Cancer, the disease that we cannot cure (ever?) but we CAN treat people!

a reply to: khnum

So we're closed minded because we've researched this and found it failing?

So no proof of any of your "cures"? Is that you Mr Simoncini?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Further to that, the only thing he was qualified In was a Ph.D. in philosophy.

Yeah. Go to a philosopher for medical treatment lol.

LOL
All charlatans are like him, they never have proper qualification and they only target people who do not know much about pathophysiology or pharmacology. Sad indeed.

a reply to: Agartha

I know. It's absolutely hilarious that people believe a philosopher who hasn't ever stepped foot in a lab lol.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Congratulations you win yet another medical thread where anyone thinking laterally or outside the box is made to look stupid or ill informed your job is done op can now close the thread,

a reply to: khnum

Schizophrenia is also caused by Prion diseases, evidence has shown recently. I'd be curious what you did to get rid of a Prion disease (mis-folded protein disease). As I said in the thread yesterday, I believe the majority of diseases that cannot be cured by traditional allopathic medicine may in fact be prion diseases. I have taken herbs my whole life, and other medicines that are non-prescription. The thing I've learned is that prion diseases are stubborn, and resistant to many types of therapy.

One other source of prions that I neglected to mention on my previous reply is food. They are created when you feed pigs to pigs, cows to cows, etc. I think this sort of thing may be a lot more common than the medical establishment wants to admit.

a reply to: khnum

All I did was ask for evidence.

Surely, if you cured what you said, you would have kept records? Also, you would have written to some science mag as it would be truly ground breaking.

Any of that available?

a reply to: khnum

Well I do think there is some truth in it. Well and if you talk about shills , well ats is for of (them) it.

Ah... but I'm that stupid Look if ats is about official narrative then it can.... well you know.

Well I use Niacine to boost my muscles. that isn't scientific too. But has a lot of effect and it's measurable. Science is more open than big pharma or the shilled forums. I played with the thought to post my results but hey why ? As you said it gets derailed. For me it's my secret wapon in weightlifting. also skin tissue regenerates faster (science confirmed). I also read that niacine can prevent certain diseases (you know what ). There is indeed a lot of stuff out there that is way better than regular medicine I know. However I do not know the ins and outs of alternative medicine. For me medicine has to be practical too. And too many pills are just made for profit. Go on with your selfcuring you have my respect!

a reply to: frenchfries

I am here for news and current affairs but yes I know where Im posting and who runs it.

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: TerryDon79

Congratulations you win yet another medical thread where anyone thinking laterally or outside the box is made to look stupid or ill informed your job is done op can now close the thread,

Nothing wrong with thinking outside the box if you can test your medical theories and show they work. Spurting out 'possible' medical treatments that are actually impossible due to the human body physiology is not a clever thing to do, they may be great for science fiction, but not in the real world where people die by following the wrong advice.

a reply to: InFriNiTee

Its a strict regimen and it takes a few months to get results step 1.is to get the candida albicans out of the system I can mail you some details if you want but Im not posting them here

a reply to: frenchfries

Take too much niacin, and you will feel like you're overheating and turn red as a tomato. You'll also destroy your liver. Proven medical science. I just say that to people that might not be aware of the risks of taking niacin pills. Someone told me something like what you said one time, and I tried what they recommended and I almost had to go to the hospital. Be cautious people!

a reply to: Agartha

The link you posted is a trial on using the slightly acidic interstitial environment of cancer cells for imaging, to make them clear for surgery. Not a cure.

I didnt say the link is a cure ! .. I posted the link for showing that PH in cancertissue is more acid. Someone in the forum said ph in the cancercells was the same which isnt true. the next link I posted (look for it) got it from terrydon79 offers possible necrosis of cancertissue in mice, I said PH is the key , a possibility for a cure. whats wrong with that ?

a reply to: frenchfries

The things that's "wrong with it" is, PH isn't a cure. It's not a possible cure. It's never going to be a cure.

Why?

Because for it to be effective, the dose needs to be so high it will kill you.

