12 Ways to Cure Cancer

this guy messed up, he should have known better. i could make some site and do the same thing but i know its
not legal unless certain guidelines are met

reply to post by Akhkharu19


Otto Warburg had little something to say about this...

we cannot exclude fasting and its list of benefits to potentially curing cancer

Soooo...why does cancer still exist then?

all these cures! are people just too lazy to read up on how to easily be rid of their terminal illnesses!?!

i dont understand!

Will have to come back to this, I have a friend who is being consumed by cancer in many parts of her body.
I'm always on the look out for some hope for her.
Thanks op Brilliant post

Originally posted by Whatwentwrong11001
Soooo...why does cancer still exist then?

all these cures! are people just too lazy to read up on how to easily be rid of their terminal illnesses!?!

i dont understand!

Yes, they are lazy, and non-believing, and duped by the PTB....that's why there's still cancer....a product of mass mind control!

reply to post by satron


'Quackwatch' is the medical establishments answer to 'beforeitsnews' mate.

They are funded by pharmaceutical and related corporations.
Hard to be objective, when you're taking money from big pharma, when the validation of the effectiveness of alternative cures (not treatments, but cures) will be taking trillions away from them, they kinda have a vested interest in keeping the sponsors happy you know?

Originally posted by neOrevolutionist

Originally posted by Whatwentwrong11001
Soooo...why does cancer still exist then?

all these cures! are people just too lazy to read up on how to easily be rid of their terminal illnesses!?!

i dont understand!

Yes, they are lazy, and non-believing, and duped by the PTB....that's why there's still cancer....a product of mass mind control!

That's probably true to some degree but I think the main problem is that certain Government agencies suppress the real cures in preference for expensive treatments/cures. Just look at what the FDA is trying to charge Dr. Burzynski for clinical trials of antineoplastons. Nothing can get onto the market unless the goons have approved it and you've payed up. First they've tried to copy his idea, then they tried to steal it, then they concocted a bunch of bogus criminal charges and tried to put him in jail for over 50 years. All of this has failed, he has won all the court cases. And this has been going on since the 1970's. They say antineoplastons could be approved this year. After looking at that list of cures, who really believes they are going to approve it and let him have the patent?

Originally posted by lokdog
I believe Steve Jobs tried several of these, they worked great for him by all means try them all.

I would like to know exactly what Steve Jobs tried actually. Does anyone know precisely what treatments he tried? I doubt he tried many of the really new ones in my first post.

EDIT: I found the answer. He tried a BUNCH OF CRAP. The things in my list are not as "alternative" as what he tried.

Instead, he tried a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbal remedies and other treatments he found online, and even consulted a psychic.

www.latimes.com...

I google searched the first one you listed and found that high levels cause liver cancer. So I'm kind of skeptical about everything now.


Cancer is cancer. You can't really cure it, beyond killing everything that's there...at least until nano devices.

reply to post by Gorman91

Cancer is cancer. You can't really cure it, beyond killing everything that's there...at least until nano devices.

Nearly all the cures in my list are designed to specifically target cancerous cells. And if you looked one cure was Nano Cells.

My dad was a physician and surgeon. He died in 1981. He told me that patients with cancer should give up sugar, that it helped feed the cancer. Within the past year or so I read an article that scientists said the same thing.

He also said the cure for cancer will never come from huge research facilities, but will be from individuals or a couple of people outside the field. It will likely come from nature. That has been born out by your ATS article, and a doctor in Texas who has achieved great results despite the government and drug companies trying to put him in jail and steal his patents. www.burzynskiclinic.com/

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


There is also a good find i seen on this website, but i do not remember the link or the guys name who found this. One man had a daughter who had cancer, he ended up treating her with this drug that had the cancer cells dying off and for 3 months straight her body was starting to get better as the amount of cancer cells were deteriorating. The FDA and some other administrations ended up either trying or becoming successful with suing him for the use of a non FDA approved drug as a cancer treatment, he had to stop giving her the drug...she soon after died...there is a video documentary on this site somewhere about it and i wish i could find it, im still a newb to this site so if somebody else could figure it out and be a sleuth, post it!

Anything besides chemo is worth a try.

My friends mom (basically my 2nd family) recently got diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer and had 7 spots of it in her brain, I was on the fence of bringing up things like Burzynski's anti-neoplastons because I didnt want to give her false hope, but I decided to tell her anyway since I knew she had the money for the treatment if she chose to try it.

