Cancer is DEAD: Cancer cures from A to Z

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Q > What stage & what type of lung cancer does your mom have ? If you don't mind me asking.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
By using the data found in the OP, one could conclude that cancer is simply a nutrient deficiency. And that to cure cancer, all one needs is optimal nutrient intake.

Speaking of nutrient deficiencies...where, exactly, was your information regarding vitamin D?

Oh?

It's about a lot more than nutrients. Antioxidants for starters. There are several external triggers, such as copper, I tried my best to show.

I didn't make a little listing about the different metrics that add up to cancer ticking time-bombs (my data so far would be incomplete anyways), but anyone concerned enough should be able to read what's there and get an idea.

I'm not sure what you mean by Vitamin D (D3 actually).

A place called the Kushi Institute in Massachusetts has gone the profit making route but they too have an impressive "cancer cure" or remission rate using a macrobiotic diet along with more traditional methods, as each case demands.
I know entire families and multiple generations of women who swear by their treatment and success.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by rusethorcain]

reply to post by alpha68


Stage 3b.

Non-Small Cell.

That's all she knows.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


IgnoranceIsntBlisss.....

In my previous post, I wrote this to you:

You'd be hard-pressed to find someone that wouldn't agree that the medical establishment isn't really trying to cure cancer, and they're all correct.

On the one hand.....

I completely disagree with that statement.

On the other hand.....

I highly commend the wonderful information you have provided!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

May I ask.....

Why do you continue to besmirch the wonderful, tireless work being carried out by the incredible men & women in the medical industry who are working to cure cancer?

Why don't you use your own excellent information as a strong complement to that, thereby offering a true "team effort" in this difficult area?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

This piece wasn't just about showing people more weapons they can use in their personal war.

It's also about providing insight into How vast the field of promising-natural-safe-etc things there are out there with scientific evidence and even proof of fighting cancer, and beyond some curious university researchers doing their nifty little experiments the medical community isn't gung ho about any of it.

They all seem to sit around waiting for Big Pharm to cook up some new synthetic (often based on natural things), and recommend to them (the doctors) what to do.

That is conspiratorial in nature, when they could help people do more natural based Full Spectrum assaults on what is likely to kill them, yet instead they opt for wanna-be silver bullet "chemos" that can kill them.

Those curious university researchers and those oncologists don't enter the cancer wars for giggles...they do so to fight a war, and to win. By all means, use complementary methods to engage the foe...but ignore the standard therapies at your peril. Of course cut/burn/poison can kill you. The rationale is that it just might kill the cancer first. And like I said...Zyflamand is in clinical trials and it is being watched. As are all potential cures.

But ask Steve McQueen how that laetrile worked out for him.

You spend too much time farting around with what the ubiquitous "Some Guy On The Net" tells you...you lose your window of opportunity. And die.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Those curious university researchers and those oncologists don't enter the cancer wars for giggles...they do so to fight a war, and to win.

If anyone really wanted to win the war against cancer, they'd clean up the world.

Cancer barely existed in 1900. Now - 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women will get cancer, the point at 180 degrees on the "circle of sick." And never mind the 179 degrees of less-than-clinically-acute sickness that comes before the cancer.

Originally posted by soficrow


Cancer barely existed in 1900. Now - 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women will get cancer, the point at 180 degrees on the "circle of sick." And never mind the 179 degrees of less-than-clinically-acute sickness that comes before the cancer.

That's quite an unfair and inaccurate statement, considering how undeveloped out sense of neoplastic disease was in 1900. Compound that with the fact that the majority of cancers occur in people who would have died at an earlier age in 1900 due to other conditions, and you can see why your view of the "pristine" 1900s is quite irrational and baseless.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


There obviously is no such thing as "a good cancer", but if your going to come down with "LUNG CANCER" non small is the one to get.
There five types & two are or involve small cell.

They will most certainly want to do surgery on her and administer chemo, if for some reason they don't do surgery and just go with chemo they will most likey use a Combination of chemotherapies with gemcitabine (Gemzar), cisplatin (Platinol), and vinorelbine tartrate (Navelbine).

Radiation treatment is rarely given to people with large cell carcianoma, because they can surgically remove it in more than most cases, but that to is never written in stone, and sometimes they opt to do all three.
When they do go that route they will in most cases with etoposide (VP-16, VePesid) and cisplatin (Platinol), also known as "EC" as far as the chemo's, followed by 60 Gy chest radiation.

