It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel
i know what your all saying about doctors and cures , i am still skeptical of a mass medical conspiracy to withold certain cures from the world
1, The hypocratic oath must mean something to these people.
2, They have cured plenty of diseases in the past eg small pox .
3. When they eradicate diseases new ones always mutate/appear so i can't see them worried about the future of the medical proffession not having a job i just don't see it people always need looking after?
4.from my position in the UK where the national health has to pay for these cures it would be more cost effective to cure conditions rather than providing heavily expensive medication to customers ( tax payers expense) for 10.20 or 30 years of thier life ? the former has to be cheaper.
Originally posted by Sestias
I'm sceptical, because it's my understanding that cancer in the lungs is incurable, but the New England Journal of Medicine is not known for sensationalism. I sincerely hope it's true, and that the cure can be repeated for others. If so, it will be the greatest medical achievement of our time, and maybe in history.
what are the adverse effects? bad temper, dermal necrosis, tooth discoloring/decay, increased breathing and heart rate, fatal sensitivity to sunlight, brain damage that can result in loss of speech or cognitive ability, desire to bite/eat other people.
Originally posted by an0maly33
reply to post by d11_m_na_c05
what are the adverse effects? bad temper, dermal necrosis, tooth discoloring/decay, increased breathing and heart rate, fatal sensitivity to sunlight, brain damage that can result in loss of speech or cognitive ability, desire to bite/eat other people. Other symptoms may include dizziness, drowsiness, and decreased libido. Those who have compulsory habits such as gambling should consult their physician.
Please help me to understand this
Thank you.
Originally posted by nexusmagazine
I know of someone recently, with terminal lung cancer, who cured himself over a six week period. He took one teaspoonful of bicarb soda, in a glass of water, three times a day, for six weeks. He coughed up god awful amounts of multi-coloured 'stuff' for the last 4 of the 6 weeks - but said it was worth it. Given that he was told to 'put his affairs in order', he is a pretty happy chap.
Duncan
Originally posted by ravenflt
Originally posted by nexusmagazine
I know of someone recently, with terminal lung cancer, who cured himself over a six week period. He took one teaspoonful of bicarb soda, in a glass of water, three times a day, for six weeks. He coughed up god awful amounts of multi-coloured 'stuff' for the last 4 of the 6 weeks - but said it was worth it. Given that he was told to 'put his affairs in order', he is a pretty happy chap.
Duncan
Yeah, baking soda is supposed to be a cancer killer. According to some theories the only reason it is not used to treat cancer officially is due to that it cannot be patented and also very cheap to produce. After all those billions of dollars spent investing in cancer research it would be a major pain to explain that simple baking soda kills cancer cells.
I think it was explained that the baking soda reaction causes high oxygen levels within cells, which cancer cells cannot handle and destroys them. I think i read on wikipedia that there is one american scientist team researching this at test lab level currently with a special government permit.