Unfortunately I think it fell on deaf ears, she wasnt all there anymore because of the brain cancer and decided to trust what the hospital told her. She like everyone else started chemo, caught a cold the next week and ended up dying after being on life support for 3 days. This is the 4th person ive personally witnessed die exactly like this after chemo.

Why is this drug that was made in the 60s and never works still being used?

I have a friend who is a researcher at the university of michigan, he came over one day super excited saying he thinks they found the cure for cancer, I wish I could recall the specifics but his language went right over my head, but basically in animal testing the cancer was toast, and the animals were 100% back to normal........sad part is he was so frustrated because it would take them at least 15 years to be able to put it on the market, if the FDA let them go that far with it.

This has to stop, we need some big pharma whistle blowers or something.

To everyone who is stating that there is no money in curing cancer, take a second to read this hypothetical situation I will propose:

Imagine for one second that in tomorrow's headlines, GlaxoSmith Kline (GSK) announced that it had found a single cure for cancer and was going to market it to the masses **

Now, the other drug companies out there (Novartis, Pfizer, Astra Zenica, etc.) have two options which they can possibly take. Number one would be to just sit back, relax and watch GSK reel in an absolute fortune of profits. Number two would be to slam down 5 espressos, and leg it to the research laboratory where they would spend the foreseeable future trying to find a drug that was cheaper to manufacture, more efficient at targeting and destroying cancer or much safer to use (i.e. less side effects).

What option do you think the other pharmaceutical companies would take?


Plus, a lot of independent research groups are responsible for new drugs appearing on the market. I mean, the pharmacology and therapeutics department of my university is involved in researching and developing drugs that combat malaria, amongst other things. A couple of years ago, a load of PhD, Masters and undergrads were involved in the discovery of a new anti malarial drug, isoquine. Unfortunately the drug failed right before the marketing stages. But it goes to show that independent research groups can and will be involved in the discovery of new drugs on the market.



** I say a single cure, but because cancer is such a wide range and variety of diseases which vary physiological quite a bit, I doubt that there will be a single cure.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


I did look. hence why I brought up nano tech.


All I'm saying is, how exactly can you "target" cancer cells. All it is is a normal cell with a broken replicator code. It's not like simple molecules, or even very complex molecules, can target those specific areas. If nothing else, you could chemically flood the receptors for replicating, merely slowing down the rate of growth, so that you can manage it far more easier.

I am not saying its impossible. I'm saying that after looking up just one and finding that using it for the above, most logical reason, makes it cause cancer, leads me to doubt some of these. I merely say, look up the full story. Something that so-called cures cancer, may just cause it somewhere else.

Iodine cures cancer. Most of us who supplement with iodine do so as a cancer preventative. We have an enormous deficiency of iodine throughout the world which is why cancer has become so common. It also has to do with Bromide which is blocking our receptors, so even the small amount of iodine which does come from our food can't absorb at the cellular level where the iodine is needed. Our soil is depleted of iodine and nutrients which means that our food rarely has the nutrients in it which our bodies need. Organic farms which replace their soil and nourish it are the best places to buy vegetables and fruits which are rich in supplements and nutrients.

reply to post by Gorman91

I am not saying its impossible. I'm saying that after looking up just one and finding that using it for the above, most logical reason, makes it cause cancer, leads me to doubt some of these.

Of course it isn't impossible to target cancerous cells, and you clearly don't know as much about chemistry and biology as you think you do. Looking up ONE of these cures and finding that is causes cancer (btw, source please) is a very poor effort. Furthermore, I clearly stated that some of them wont work as stated. It would be silly to believe they all work, because they probably don't.

Now lets just take another look at the first cure I listed in more detail. I found an article written by a guy who is really skeptical about it:

So many people have sent me this sensationalistic article, "Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice", that I guess I have to respond. I sure wish it were true, but you should be able to tell from how poorly it is written and the ridiculous inaccuracies (mitochondria are cells that fight cancers?) that you should be suspicious. The radical, exaggerated claims make the truth of the story highly unlikely.
---
The simple summary is this: that claim is a lie. There have been no clinical trials of dichloroacetate (DCA) in cancer patients

But then he says there is even a peer reviewed paper and suddenly drops all those doubts and goes on to describe exactly how it could work:

But there is a germ of truth to the story, in that DCA does have potential.
---
There are good reasons to think this might work. Many cancer cells arise in hypoxic environments; a poorly vascularized tumor, for instance, is going to be oxygen starved in the absence of blood flow, and the inhibition of mitochondria may be a factor in their survival. There is a well-known phenomenon called the Warburg effect, in which cancer cells will rely on glycolysis even when oxygen is available, suggesting that they have suppressed their mitochondria.

