Cancer Is Not a Disease - It's a Survival Mechanism by Andreas Moritz

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

No, it's the treatment that can kill them instead of remove the cause of the cancer.

Cancer is cancer-it is not an issue of cutting it out because it is invasive and cutting a tumor out does not guarantee a cure and there is surgery that increases the risk of malignant bacteria such as golden staph.

Not to mention Cancer spreads to other organs on their own free will.

a reply to: Pardon?

Yeah you are probably right. But if I was the kind to drink soda and eat doritos all the time I would still try to cut it out

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I was not familiar with the term.

I haven't finished reading the book. But I did a search and there were zero matches.

What is the point of your question?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

No, it's the treatment that can kill them instead of remove the cause of the cancer.

So when someone is dying of pancreatic cancer can you honestly say that there is an alternative despite the fact that there is a high mortality rate?

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

This is from the footnotes at the end of the book:

Researchers at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia have discovered that an extract of nigella sativa seed oil, known as thymoquinone, can remedy one of the most virulent and difficult to treat cancers: pancreatic cancer. The extract does this by blocking pancreatic cell growth, and actually enhancing the built-in cellular function that causes programmed cell death, or apoptosis.

Moritz, Andreas (2009-02-01). Cancer Is Not A Disease - It's A Survival Mechanism (Kindle Locations 4122-4124). Ener-chi. Kindle Edition.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I was not familiar with the term.

I haven't finished reading the book. But I did a search and there were zero matches.

What is the point of your question?

The point is the absurdity of his belief. The one I quoted here www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: JUhrman

Thank you for your advice. Funny..I do enjoy the occasional candy bar or hard candy like Jolly Ranchers, but, every since I can remember, I've preferred fruit over candy. I even prefer fruit juice, coffee or water over soda. I'd much rather have a ripe peach, fresh off my tree or raspberries or apples or pretty much any fruit, over candy. It's not even a conscious decision, it's just taste preference. Although, I can do some serious damage to a big bar of chocolate when the mood hits.

When I was diagnosed with with Triple Negative breast cancer while pregnant with my 2nd child I started treatment immediately. In addition to the chemo I was given, I was put on a special diet and was advised of a bunch of holistic therapies. I took advantage of every thing that would give my and my unborn daughter a shot at living. Eventually the cancer went into remission. I believe the chemo worked. It made me so sick that at 6 months pregnant I weighed 117 lbs, 6 lbs less than my pre pregnancy weight. My hair fell out. In general, I felt like #. While the chemo was working, the holistic therapies kept me feeling as well as was possible at the time. But, the holistic therapies alone would never have worked IMO. I can understand why people would want to try anything but chemo first. It does suck, more than I could ever explain. The worst for me was when it literally felt like my brain and bones were on fire. However, for some, waiting just isn't an option. Had I of waited and tried holistic therapies first, I would have paid with mine and my daughter's life. It seems very reckless to tell people that this will work for them. Sometimes there simply isn't enough time and the price is the very life you are trying to save.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Your link didn't work.

all bodies are different and therefore reactions can be different with the same treatment on a different person. So maybe some people are getting better from his treatments while some of them are not.

I do not know anything about cancer, but just wanted to say, that I have heard in recent times from two different people a story in which a cancer patient was healed with the water fast. The cancer is supposedly starved to death with this treatment and dies off. I don't know the type of cancer those patients had nor how long did they fight it before the fast.

And if you look at what is happening to the body while fasting, it is detoxing, right? So there I can see a connection with what the OP is about and it could be some truth to it?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Your link didn't work.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: DAVID64
Modern medicine may not know everything, but give me chemo over a carrot any day.

I believe the track record on chemo is abysmal.

From the book:

Statistical Fraud

The cancer industry tries to use statistical “evidence” to convince you that you need to entrust your life into their hands. However, any chemotherapy success stories are limited to relatively obscure types of cancer, such as Burkitt's lymphoma and choriocarcinoma, so rare that many clinicians have never seen a single case. Childhood leukemia constitutes less than 2 percent of all cancers, and thus hardly influences the overall success rate. Chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is a blunt lie. Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin's disease are 18 times more likely to develop secondary malignant tumors later in life (New England Journal of Medicine, March 21, 1996). According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI Journal 87: 10), patients who underwent chemotherapy were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy. Yet if you have a child with lymphoma and refuse treatment for the above well-documented reasons, you face prosecution by the law, and your child may be taken away from you. The bottom line is this: Although only 2-4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy, it has now become standard procedure to prescribe chemo drugs for most cancers. The percentage of people with cancer in the U.S. who receive chemotherapy is 75%.

