75% of the physicians refuses chemotherapy

[maxinatlanta]

If you are talking about this book that you are going to buy then good for you. I hope more people wakes up to the Big Pharma control over the Cancer industry.
Swine flu report that comes with it is priceless

[boudica52]

I think these quotes from this link http://www.healingcancernaturally.co...eatment-2.html are very interesting-

Chemotherapy is ineffective in treating most cancers, the exceptions being acute lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, nonseminomatous testicular cancer, as well as a few very rare forms of cancer, including choriocarcinoma, Wilm's tumor, and retinoblastoma.
paraphrasing Dr. Ralph Moss in Questioning Chemotherapy

(But compare Dr Tim O'Shea quote in On Cancer Business regarding “effectiveness”!)

Chemotherapy and radiation can increase the risk of developing a second cancer by up to 100 times, according to Dr. Samuel S. Epstein.
Congressional Record, Sept. 9, 1987

[ormus]

If you have ever seen the documentary supersize me? I feel like taking cancer on as personal challenge. Take this documentary a step further by getting cancer and then getting rid of it without chemo or any doctors. I think I'll start for breakfast I will eat lots of milk steak and eggs. For a snack ramen noodles and down it with some soda and chips. For lunch I'll eat some pizza with more soda stuff myself until super full then i'll just go to sleep. Wake up have a heavy dinner I'll microwave something wrapped up in plastic or aluminum. I'll expose myself to radation drink tap water and go to some high mountains where the planes are closer to me and I can breath all the air from their nice trails they spray. I will do this for a year stopping at every corner of the city at all the nice fast food $1 value foods i can buy.
Hopefully at the end of the year I will have cancer for I have diabetes and high blood pressure and maybe a couple autoimmune problems. Remember cancer is the goal because we all know diabetes and all that other stuffed can be reversed pretty quick.

[magicmerlin]

I heard via a friend who works for a 'huge global company' (I won't name and shame them) based in the UK that Apricot kernals do indeed help fight cancer. As if we needed telling that, but always interesting when you hear it from within.

[nwo2012]

Many natural treatments for cancer and a few cures too. Gerson therapy worked for the Mrs so I swear by it. I worked on a colorectal/liver cancer ward for 6 years. It is really sad what goes on there, they dont stand a chance.

[nwo2012]

Originally Posted by boudica52

I think these quotes from this link http://www.healingcancernaturally.co...eatment-2.html are very interesting-

Chemotherapy is ineffective in treating most cancers, the exceptions being acute lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, nonseminomatous testicular cancer, as well as a few very rare forms of cancer, including choriocarcinoma, Wilm's tumor, and retinoblastoma.
paraphrasing Dr. Ralph Moss in Questioning Chemotherapy

(But compare Dr Tim O'Shea quote in On Cancer Business regarding “effectiveness”!)

Chemotherapy and radiation can increase the risk of developing a second cancer by up to 100 times, according to Dr. Samuel S. Epstein.
Congressional Record, Sept. 9, 1987

And all the diagnostic tests they do during 'treatment' also cause secondary cancers in addition of course to chemo, radiotherapy or even the surgery itself.

[devicenull]

of cource most of them refuses chemo. Chemo has to do with the theory
that a tumor is something that occurs due to oncontrolled cell division and must
be killd by poison, burnd etc. But al that is wrong. Mutation theory cannot explain the following phenomena.