SMALL CELL carcianoma is by far the worst, the medical profession DOES NOT perform surgery ever on people with that form of lung cancer, they only give chemo & radiation.
(AT LEAST NOT SINCE THE LAST TIME I CHECKED THEY DIDN'T, THE NANOKNIFE COULD MAYBE BE USED, I'M NOT COMPLETELY SURE.)

Do you know about or ever heard about whats known as true "germanium carboxy ethyl sesquioxide?" My research group supports Karl Loren & Vibrant Life, they are good people. Vibrant Life is the only company in the United States that sells REAL Germanium from Japan.


www.organicgermanium.net...
www.organicgermanium.net...
www.organicgermanium.net...
> www.organicgermanium.net...



[edit on 23-8-2010 by alpha68]

[edit on 23-8-2010 by alpha68]

Originally posted by NightGypsy

. But so many is this thread think that these things are cure alls being suppressed by TPTB because there is no money to be made. The profits would be astronomical.

The fact that you can sit there and try to sell the idea that profits from these natural remedies would be astronomical in comparison to the outrageously priced cancer treatments and pain relief medications currently being used by the medical profession is so outrageous that I can only conclude you are either extremely uninformed or you are personally benefiting by promoting your nonsense.

Right on.

Almost 1,000 doses of DCA: about $30.

That's an example of how cheap drugs should be, compared to the fortune they cost us when the patents aren't expired.

Amazing thread! This is a topic im very interested in, and thank you very much for the putting so much effort into this.. respect to you.

reply to post by alpha68


Alpha68.....

AT LEAST NOT SINCE THE LAST TIME I CHECKED THEY DIDN'T, THE NANOKNIFE COULD MAYBE BE USED, I'M NOT COMPLETELY SURE.

It is case & lesion specific.

I have seen lung lesions & been present for NanoKnife procedures wherein specific lesions were very suited to NanoKnife technology & very unfortunately, other specific lesions were strongly contraindicated for NanoKnife technology.

It is important to note that lesions can change very quickly. I was at an extremely unfortunate NanoKnife procedure wherein a 4 week treatment delay caused a lesion not to be treatable.....imagine that.....tragic.....

Time is so often of the essence!

I also note we should probably continue this discussion in the NanoKnife thread, in case ignoranceisntbliss views our discussion as off topic.

NanoKnife: Cancer Breakthrough Without Radiation or Drugs

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


[edit on 23-8-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It's about a lot more than nutrients. Antioxidants for starters. There are several external triggers, such as copper, I tried my best to show.

Most antioxidants ARE nutrients. Ascorbic acid???? Copper is considered a nutrient, one that is typically found in deficient amounts in most people (we don't get enough). Copper deficiency has been directly linked to the formation of atherosclerosis multiple times.

I'm not sure what you mean by Vitamin D (D3 actually).

Yes...Vitamin D. It's a steroid hormone which has, as of late especially, been demonstrated to have extreme anti-cancer benefits. As in, the past 5 years has produced countless studies heralding Vitamin D. It's confusing to me that you wouldn't include it, considering it's much more deeply rooted in science as anti-cancerous than the aforementioned.....

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


I have an acoustic neuroma, which normally isn't much to fuss about as they're usually benign. I'm one of the few that isn't.
They accidentally discovered it while doing an MRI on my neck. I was left hanging for 4 months before they decided I did not have Astryocytoma. They chalked up my swollen spinal cord to a bone spur which was like them telling me I was going to get my life back! They did a laminectomy and removed the anterior portions of C4 - C7. This failed to reduce the swelling and I'm dealing with chronic pain, neuropathy and numbness from the neck down.
This was almost 3 years ago and they've been watching the little bugger (the AN) grow. They want me to have a gamma knife procedure done but since the cancer wraps around the acoustic nerve there is a good chance that they cannot destroy it all without taking out my hearing.
I still have a little time (maybe a year) before this thing grows to a size where it's going to take my hearing anyway. So until then I need to vigorously pursue any alternative treatments I can before the surgery becomes a last-ditch necessity.
I am unsure as to the cell type and I believe it is impossible to tell without a biopsy.
Not sure what else to tell you except that I am on gabapentin and pain meds.