DCA also seems like a relatively safe drug. It's been used for a long time in patients with metabolic disorders, or with metabolic side effects from other problems.

If you look at the Wikipedia page for DCA is describes how DCA can inhibit tumor growth without any toxicity.

A study in mice at the University of Alberta showed that "DCA induces apoptosis, decreases proliferation, and inhibits tumor growth, without apparent toxicity."[4] In 2010, a small human trial on 5 cancer patients and 49 samples of tissue was conducted.[5] The results were encouraging, and DCA "appeared to extend the lives of four of the five study participants".[6]

But on that same Wikipedia page I can now see what you were referring to:

Carcinogenicity

Long term use (a year or more) of high doses (> 77 mg/kg/day) of DCA has been shown to increase risk of liver cancer in mice.[47] Studies of the trichloroethylene (TCE) metabolites dichloroacetic acid (DCA), trichloroacetic acid (TCA), and chloral hydrate suggest that both DCA and TCA are involved in TCE-induced liver tumorigenesis and that many DCA effects are consistent with conditions that increase the risk of liver cancer in humans.[55]

So high doses over an extremely long period of time can have carcinogenic properties. That's a very convenient study done in the 90's. It appears they used mice for those tests. Lab mice tend to have a maximum life span of about two years, so they were probably dosed with DCA most of their life. The experiment is hardly relevant to Humans.

reply to post by Griffo

Imagine for one second that in tomorrow's headlines, GlaxoSmith Kline (GSK) announced that it had found a single cure for cancer and was going to market it to the masses **

Now, the other drug companies out there (Novartis, Pfizer, Astra Zenica, etc.) have two options which they can possibly take. Number one would be to just sit back, relax and watch GSK reel in an absolute fortune of profits. Number two would be to slam down 5 espressos, and leg it to the research laboratory where they would spend the foreseeable future trying to find a drug that was cheaper to manufacture, more efficient at targeting and destroying cancer or much safer to use (i.e. less side effects).

What option do you think the other pharmaceutical companies would take?

Which ever company can design their own cancer treatment and patent it for themselves will make a massive profit, but it's very unlikely to happen. It's usually small teams of scientists or things that can't be patented by the big drug companies. Do you actually know how much it can cost to get chemotherapy? Just look it up. They aren't going to simply throw away a whole industry just because of one simple little cure. They will fight tooth and nail to make it's their way or the high way. And just look at that doctor who has been trying to pass his drug through the system since the 70's. They've literally done every in the book to suppress or steal his idea, short of murdering him. And I wouldn't be surprised if they did kill him. That's how immoral and heartless I believe these monsters are.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


ehp03.niehs.nih.gov...:doi/10.1289/ehp.8692

(url needs some fixing.)

Just ctrl f "Dichloroacetate"

Dichloroacetate (DCA), a by-product of water chlorination, causes liver cancer in B6C3F1 mice

That's not to say it can't cure it. That's to say it simply has a side affect.

But then he says there is even a peer reviewed paper and suddenly drops all those doubts and goes on to describe exactly how it could work:

But this still seems to describe a scorched earth policy of mass elimination of anything. See we know those cells do it that way, we've no clue what other cells will do because of that. As I just posted, one side affect of over-consumption is, in fact, cancer in mice, and that's a good indicator of cancer in humans, considering the cancer is liver, and the liver honestly hasn't changed all that much in function any time recently, beyond I think hearing being able to take more alcohol than it would in other species.

The experiment is hardly relevant to Humans.

Cancer works like that. You have to suppress it all your life. Cancer is, by definition, the result of prolonged deterioration of the cell. These rates change based of the toxicity of an environment. You have to take the drug all your life in some way, or the cancer will eventually return.

This is also why your chances of getting cancer increase if you've already have it. Because it's statistically probable that whatever caused the cancer in the first place didn't just happen in that one pocket of cells, but in fact spread pretty much all over.



This is why "cure for cancer" makes little sense to me beyond programmed viruses or micro technology. A cell is a cell. If once cell gets cancer, and you remove it, whatever caused it will cause it again. This isn't a cure. This is delaying what will eventually happen.

You could, of course, do the responsible thing and clean up the environment, and with it, whatever is causing the cancer. But even if you cured every single thing known to man, you would still eventually get cancer. Because time itself deteriorates the genetic information and causes it to corrupt. Buffer dna shortens every replication, eventually getting to what causes the replication error. Even the nano tech maintaining it will eventually corrupt as well and fail.



To put it simply, you'd have to destroy time itself to stop cancer.