pH kills cancer and an update on my father-in-law who killed his cancer in 3 weeks!

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Rezlooper

G used an all-organic diet plan in combination with a miracle cancer killer cocktail of baking soda and molasses.

How did he get the molasses containing the baking soda into his blood?

The guys espousing this have this illogical belief that by mixing the two, they become a new compound, with the baking soda somehow chemically bonded to the sugar.

Of course, the "molasses" part is entertaining because you might as well use table sugar, or Karo. But "molasses" sounds so much more organic, doesn't it?

And at any rate, the basic premise is flawed. It DOESN'T become a new chemical compound. It's a mixture. So when you consume it, the sugar goes one way, the bicarbonate another, your kidneys do their best to deal with the bicarbonates and sodium, and your liver and pancreas with the sugar.

I find it amusing about the bicarbonate - another 'earth friendly' sort of thing - your body uses bicarbonates to buffer pH at a neutral level. In the blood, they tend to hold pH steady, not be alkaline at all. But then, the people that believe this think molasses-bicarbonate mix is a new chemical.

originally posted by: AlexandrosTheGreat
Some sort of conspiracy is going on in the medical field it just can't be the whole "hide the cure" one, can it?

Look up the late Dr. Robert Mendelsohn...

He nails it down pretty good:

"The medical industry is no longer to be trusted. We have a Medical Inquisition. The Rockefellers took it over way back and warped a lot of it. Our doctors are brainwashed. The Rockefellers are dedicated to population reduction and are using the medical industry to do it. There's no more dangerous activity than walking into a (witch) doctor's office... ~ Dr. Robert Mendelsohn

Confessions of a Medical Heretic - The Temples of Doom
CONFESSIONS OF A MEDICAL HERETIC

"The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government position in an African nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these depopulation interests." ~ Jon Rappoport interview.

The Medical Mafia

Early in the 20th Century, Rockefeller and Carnegie created a medical monopoly by financing 1640 medical schools with pharmacology, leading to the "ethical" drug pushing that has been in practice ever since, because these families owned or indirectly controlled most of the drug companies.

In the dark ages we had the "witches" (mostly females), who were burnt at the stake for practicing alternative treatment in form of herbs and old wisdom. Today the "witches" still exist, but now they call themselves homeopaths, naturopaths and practitioners of alternative medicine. Yet they are still as hunted as they were in the Dark Ages. Why?

Because in these areas the real cures can be found. If you think like Rockefeller you realize that these "witches" are some of his worst enemies, because they halt the genocide of the world population and decrease the income of the Drug Cartels, which are controlled by the Illuminati.

The Witch Hunt on Alternative Medicine

a reply to: Bedlam
I asked the OP to give him a chance to explain, and to bring up the issue so some might learn, but this is one of the few 'theories' that disturbs me more than the "chemtrail" 'theory'.

People need to understand this baking soda and molasses nonsense isn't only wacky and not true, but potentially dangerous advice for someone with cancer.

originally posted by: Dreamwatcher
But you know, bringing facts into the quack...I mean "medical" section ATS is kind of of futile.

I can only hope nobody takes anything they read in this section seriously and consult with real medical professionals.

There are a very good reasons why most MD's refuse to take their own medicine when it comes to cancer.

Chemo has a 97% fatality rate and 9 out of 10 oncologists will not even touch it themselves.

Cancer patients that refuse chemo live four times longer.

Nearly everything that conventional medicine is telling us is fiction.

And your use of the word "Quack" is completely erroneous...

FYI, the REAL frauds and quacks AKA 'Medicine Doctors' are the third leading cause of death in the United States...

"Quacks, just plain quacks, whether we are willing to admit it or not, for are we not doing the very things for which we condemn those who we are pleased to call by this opprobrious name?" W.H. Hay, M.D.

I will expose the real quacks: the doctors, the hospitals, and the pills that kill 225,000 trusting souls every year. That’s like killing the entire population of Caldwell County (38,442) about SIX times. I got the stats, I can back up my claims.

"The chief cause of so-called quackery outside the medical profession is the real quackery in the profession." ~ James A. Smith, M.D.

"Most of the everyday practices of modern medicine are unproven if we go by the government's own standards. In 1978, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), an arm of the United States Congress, issued a major research report that concluded "only 10 to 20 percent of all procedures currently used in medical practices have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial." In other words, 80 to 90 percent of what doctors do to you is scientifically unproven guesswork. By this government-supported definition, most of modern medicine is quackery."---Richard Walters

"Over 100,000 people are killed each year by prescription medications and another 2.1 million are injured. More people die each year at the hands of prescription medications than suicide, firearms, homicide, illicit drugs, or alternative medicine. Conventional medicine has no right to point the finger and call anyone else a quack!"