1, Of only one mutation causes cancer, the chance for cancers to form is too great. Mutaions require cell devisons. There are 10^12 steam cell devisons per day in the aduld human body. If the point mutation rate is 1.1x10^-8 per cell division and cancer is caused by one point mutation, then the theoretical cancer occurence in everybody would be exceptionally high, 1.1x10^4 point mutations or cancers daily (10^12 steam cell divisionsx1.1.10^-8 point mutation/cell division, meaning everybody would have the chance of 10000 cancer cells to form daily. This is obviously not the case. Therfore, a multiple step mutation cancer theory (mutation-latent-mutation to cancer) and DNA repair theory were developed to match the actual cancer incidence. From another perspective, the chance for cancer is too small if multiple specific mutations cause cancer. If cancer forms from five independent point mutations, the theoretical cancer occurence would be 10^12x(1.1x10^8)^5=1.61x10^-28 daily per person or 10^12x(1.1x10^ 8)^5x365x120=7.05x10^24 for a 120 year old person. It is equilant to the chance of one cancer case in 1.42x10^23 people, meaning no one would get cancer in the world. In clinics, 5~10 specific genetic alternations, ore even 11000 genomic alternations per cell were reported for a sporadic colerectal cancer, leading to the question is mutation the cause ore the result of a cancer? Similarly, if the same gene mutation and same expressed proteins are preveland on a group of cancer patients (e.g, deletions of cdkn2a in bone tumor cell lines, p53 and Rb mutations in small cell lung cancer, or in multiple cancer types (e.g, phosphatase and tensin homo-log aberrations on verious cancer, the chance of random mutatio to cause those cancers simultaneously should be impossible in theory.

2, Mutation theory does not explain the time difference to cause cancer in various organisms. More than 50% Sprague-Dawley rats will develop a spontaneous tumorin 2 years and this occurence is far less than one per million in humans at 2 years old. The doubling times of bone marrow derived steam cells from humans and rats 25,2h and 31,5 hours respectively. The division rate of human cells is not slower than that of rat cells, indicating that the chance for DNA replications mistake in human cells is nit any less than that of a rat´s. From the mutation theory alone, humans have no reason to show mush lower cancer incidence rate than rats with the same DNA replication time. Similary, accumulated mutations cannot explain why the cancer occurences are not correlated with the lifespan among diffrent bioloical species e.g, thousands of old trees without cancer versus a 12 day old Drosophila with cancer, althrough they have the same DNA replication mechanisms and similar enviromental risk that can cause mutations. Furthermore, from the fact that cancer exists in some multicellular organisms but not in others, mutation should not be the necessary premise of cancer since all multicellular organisms have potential mutation risk dureing DNA replications, while cancer only exists in a small proporation of them.

3, Multicellular organism cells from two diffrent species in the same potential mutation enviroment have diffrent outcomes on cancerization. Many schistosome related bladder and prostate cancers are reported, while no cancers can be found in the schistosome itself, althrough it has the same potential risk of mutation from the same cancer enviroment. If schistosomiasis associated bladder cancer is caused by the human p53 mutation, why does the same enviroment never hit the schistosome´s p53 gene and develop cancer in the schistosome?

4, Cancer recurrence also cannot be explained by the mutation theory. Supposing one live cancer cell survives after surgical, chemo and radiation therapies, another cancer mass with 1x10^12 cells (about 1 kg) can be formed within 80 days if the cell doubling time is 48 h. If all cancer cells are killed by the aboved standard therapies and new cancer cells are produces by the accumulated mutation again, according to the mutation theory, dozens of years will be needed to develop like the first one. However, this does not match the clinical recurrent cases, most breast cancers recur in 5 years.

5, Mutation cannot explain the cancer incidence rate turnaround at very old ages in mice, >800 days, and humans 85 years. If mutation and failures of immunosurveillance or the DNA repair are the cause of cancer, the aging cells in very old babies should have mush more chance in develop cancer. One explanation to this incidence turnaround is the natural selection that allows the less cancer prone population to survive, the survivors at an old age are not susceptible to cancer. However, this mechanism, if it exists, conflicts with why there is no such phenomenon on other aging diseases such as heart disease. natural selection that allows the less cancer prono population to survive, the survivors at an old age are not suspecible to cancer

But everything above can be explained if one look at wounds and healing.
What sets them apart (diffrent cancer types) can be explaind by epigenetics,
but they are al the same. A tumor is a wound that cant heal.

