculous now.

I did not say that any person who cures themselves is spontaneous remission.
You wrote that.
What I said is that there are rare cases of spontaneous remission.
I said nothing about someone trying to cure themselves.

And for the last time since you are quite insufferable, read what I've actually said about chaemo.

One last thing, you still haven't had the courage to post your method which is strange since you're so confident about it.
That puts you in the same bracket as big pharma in my book.
Only interested in yourself and to hell with everyone else.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by intergalactic fire
Anyone saw this docu?
Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business
vimeo.com...

Didn't yet had time to research some points made in the docu and the credibility of it, maybe it has already been covered on ATS, what do you guys make of this?

I have a strong guess that Big pharma is one big corrupt, profit making bussiness, where the real descision makers care much more for power and creating a monopoly than curing people from their disease. There is no money to make in a cure.
I also believe there are other alternative, less expensive and safer cures for for example cancer.
Which those are i don't know but i would put my money in nature.

This is also an interesting docu i saw the other day.
War on Health - Gary Null's documentary exposing the FDA
www.youtube.com...

I will pardon myself now for just posting 'some youtube videos' and not the actual paper reports and other research material. When more time is available for me i will look a bit deeper into it, for the meantime maybe some other members did their research and care the share.


Burzynski's a fraud, pure and simple.
His promoters claim he uses no chaemo yet on his website it states quite clearly that he does indeed use chaemo.
He also charges roughly ten times more for it than the neighbouring cancer clinic (who know him well as they have to try to combat the mess he makes of people).
His antineonpaston therapy has been proven not to work yet he insists it does.
However, in however long his clinic's been operating he's not actually been able to provide a study or trial backing this up. Strange.
In fact he can't actually provide proof that he's cured ANYONE of cancer.
Not a single case.

What he does do though (and this keeps the FDA off his back) is he keeps on starting clinical trials of his treatment yet up to now, he's never actually completed one.

He promotes the fact that big pharma makes big money off cancer yet does he live in a shack.
Well no, he lives in an extremely large mansion. In its own estate.

Try him at your peril.


Whilst I have no doubt that there are parts of big pharma which can be corrupt, they are heavily regulated (that's the part Burzynski plays to his advantage) and I have to disagree with there being no profit in cure.
Whichever pharma company finds the cure for cancer, they would immediately become the most powerful out of them all.
There are almost 2 million new cases of cancer every year in the US alone and with populations increasing and living longer not to mention the deterioration in our environment, that rate will only increase.
Couple that with the fact that the cure will be priced relative to the outcome (i.e. the company could name their price) and its not hard to do the sums.

Like I said, I've been looking for a very long time and I'm still not any further towards finding one.
I'm open to suggestions though.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 


Thank you for that.
As i said i just saw the docu without any research.
I just saw there are many threads on ats on him, so i wont go into discussion here, just will have to research more for myself. The same for the Gerson therapy who claims they've been curing cancers for many years.

I just wanted to say this on the docu (it doesn't realy have to do with the docu in fact).
I find it interesting to look for cures in a different way, start from zero and not trying to work on the existing methods. It is possible that one day they come upon a roadblock and have to start all over again. It wouldn't be the first time. If you understand what i'm trying to say.

What if the cure would just be, eat healthy food?
If you agree that many diseases are caused by environment and the way we live.
This way the cure wouldn't make much profit, right. Maybe this is the reason why they started the GMO bussiness.

Did you saw the War on Health docu? I would like to hear your opinion on that one.
Thanks and take care.

Just found a longer version of the docu i posted if you're interested.
WAR ON HEALTH The FDA's Cult of Tyranny
www.youtube.com...
edit on 20-7-2013 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 


My point was the study in particular, that you are searching for, might NOT be on the internet, and must be found in real documents or requests from University of Washington.


The cancer cell-killing effect of vitamin C is realized by the transient production of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) within connective tissues (not in blood), which then destroys tumor cells, and subsequently turns to harmless water (H2O), ensuring non-toxic therapy.


This is what I am referring to as well...Vitamin C allows white blood cells to carry the H202 directly to the source of the cancerous cells. However, if said cancer patient, is consuming a diet high in HFCS, etc, it could potentially rob the bodies white blood cells of their ability to kill the cancer cells.
edit on 20-7-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Pardon?
 


My point was the study in particular, that you are searching for, might NOT be on the internet, and must be found in real documents or requests from University of Washington.


The cancer cell-killing effect of vitamin C is realized by the transient production of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) within connective tissues (not in blood), which then destroys tumor cells, and subsequently turns to harmless water (H2O), ensuring non-toxic therapy.


This is what I am referring to as well...Vitamin C allows white blood cells to carry the H202 directly to the source of the cancerous cells. However, if said cancer patient, is consuming a diet high in HFCS, etc, it could potentially rob the bodies white blood cells of their ability to kill the cancer cells.
edit on 20-7-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)


Unless the patient is diabetic or the cancer is interfering with their insulin production somehow, irrespective of how much and what types of sugar they consume, their serum levels will remain in quite a tight range.

There have been numerous studies on high dose intravenous vit C for cancer and as yet, none have shown much in the way of promise.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Pardon?
 


My point was the study in particular, that you are searching for, might NOT be on the internet, and must be found in real documents or requests from University of Washington.


The cancer cell-killing effect of vitamin C is realized by the transient production of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) within connective tissues (not in blood), which then destroys tumor cells, and subsequently turns to harmless water (H2O), ensuring non-toxic therapy.