Source

This is the point at which medicine crosses over the line of anything scientific and becomes a dangerous form of dogma known as "scientism." Modern medicine is not a scientific debate, folks. It's a system of control. Doctors, judges and courtrooms are simply tools of oppression to manipulate, poison and exploit a diseased population, all while isolating them from the natural cures that really work.

Chemotherapy Stickup

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

People need to understand this baking soda and molasses nonsense isn't only wacky and not true, but potentially dangerous advice for someone with cancer.

I don't about that, if someone completely ignored conventional medicine and went straight for the molasses and baking soda that is a worry....However if all else has failed and the cancer is going to kill you anyway i would surely be trying this as well as cannabis oil and any other natural remedy i could find.....it is no more potentially dangerous than the cancer itself...

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Rezlooper

No, not aware. See his last posts on his site go up to 2014. Only see the mention on that facebook page. Doing some research now. If this is true, he was without any cancer symptoms for at least over 5 years before it returned.

That was his page too, with his friend.

Rezlooper, conventional treatments can give you five years too, and can actually cure some types of cancer.
I don't believe in this therapy as there is no real medical/ scientific evidence (unless you can provide it), but I sincerely wish your father in law is cancer free.

Would you believe in the conventional treatments that give you these results?

•In 2016, an estimated 1,685,210 new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States and 595,690 people will die from the disease.

www.cancer.gov...

That's a little more than one third who will die from cancer. Not the greatest odds if you ask me.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Rezlooper

G used an all-organic diet plan in combination with a miracle cancer killer cocktail of baking soda and molasses.

How did he get the molasses containing the baking soda into his blood?

The guys espousing this have this illogical belief that by mixing the two, they become a new compound, with the baking soda somehow chemically bonded to the sugar.

Of course, the "molasses" part is entertaining because you might as well use table sugar, or Karo. But "molasses" sounds so much more organic, doesn't it?

And at any rate, the basic premise is flawed. It DOESN'T become a new chemical compound. It's a mixture. So when you consume it, the sugar goes one way, the bicarbonate another, your kidneys do their best to deal with the bicarbonates and sodium, and your liver and pancreas with the sugar.

I find it amusing about the bicarbonate - another 'earth friendly' sort of thing - your body uses bicarbonates to buffer pH at a neutral level. In the blood, they tend to hold pH steady, not be alkaline at all. But then, the people that believe this think molasses-bicarbonate mix is a new chemical.

I don't think it's a new chemical at all. The baking soda with water will work the same, that's the cancer-killer. The reason for the molasses is to make the cocktail taste better and yes, it works better than any of the other sweeteners and has less sugars than say, honey or maple syrup, and has its own health benefits as well.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Bedlam
I asked the OP to give him a chance to explain, and to bring up the issue so some might learn, but this is one of the few 'theories' that disturbs me more than the "chemtrail" 'theory'.

People need to understand this baking soda and molasses nonsense isn't only wacky and not true, but potentially dangerous advice for someone with cancer.

You asked how the sodium bicarbonate gets past stomach acids to get into the bloodstream for any affect on ph. Any high-alkaline substance such as this neutralizes most if not all acids in the stomach. In the treatment plan my father-in-law took, his diet plan virtually eliminated acids in his body as well. He cleansed his body and lowered his acidic levels while increasing his oxygen levels.

a reply to: Murgatroid


Instead of quoting that whole diatribe of tripe. Lets just address one "fact" you mention:
"here are a very good reasons why most MD's refuse to take their own medicine when it comes to cancer.

Chemo has a 97% fatality rate and 9 out of 10 oncologists will not even touch it themselves."