So no, it's not the key and never will be the key.

a reply to: InFriNiTee

oh man , 1mg I love it. If you train at the same time. Well I'm 10% stronger than without it. Indeed it will destroy liver when taken longer (I think). Indeed Niacine is kinda hefty. But I never drink or smoke and 9% bodyfat so I guess my liver can handle it.

And indeed BE CAUTIOUS WITH NIACINE.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Because for it to be effective, the dose needs to be so high it will kill you.

You're right if ingested orally. One has to find a way to deliver it to the cancercells without affecting normal cells... Look I dont say there is a cure but hey changing PH is a pretty hefty wapeon against cancercells. Maybe in the future , but I still think ph is the key...

originally posted by: frenchfries
I didnt say the link is a cure ! .. I posted the link for showing that PH in cancertissue is more acid. Someone in the forum said ph in the cancercells was the same which isnt true. the next link I posted (look for it) got it from terrydon79 offers possible necrosis of cancertissue in mice, I said PH is the key , a possibility for a cure. whats wrong with that ?

Because PH is not the key to a cure, unless the way cancer cells metabolize energy is a factor on stopping cancer and I know some trials are studying that right now (not clinical trials of course).

The problem is that it's not possible to alter the PH of cells inside a living human body, without killing the person (which is what has happened so far with bicarbonate therapies).



EDIT: Terrydon posted a similar reply once again, lol

a reply to: khnum

I believe you might be onto something there. Candida is a form of fungus. Look at my first reply in the thread here. I said that I believe that prion proteins work in tandem with fungus to inhibit the function of basic things like the pancreas, nerve tissues, brain tissues, etc..

Please feel free to send me the info on ridding yourself of Candida Albicans. I believe that getting rid of the fungus is the first half, and the second half is finding things that can destroy prions. I have a basic handle on controlling the fungus aspects. As proof, when I have a high blood sugar a few days in a row (from type 1 diabetes) that is the only time I get brown fungal infections on different spots of the skin. The fungus also makes the blood sugars MUCH tougher to control.
I haven't had a flare-up with that in almost a year, but I still have the diabetes.

I believe we have everything we need to cure disease, but it is just a matter of finding the winning combination. The winning combination his something I haven't totally figured out. The best thing to keep blood sugars stable is to do everything at the same time (meals, snacks) and identical amounts of food for each sitting. They used to call it the German Protocol for Diabetes in allopathic medicine.

I'm glad to hear that you were able to get rid of the disease. I do believe things like this are possible.

a reply to: 1FreeThinker

As long as cancer is viewed as a disease and not a symptom then you are correct... it will never be cured. It will only be "treated".

If you approach it as a symptom and go that route your chances of survival for most cancers is much higher if you do not follow conventional treatments. I say most because there are some almost effective conventional workarounds for breast, testicular and lung cancers. I'd love to see the 10 year survival rates though.

My wife cured her sarcoma almost 5 years ago with PH balancing, dietary changes and some over the counter supplements. She was told her chance of survival (5 year) was 0% with "conventional" methods. She was given 3-6 months by her oncologist. We have a friend that is 27 years and going now after being given 6 months (thyroid cancer). She did Gerson's. The list goes on.

There have been about 10 actual effective cancer solutions discovered in the last 100 years. Your doctor is not, by law, allowed to discuss them with you. Her surgeon told her that.

So those that say that conventional western medicine is the best way to go, great. I see it as social darwinism.

Weed out those who can't think for themselves.

a reply to: frenchfries

Ingesting it won't do a thing.

I'm talking about infecting the tumour itself. Changing the PH to be effective, would saturate the blood with a high PH and kill you.

a reply to: Agartha

The problem is that it's not possible to alter the PH of cells inside a living human body, without killing the person

Indeed , but I dont mean to change the PH of a living human just the PH of cancercells (which cannot be done now more research needed nanobots?).

btw,Thanks for reading only the things I write. I'm not into alternative medicine and PH of cancercells has nothing to do with it.