In its cancer investigations, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reported: “For the majority of the cancers we examined, the actual improvements (in survival) have been small or have been overestimated by the published rates... It is difficult to find that there has been much progress...( For breast cancer), there is a slight improvement...( which) is considerably less than reported.”

One cancer researcher said it even more bluntly: “The five year cancer survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before… More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being ‘cured’. When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly.” ~ Dr. J. Bailer (New England Journal of Medicine, Sept/ Oct 1990.)

Official cancer statistics simply omit African Americans, a group that actually has the highest incidence of cancers. They also don’t include patients with lung cancer which is the most common cause of cancer-related death in men and the second most common in women. However, the statistical data include millions of people with diseases that are not life-threatening and are easily curable, such as localized cancers of the cervix, non-spreading cancers, skin cancers and ductal carcinoma in situ or DCIS— the most common kind of non-invasive breast cancer. Even pre-cancers are included to boost the dismal success rate of modern cancer therapy. Most pre-cancers never develop into cancer.

With a death rate that is not lower, but is actually 6% higher, in 1997 than in 1970, there is nothing to suggest that modern cancer therapy is scientific, effective, or worth the pain, effort, and vast expenditures. This trend has continued to this day. With a failure rate of at least 93%, medical cancer therapy cannot be considered a treatment at all, but rather a serious threat to societal health. Albert Braverman M.D., sums up the vicious cycle perpetuated by the currently used medical model: “Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure.” ~ 1991 Lancet, “Medical Oncology in the 90s.”

Moritz, Andreas (2009-02-01). Cancer Is Not A Disease - It's A Survival Mechanism (Kindle Locations 526-530). Ener-chi. Kindle Edition.

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

No, it's the treatment that can kill them instead of remove the cause of the cancer.

The cause of skin cancer is the sun, how do you remove the sun?

Live underground duuuuuh!

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Okay let's go back to the context of the quote you focused on:

After having seen thousands of cancer patients over a period of three decades, I began to recognize a certain pattern of thinking, believing and feeling that was common to most of them. To be more specific, I have yet to meet a cancer patient who does not feel burdened by some poor self-image, unresolved conflict and worries, or past emotional conflict/trauma that still lingers in his subconscious mind and cellular memories.

You're saying that because there's such a thing as neonatal cancer his statement is absurd?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Okay let's go back to the context of the quote you focused on:

After having seen thousands of cancer patients over a period of three decades, I began to recognize a certain pattern of thinking, believing and feeling that was common to most of them. To be more specific, I have yet to meet a cancer patient who does not feel burdened by some poor self-image, unresolved conflict and worries, or past emotional conflict/trauma that still lingers in his subconscious mind and cellular memories.

You're saying that because there's such a thing as neonatal cancer his statement is absurd?

Why did you exclude the portion I quoted if you're going for context?

And yes, his belief that I quoted is rendered absolutely absurd by the mere existence of neonatal cancer.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: DAVID64
Modern medicine may not know everything, but give me chemo over a carrot any day.

I believe the track record on chemo is abysmal.

From the book:

Statistical Fraud

The cancer industry tries to use statistical “evidence” to convince you that you need to entrust your life into their hands. However, any chemotherapy success stories are limited to relatively obscure types of cancer, such as Burkitt's lymphoma and choriocarcinoma, so rare that many clinicians have never seen a single case. Childhood leukemia constitutes less than 2 percent of all cancers, and thus hardly influences the overall success rate. Chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is a blunt lie. Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin's disease are 18 times more likely to develop secondary malignant tumors later in life (New England Journal of Medicine, March 21, 1996). According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI Journal 87: 10), patients who underwent chemotherapy were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy. Yet if you have a child with lymphoma and refuse treatment for the above well-documented reasons, you face prosecution by the law, and your child may be taken away from you. The bottom line is this: Although only 2-4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy, it has now become standard procedure to prescribe chemo drugs for most cancers. The percentage of people with cancer in the U.S. who receive chemotherapy is 75%.

In its cancer investigations, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reported: “For the majority of the cancers we examined, the actual improvements (in survival) have been small or have been overestimated by the published rates... It is difficult to find that there has been much progress...( For breast cancer), there is a slight improvement...( which) is considerably less than reported.”

One cancer researcher said it even more bluntly: “The five year cancer survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before… More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being ‘cured’. When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly.” ~ Dr. J. Bailer (New England Journal of Medicine, Sept/ Oct 1990.)