The first one is easily dismissed, but you’ll see it a lot anyway. It’s frequently cited in articles with titles like 75% of MDs Refuse Chemotherapy Themselves and the claim will go something like this:
Several full-time scientists at the McGill Cancer Center sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used – while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy. (Source: Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)

Wow! This sounds really damning, doesn’t it? What hypocrites those oncologists are! Right? Wrong. It turns out that this survey is over 25 years old and was about a specific kind of chemotherapy, cisplatin for non-small cell lung cancer, which was a new therapy at the time and didn’t have a lot of evidence for it. As Anaximperator describes, a followup survey was conducted in 1997 at a session on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical practice guidelines. Participants were asked to respond to the same question regarding chemotherapy:
You are a 60-year-old oncologist with non-small-cell lung cancer, one liver metastasis, and bone metastases. Your performance status is 1. Would you take chemotherapy? Yes or no? The results? Let Anaximperator tell the tale:
The overall results of the 1997 follow-up survey show that 64.5% would now take chemotherapy – which is almost a doubling from 34% to 64.5% of those willing to have chemotherapy and radiotherapy and a quadrupling from 17% to 64.5% of those who would take chemotherapy alone. Anaximperator adds:
The study from 1991, “Oncologists vary in their willingness to undertake anti-cancer therapies,” pertains to many kinds of cancer and cancer stages, from early stage to terminal, as well as to experimental therapies. It shows percentages as high as 98% of doctors willing to undergo chemotherapy, while the remaining 2 % were uncertain, and none answered “definitely no” or “probably no” to chemotherapy.

Should another survey be conducted today, there’s a good chance the results would be even higher in favour of chemotherapy, given that over the years chemotherapy has shown enhanced clinical benefit and less side effects.

www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...



Anybody can make any BS statistic they want, but real research requires one to look into the methodology of how a statistic was was calculated. But hey, I see people have actually starred your post, showing that indeed injecting facts into this section of ATS is pointless.

Anyway, I would still like to see a disclaimer on this forum about taking medical advice from random people posting on an internet forum.

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: Rezlooper

I had a feeling that all of the usual suspects would pile on and try to derail your well documented testimonial. You have done a stellar job here once again.

A bit off topic, but one of my more enlightened moments of dealing with institutionalized thinking. My son had suffered with depression off and on for about ten years as a young adult. Many doctors including psychiatrists would write prescriptions during the first visit, he confided in eight different professionals (a word that I use lightly). Each drug had it's own bad side affect ranging from having a foggy brain, ear ringing to physical ailments. Not one of those doctors would even consider chemical imbalance, diet, nutrients, they would hear of none of it.

He started juicing a couple of years ago, detoxing and supplementing. He started to feel better but would on occasion drop down into a depression, but fairly quickly come out of it. We knew we were on the right track. It wasn't until I found information on niacin deficiency that we really conquered the depression. It took about 5000 mgs for him to feel the niacin flush but when he did he told me how awake he felt. He has not felt depressed since.

Something as simple as niacin could help some folks. I can never understand why the medical profession can even consider that a patient could simply have a deficiency. From what I have been exposed to I can safely say that a lot of doctors are nothing more than state sanctioned drug pushers.

Considering what chemo and radiation do to the human body it should be imperative that doctors at least encourage the healthiest diet possible while enduring it. My experience is that they do not.

So glad to hear of his ability to overcome depression with a natural cure. That's awesome. Someone asked earlier in the thread if there is a natural cure for PTSD and bi-polar. You are right, I have a person in my family who is dealing with major mental illness in this form as well and I'm going to pass that information on, because, after years of pill addiction piled on high by her doctors, then suddenly cut off when they realized what they had created, she turned to street drugs, and I pray all the time she will defeat her demons. Thanks for the info.

a reply to: Rezlooper

You asked how the sodium bicarbonate gets past stomach acids to get into the bloodstream for any affect on ph.

I was actually more curious as to why anyone might think molasses would enter the bloodstream intact, while smuggling bicarb.

The baking soda/molasses combination caused a drastic pH alkaline spike that oxygenated his cancer cells to their demise. Since cancer cells thrive by fermenting sugar, the molasses was the bait that allowed baking soda's alkaline influence to enter and oxygenate them

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Rezlooper

So happy for you Rez and your FIN, great news! One day we will be free of big pharma and big corporate, but until then we need to fight the good fight and you sir are dealing nice Muhammed Ali style jabs.

a reply to: Rezlooper

Assuming you are just generally telling people this, he's absolutely right in the nature of the danger you're putting people in.

That being said, the reason this exposer scam (its bible related) isn't dangerous is because baking soda isn't generally dangerous.

But to assume the people of God know anything about Doctors, is where the grey lines start.


Btw, general Google keywords for 'baking soda molasses cancer' link several Christian related content sites.