[austinscott]

I am very glad to see such information; resources like the one you mentioned here will be very useful to us. This is very nice one and gives in-depth information.
___________
WorldpharmaRx

[devicenull]

Not only do they actually know what a tumor is, they have known this for a long time. They also know that chemotherapy and radiation impair the healing process, but continue to use it anyway.

It does not hurt to be written once again.


Cancer as an overhealing wound: an old hypothesis revisited
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18628784
http://zider.free.fr/interne/M2/Modu.../papers/96.pdf

The early hypothesis that "tumors are wounds that duo not heal" has been verrified in a large number of cellular and molecular studies


Cancer is a functional repair tissue
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16290925

However, if the wound is persistent due to chronic physical (radiation, electromagnetic field, trauma, particles, etc.), chemical (carcinogens, toxic chemicals, heavy metals etc.) or biological (aging, free radicals, inflammation, nutrient deficiency, bacteria and virus infections, stress, etc.) damage, amplification of GR gene activation in surrounding cells may lead to a clinical cancer. Attempts to destroy cancer cells without healing underlying persistent wounds will allow for eventual recurrence.


Here is some reading on nutrition for healing process

Nutritional support for wound healing
http://www.pilonidal.org/_assets/pdf/nutrition.pdf

There are a lot more to read about this.
Then if they really wanted to shrink the tumor, i do not understand why they use chemotherapy, given that there are things that beats chemotherapy by horse lengths and that they do not harm, but also have extremely protective effects. You do not need to eat anything, inject or get beamed to reduce the tumor size.

[devicenull]

The death of the cancer cell
Department of Anatomy and Cellular Biology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21507929

the search for identification of a cancer cell should be abandoned

[thecatsmeow]

Dr Tullio Simoncini - Cancer Is A Fungus - Bicarbonate Of Soda Treatment

Cancer and Lemon Juice

Run From The Cure: How Cannabis Cures Cancer And Why No One Knows

[devicenull]

Can you show me any scientific research that shows that? Patients who are critically ill get this more often than others, and not just in any specific area lika a tumor.

Invasive fungal infections in patients with cancer in the Intensive Care Unit

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22337064

Edit : And why he/they almost always se them there is because it is a place with lowe pH because of acids, and lower pH is one thing that candida loves. And surgeons who find tumors in a wounds, are more common than is not.

Edit again : Inflammation is the key for al "cancers".

Edit again : Also check out Dr Leonard Coldwell, the person with proven maximum survival statistics here in Europe, not even he says that cancer is a disease.

Edig : hmm, ehhh, again =) : If you looka at cannabinoids, not only CBD and THC that heals a broken bone 30 % faster than normal, you see 2-ag, 2-age, anandamide, OAE, EAE, NADA etc, in wound healing. not only in PCD (apoptosis), anti angiogenesis, anti proliferative etc (that dosent realy mean that much)

Edit : that dosent realy mather that much, by that i mean it realy dosent mean how small the tumor is, so pcd etc realu dosent mather, like pharma make you beliva. IF YOU REALY BELIVE that a tumor size ant time mathers, than i can show you pappers about alternating current that makes a tumor go avary in one dat, but it dosent healp the animals one bit.

[piskavac]

It is not wonderful doctors distrust chemoterapy. Even in my ounty there are many written or translated books on cancer healing or health in general wich claims there are alternatives for cancer and other dissease, and there is too many drug prescribed by GPs.

One of most avesome book here is book written by Lidia Gayski: - "Pharmaceutical industry lie ill and healthy people".

Good translated book is Chemoterapy cure cancer and the Earth is plain plato.

[kyrani99]

Hi all,
devicenull said:
"Chemo has to do with the theory that a tumor is something that occurs due to uncontrolled cell division and must be killed by poison, burnt etc. But all that is wrong."