Official cancer statistics simply omit African Americans, a group that actually has the highest incidence of cancers. They also don’t include patients with lung cancer which is the most common cause of cancer-related death in men and the second most common in women. However, the statistical data include millions of people with diseases that are not life-threatening and are easily curable, such as localized cancers of the cervix, non-spreading cancers, skin cancers and ductal carcinoma in situ or DCIS— the most common kind of non-invasive breast cancer. Even pre-cancers are included to boost the dismal success rate of modern cancer therapy. Most pre-cancers never develop into cancer.

With a death rate that is not lower, but is actually 6% higher, in 1997 than in 1970, there is nothing to suggest that modern cancer therapy is scientific, effective, or worth the pain, effort, and vast expenditures. This trend has continued to this day. With a failure rate of at least 93%, medical cancer therapy cannot be considered a treatment at all, but rather a serious threat to societal health. Albert Braverman M.D., sums up the vicious cycle perpetuated by the currently used medical model: “Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure.” ~ 1991 Lancet, “Medical Oncology in the 90s.”

Moritz, Andreas (2009-02-01). Cancer Is Not A Disease - It's A Survival Mechanism (Kindle Locations 526-530). Ener-chi. Kindle Edition.

Aside from being a bit suspect, those quotes from articles are over 20 years old.
Why didn't he quote an article from 50 or 100 years ago then he could have shown that the success rate with chemo was zero.
It would have made his zero rate of curing cancer comparable with chemo...he missed a trick there...

Mortality rates have dropped by 20% in just the last 10 years alone.
The range of therapies, some curative, is increasing every month.
You focus on chemo but what about radio-therapy, surgery and medically-preventative measures such as vaccines?

Cancer is an umbrella term for a myriad of diseases so there's never going to be a one-size-fits-all cure or therapy.
Making it out to be something it isn't is dishonest at best and deadly at worst.

I loathe what quacks like him do with an absolute passion.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

From Andreas Moritz's website, "Why Do Young Children and Toddlers Get Cancer?":

Children at that age can experience serious stress, even the Centers for Disease Control and prevention have admitted that children can develop cancer because they have serious stress during early childhood or even before they are born. So it is very well-known that children can develop cancer because of serious stress levels.

Now stress alone does not tend to do it, it needs some other co-factors . . . overall, children can be exposed to severe toxicities, and that you can determine by doing blood tests on a newborn and newborns now have over two hundred fifty different chemicals, toxic chemicals in their blood stream that didn’t exist thirty, forty, fifty years ago.

So a newborn child is no longer a healthy child at least not in our hemisphere where hormones, pesticides, air pollutants, all those different things that the mother is ingesting or receiving while she is growing a baby in her womb is being exposed to. Food alone contains so many chemical components nowadays that they get stuck in the mothers body. It impacts the liver functions and the ability of the mother to detoxify the blood is becoming impaired which also means that she cannot keep the child toxin free as it is growing in her womb.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

From Andreas Moritz's website, "Why Do Young Children and Toddlers Get Cancer?":

Children at that age can experience serious stress, even the Centers for Disease Control and prevention have admitted that children can develop cancer because they have serious stress during early childhood or even before they are born. So it is very well-known that children can develop cancer because of serious stress levels.

Now stress alone does not tend to do it, it needs some other co-factors . . . overall, children can be exposed to severe toxicities, and that you can determine by doing blood tests on a newborn and newborns now have over two hundred fifty different chemicals, toxic chemicals in their blood stream that didn’t exist thirty, forty, fifty years ago.

So a newborn child is no longer a healthy child at least not in our hemisphere where hormones, pesticides, air pollutants, all those different things that the mother is ingesting or receiving while she is growing a baby in her womb is being exposed to. Food alone contains so many chemical components nowadays that they get stuck in the mothers body. It impacts the liver functions and the ability of the mother to detoxify the blood is becoming impaired which also means that she cannot keep the child toxin free as it is growing in her womb.

It would be great if he provided citations to back up what he says otherwise he could say anything he wanted without fear of reproach.

And gullible people might believe him....

a reply to: DAVID64
Me old man lived with Epilepsy for near enough his whole life, on the same meds and was able to control it, mostly. At 60, a 'specialist' changed his prescription against his gp's advice. He became jaundiced and lost weight. After several hospital trips, he was diagnosed with stomach cancer. We were never told that the change in meds kicked off the cancer, but that's what I believe happened. He went in for routine doses of poison and was dead within the year. He didn't die from the procedures that were necessitated by the cancer which was caused by the drug change that wasn't needed. He died in a med bed from a cold. Couldn't eat, couldn't drink. He'd been through so much, his body essentially gave up. Within a year, modern cancer treatment killed my Dad. We assumed to make the right choice, but I wish he'd done the crazy, holistic thing. Even if only for a natural and less invasive passing.

a reply to: Pardon?

He has numerous citations in his book.