If you ever wanted a chance at representing a serious platform, you might need to restructure. I had no intention of relating those organizations other than to point out, when they show up the science is completely interpretive normally and generally false. There are even full on copypasta phrases you use from that. Maybe the obvious question is why leave out the questionable sources. Your terminology isn't exactly technical and it's safe to assume you're no expert, even if you were on the verge of the greatest scientific discovery of all time, you cannot in a professional manner determine when said cancer advice would be helpful versus dangerous to any given persons specific circumstances, and so generally just saying this is true is a danger without controlled research, data collection, facts and observation of multiple controlled parties.

I mean obviously- what if they have cancer but are allergic to baking soda and don't know that? You can't possibly know the potential outcome without being their doctor, or what scenarios could exist, especially with desperate sick people who are broke.

-It's easly available and it's a buck!!

The quote they would use when they sued you.

a reply to: imjack

I mean obviously- what if they have cancer but are allergic to baking soda and don't know that? You can't possibly know the potential outcome without being their doctor, or what scenarios could exist, especially with desperate sick people who are broke. -It's easly available and it's a buck!! The quote they would use when they sued you.

I am pretty sure the cancer is far more dangerous than the baking soda.....if these people are broke they cannot afford conventional medicine, natural cures are the only alternative and hope they have...

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Cancer is obviously more dangerous than baking soda, but is the arguement really it cures all cancer, when they don't even use the same cancer treatments that are 'standard' for all types of cancer?

The point is a good doctor and researcher would find what types of cancer it affected through experiments, and deduce what it helps best while basically being skeptical, and assuming it has just as likely chance to cause death than cure cancer, until they 200% know for a fact what cancers it cures. (And why.)

If it's so cheap his arguement to why they don't want people to know, makes it a super-cheap research project and if there is evidence, Kickstart has enough community to back that easy. This hasn't been done because people smarter than me know it's bogus. I'm just the guy telling him. It's entirely part of a conservative media movement.

Any Doctor would write it off purely because of the insane amount of conditionals. The amount of statistics it takes to prove it was the baking soda isn't substantial enough with 1 case, so using it as evidence and exposer of such is wrong doing so in the name of a political movement.

Besides, you underestimate how dangerous baking soda can be when you already have cancer.

a reply to: imjack

Cancer is obviously more dangerous than baking soda, but is the arguement really it cures all cancer, when they don't even use the same cancer treatments that are 'standard' for all types of cancer?

Who said it was a cure all ?.......every one out there is different and the reasons people develop cancer are likely unique to that person, the foods they eat, the lifestyle they live and where they live as a few examples....

What works as a cure for one person may not work for another to write off these potential cures because they are not part of "big medicine" is insane...not only insane but counter productive to actually getting better

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Taking a bunch of treatments you're not sure of because you're desperate isn't logical. That's why it's desperate.

Let's make things easy for them and try to do the research before claiming even more things are medicine.

You might not understand that previous baking soda analogy. I wasn't being specific about an alergy, I'm saying a good researcher would consider if it's possible baking soda can cause cancer even, or death etc. and that single cases hardly represent a global anatomy.

It would never go to market without them knowing first.

a reply to: imjack

You clearly have a lot more faith in the medical system than i do, since the medical association became "for profit" money is the difference between living and dying and that does not sit well with me.....

I believe healthcare should be universal and not for a select few that can afford it....just because a doctor tells you something does not make it right

I read many stories of natural health curing of cancer, one was 3 times a week somebody had there feet massaged with anti cancer essential oils for 2 months, they were terminal and at the end they were cured.
These things don't work for all because the cancer is at different stages for everybody, even doctors that have told people they have 6 months have lived another 10 years, and some that are told they have a year are gone in 4 weeks.
Body chemistry is different too for most, what might work on one might not work on another.

But having family members that have died from cancer, each one has to decide what to do, personally I feel that if you give your body what it needs to fight the cancer, it might heal itself, then again it might not, that's why you can die from a tiny cut that causes blood poisoning. There are many variables in play.

Also there are some things considered good medicine by the medical community when it is actually harmful, in fact they wouldn't take it themselves. Yet everybody else is urged to take it.

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Ohhhh if only it really was so easy.....

I hate threads like this, full of false hope and false science I would go on but I really don't have the time to get in to it.

Ohhhh but it is. I witnessed it first hand, and that's it.

Well that's me convinced.
Who needs evidence and basic science when you have testimonials?

Even though it turns physiology 101 on it's head...
(It wouldn't, that was sarcasm).

Lots of links to various websites though, I wonder why.