Spot on man! It's wrong alright. You need no chemo or anything else of what is offered. You can get well by yourself.

Cancer is a big secret and a well kept secret because it is a real money spinner. In reality.. when you know the truth, you will find that cancer is a paper tiger!

I found that cancer is all about stem-cell mediated immunity, erroneously ignited in the body, owing to the way an unsuspecting person reacts to foul play. This involves relationship and ideas and danger and a lot of shit. When you know the truth you can make yourself well, even from stage 4! I did. I explain it all in my blog at wordpress.com.

I have just begun to post on cancer here http://kyrani99.wordpress.com/2012/0...a-paper-tiger/ but it is necessary to read the preliminary stuff first in the first three or four posts on emotions (bodily processes and nothing psychological) and ESP inside of relationship (which they won't experiment on. They double and triple blind the subjects.) And you need to see the basics of foul game play. These posts are here http://kyrani99.wordpress.com/2011/12/
If you have any questions I will answer them.
faithfully
Kyrani99

[thecatsmeow]

There's a doctor offering a cancer cure here.

[kyrani99]

Learn the truth, investigate.. FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF.. when you do YOU become EMPOWERED and you need no doctors to get well. I have treated myself with mental prescriptions alone and with 100% success every time. And now I know what to do so I don't even get sick in the first place. EASY AS.. Just check out my website.

I share what I know for others to become empowered by their own investigation and by arriving at their own understanding. YOU CAN WIN AGAINST CANCER.

[jondoeuk]

Originally Posted by weeme

I think Mark63 is correct with the figures.



Here is an interesting titbit out of cancertutor.com:

What Most People Die Of

Most people who "die of cancer" really die as a result of the treatment of the cancer by orthodox methods before they would have died of the cancer itself. In other words: the treatment kills them before the cancer kills them.

Most cancer patients die of malnutrition (cancer cells steal nutrients from normal cells thus cancer patients need a stronger than normal immune system) or opportunistic infections caused by a weakened immune system.

* "The powerful drugs used in cancer chemotherapy effectively kill reproducing cells, including both the malignant tumor cells and also, as a side effect, many cells continually reproducing such as hair follicle cells and those lining the gut, leading to severe nausea & vomiting. These side effects can be very severe and many patients find these difficult or impossible to tolerate, falling into a wasting syndrome through malnutrition brought on by a combination of reduced appetite and poor gastrointestinal efficiency, which can itself shorten life expectancy."
http://www.idmu.co.uk/canchemo.htm

Chemotherapy also destroys the immune system in several different ways (including the damage done to the gastrointestinal tract causing less immune building nutrients to be absorbed, among other ways), making people much more susceptible to infections.

Because chemotherapy is so toxic, a person might ask: "can chemotherapy kill the all of the cancer cells before it kills the patient?" The answer is 'no'.

But let us get back to our main question: "does the concept of 'remission' equate to the concept of 'length of life since diagnosis?'" Most people assume there is a direct correlation, however, the damage done by chemotherapy and radiation, and the severe shortening of life due to the complications of these two treatments, cause severe doubt as to the equivalence of 'remission' and 'length of life since diagnosis.'

My point is to say that the measurement statistics of orthodox medicine (i.e. response, remission and markers) have no bearing on life expectancy because they do not compare the benefits of chemotherapy (killing of cancer cells and reduction of tumor size) versus the damage done by chemotherapy (e.g. destruction of immune system, destruction of vital organs, etc.). Nor does the reduction in tumor size have anything to do with life expectancy (I will talk more about this later).