This is what I am referring to as well...Vitamin C allows white blood cells to carry the H202 directly to the source of the cancerous cells. However, if said cancer patient, is consuming a diet high in HFCS, etc, it could potentially rob the bodies white blood cells of their ability to kill the cancer cells.
edit on 20-7-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)


Unless the patient is diabetic or the cancer is interfering with their insulin production somehow, irrespective of how much and what types of sugar they consume, their serum levels will remain in quite a tight range.

There have been numerous studies on high dose intravenous vit C for cancer and as yet, none have shown much in the way of promise.


There is a different in administering IV Vitamin C, and administering liposomal Vitamin C. You have not taken into account the stress that comes with having Cancer. Stress produces cortisol. Cortisol raises blood sugar. Thus, cortisol depletes Vitamin C. Does the patient smoke cigarettes? That depletes a further 25 mg from the body per cigarette. Does the patient consume a diet high in refined carbs, sugars, or high fructose corn syrup?

There are lots of factors at play here, and one should never be so careless as to dismiss the efficacy of something based on incomplete evidence.

If they are testing cancer patients that eat processed foods typical of corporate America, stressed not only over their condition but general living conditions today, smoking like a chimney, drinking a 12 oz. Diet Shasta Orange every five minute; how exactly is this going to ensure a true evaluation if they are just interfering with the whole thing in the first place? You already know this!!!

Doctors tell patients all the time while they are on medication like Coumadin : "No collard greens, spinach, etc." Why? Because they contain Vitamins E & K, which can interfere with the efficacy of Coumadins blood thinning properties. Now if they are setting up studies to test if Vitamin C is effective on cancer patients, and these patients are living lives completely antithetical to that Vitamin C treatment; how in the world is that going to ensure that they get a correct evaluation??? They aren't, and you know this just as well as they do...That's how you rig trials and studies.... Just saying...
edit on 21-7-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas

There is a different in administering IV Vitamin C, and administering liposomal Vitamin C. You have not taken into account the stress that comes with having Cancer. Stress produces cortisol. Cortisol raises blood sugar. Thus, cortisol depletes Vitamin C. Does the patient smoke cigarettes? That depletes a further 25 mg from the body per cigarette. Does the patient consume a diet high in refined carbs, sugars, or high fructose corn syrup?

There are lots of factors at play here, and one should never be so careless as to dismiss the efficacy of something based on incomplete evidence.

If they are testing cancer patients that eat processed foods typical of corporate America, stressed not only over their condition but general living conditions today, smoking like a chimney, drinking a 12 oz. Diet Shasta Orange every five minute; how exactly is this going to ensure a true evaluation if they are just interfering with the whole thing in the first place? You already know this!!!

Doctors tell patients all the time while they are on medication like Coumadin : "No collard greens, spinach, etc." Why? Because they contain Vitamins E & K, which can interfere with the efficacy of Coumadins blood thinning properties. Now if they are setting up studies to test if Vitamin C is effective on cancer patients, and these patients are living lives completely antithetical to that Vitamin C treatment; how in the world is that going to ensure that they get a correct evaluation??? They aren't, and you know this just as well as they do...That's how you rig trials and studies.... Just saying...
edit on 21-7-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)


Ah right now the conspiracy starts.

So it doesn't cure cancer because every patient that has been trialled on high dose vitamin C (it really doesn't matter pharmacokinetically what end-form it is) hasn't fulfilled all of the criteria for having it then?
Really?
Even though I'm not a betting man I would wager that there would be a number of patients who don't smoke or eat unhealthily yet still no-one has been cured of cancer by vitamin C therapy.
Not one person at all.

Right, I've repeated myself enough times already in this thread but I'll do it one last time.
Although stress can raise blood sugar levels, it's very transient due the compensatory measures your body will take to maintain relatively level blood glucose (unless....wait for it....you're diabetic).
Also, cortisol production due to stress is very short lived, similar to the adrenaline production in a fight or flight situation. So for most of the time, a person's blood sugar lever under stress would remain within normal limits, only occasionally spiking for very short periods of time. This wouldn't happen when the patient is asleep either, no stress then. So there's roughly 8 hours a day of low to normal glucose levels.
The amount of people who smoke has decreased almost exponentially over the past 5 years and I would doubt very much that someone who is suffering with cancer would be filling themselves with fizzy drinks.

So to me it seems like you're clutching at straws here and moving the goalposts too. (I like metaphors).

Similar to what I said about pseudo-science earlier is that it focusses on the almost irrelevant minutiae whilst completely ignoring and forgetting the point of the exercise and this is something you're doing in classic style.

The end point is, does vitamin C therapy (any type) cure cancer.
The answer to that so far is no.
The only studies which suggest vit C can help so far are in using it in conjunction with other chaemo agents although the jury's still out on that too.
But then again, you think they're all rigged so it doesn't matter what the studies say....(apart from if they're in Vit C's favour eh?).
edit on 21/7/13 by Pardon? because: Formatting quote



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 


How many or how often do cancer patients, typically have diabetes.

By the way, Liposomal Vitamin C vs Walmart Tablets affect your body, WAY differently.




Even though I'm not a betting man I would wager that there would be a number of patients who don't smoke or eat unhealthily.


Yet, are these the same patients undergoing liposomal vitamin c treatment along with other bits of complimentary medicine?

I doubt it, very highly. I see how America is working as a server and interacting with people on a daily basis. I have met many who have had cancer, and they just keep living life normally aside from the occasional inconvenience from their cancer.
edit on 21-7-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join