* "It makes no sense at all to use chemotherapy and other treatments that damage cells and tear down and weaken the immune system, when the problem in the first place is that the immune system is too weak already. Even if the tumors go into remission, these treatments have damaged other cells which are more likely to turn cancerous."

link herehttp://www.cancertutor.com/WarBetwee...ure_Rates.html

Cancer may or may not be caused by a weak immune system or it might be cancer cells "switch off" the immune system so they "the immune system" can't fight them or because the cancer cells have a thick protien wall around them and the immune system can't kill them because of this. Also your body won't know how to kill it. Chemo destroys the bone marow which in turn kills you, both red and white blood cells are made in your bones. The best way to treat cancer is though diet, keeping fit, supplements and using heat/light/oxygen (ie ultra sound/P.D.T) treatments and sodium bicarbonate. Cancer needs a hugh amount of "fuel" to keep going so it ends up killing you. Also even if chemo "kills" your cancer, it is never gone and it might come back. If it does the cancer will have built up multi drug resistant genes and chemo will only work for so long. Which chemo you die slow not live longer.

[devicenull]

Originally Posted by jondoeuk

Cancer may or may not be caused by a weak immune system or it might be cancer cells "switch off" the immune system so they "the immune system" can't fight them or because the cancer cells have a thick protien wall around them and the immune system can't kill them because of this. Also your body won't know how to kill it.

Weak immune system ore not, cancer is always a part of it because "cancer" is a healing process. Those so called "cancer cells" have a negative electrical charge on their protein that surrounds them and thats why "other" immunecells repell/leave them alone untill the wound is heald. Then the pancreas produce enzymes like trypsin that breaks down the protein and other cells take care of them through diffrent ways, apoptosis by your own endocannabinoids like anandamide, 2AG etc, inhibit their metabolism and other ways depending on where they are, so your body know howe to kill them, but they dont kill anything that helps the body heal. People are fed with lies so they should believe that cancer is an uncontrolled cell division/growth due to somatic mutation. Those so cald cances genes that promote cancer growth, try to find on thats not activated in the begining of wound healing, and tumor suppressor genes thats not activated when the wound is heald. vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is also a part of the immunsystem. (but in the cancer industry it most be inhibit because its gives the tumor new blood vessels, and eaven promotes neurogenesis. (growth new brain cells) If you take a retrovirus (oncovirus) like rous sarcoma virus and inject it in animals, they dont get a tumor just because the virus is in their blod, they develop a tumor where they injected it, no where else, unless you make a new wound. And thats because inflammation builds up because the wound dosent heal. And they can accelerate the tumor growth by promote more inflammation, and ofcourse keep the tumor compleatle away by using a anti inflammatory therapy. Start reading people.

[devicenull]

A new hypothesis for the cancer mechanism
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22179983
Our proposed hypothesis is that cancer is a natural wound healing-related process,

Immunity, inflammation, and cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20303878

suppression of wound healing in tumor bearing animals as a model for tumor host interaction
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/co.../7997.full.pdf

Cancers as wounds that do not heal: differences and similarities between renal regeneration/repair and renal cell carcinoma
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16849569

The effect of surgical wounding on tumour development
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=10336800

Somatic mutation theory of carcinogenesis: why it should be dropped and replaced
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=11170258
http://www.oncoveterinaria.com.ar/co...inogenesis.pdf

The somatic mutation theory of cancer: growing problems with the paradigm?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=15382143

Paradoxes in carcinogenesis: new opportunities for research directions
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=17683619

Live imaging of innate immune cell sensing of transformed cells in zebrafish larvae: parallels between tumor initiation and wound inflammation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=21179501

Inflammation and cancer: the oncogene-driven connection
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=18502035

Cancer is a preventable disease that requires major lifestyle changes
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=18626751

Inflammation Is Responsible for the Development of Wound-induced Tumors in Chickens Infected with Rous Sarcoma Virus
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/16/4334

Obligatory wounding requirement for tumorigenesis in v-jun transgenic mice
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2167455

Pathways connecting inflammation and cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=18325755


Edit : It´s a well known fact that more and more get chronic wounds

[valkyrieangel]

A doctor friend had cancer and had chemo and recovered very well. I don't doubt that chemotherapy is hard on the body, but it seems to work.