As an aside I used to eat a good deal of wild edible plants and make tea with them. One of my favorites is birch bark tea from cherry birch (betula lenta) which I saw listed. I also grow aloe but have never taken it internally.

Any further advice would be greatly appreciated.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


I feel ya, but you didn't really respond to my response. I hope you will.

From there...
$10,000 a day at the hospital and they don't even spend $.05 and a few minutes printing off a sheet of cancer killer foods for when you go home? Boiled broccoli is what they try to feed you, while the rest of the foods listed herein aren't on the menu or are also boiled (my mom loves broccoli, but couldn't touch what they tried to give her)? Looked puzzled and squirm when you request copper stripper drugs that they already have? And so on.

Assuming their synthetics actually were guaranteed to work, when there are other things you can do yourself to minimize the necessity of reliance on them, yet they consciously try to avoid promotion and/or discussion about these things, how still in that 'perfect' scenario is that not control freak mania?

In reality most people end up dying following the establishment methods.

The real question is how many of those who do die would have lived if they also did everything they could have done on their own, if only they had known (i.e. they had been given lists of good stuff)?

Not everybody is a skilled researcher where their brains are hardwired to effectively and efficiently look stuff up and sift out the true snake oil (especially not when they're sick and medicated).

My attitude would be much different if these gripes of mine weren't actually happening to her directly. This isn't all conjecture based on some stereotype.

My employers father died of cancer: Their family has much more wealth than mine, and their doctors gave them the same runaround.

Again: this is a nearly $1 trillion a year industry we're talking about here.

For all that money, annually, cancer should be a non-issue.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by Asktheanimals

I know there will be a well meaning barrage coming in...hope you can take it in stride. My 2 cents? Essiac is a locally originated therapy that has a certain reputation. Look into the Zyflamend...really, talk to a naturopath and discuss what you're up against. You might get a helping hand that will complement the more invasive therapy.

Keep your spirits up...I found the hardest thing about cancer was telling others not to worry.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Damn. Most of that is way over my head.

Since it is growing stopping that the best you can is key: less to deal with in surgery.

Do they give you anything for slowing the growth?

At thedcasite I read a testimonial from a lady who has been doing DCA in conjunction with 'chemo' for 3 years. She's still going. It was disappeared for a good stretch, and then started up again, down again. I'd do DCA for sure if I were you, and it's really cheap.

With my listing, from what I saw, some stuff, like tea, had numerous good things. Others had good and bad. I did note some that it didn't sound like just eating it (food) in non-concentrate would be a dosage.

I'm still trying to figure out a lot of this myself. While the debate is important, it'd be nice to see more get into these sorts of specifics. A lot of lives are on the line...

[edit on 23-8-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Now that I realize you're an actual cancer doctor, what do you think a top-down direct attack approach of curcumin would do to some lung cancer?

My idea is to use a nebulizer to vaporize curcumin extract.

With several of these things it appeared it had worked from direct exposure (throat, skin cancers). Since lung cancer cells originated from the lungs, wouldn't they have more absorbing properties (from above) than other types? If not, still wouldn't breathing these drugs have it more directly into the bloodstream line being so adjacent and all?

I can't help but ponder the same thing with other things.

Obviously, anything that irritates the lungs is undesirable.

They might not be able to operate to remove it. Can't now they say, and her coverage probably won't cover it, especially not with the bill she's going to have by the time they could.

You won't be sued or anything for helping me understand how this all works!

I might not be a doctor, but I'm an idea guy, and hopefully I can give you some good ideas too.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by soficrow


Cancer barely existed in 1900. Now - 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women will get cancer, the point at 180 degrees on the "circle of sick." And never mind the 179 degrees of less-than-clinically-acute sickness that comes before the cancer.

That's quite an unfair and inaccurate statement, considering how undeveloped out sense of neoplastic disease was in 1900.

Not unfair, not inaccurate. Neoplasia (cancer) is easy to ID - in the patient, AND under a microscope. There were no laboratory businesses in 1900, every doctor had their own microscopes and they knew what they were doing.

According to the American Cancer Society, Forty-one thousand (41,000) Americans (64 people per 100,000) died of cancer in 1900.

...According to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention: "In 2005, an estimated 570,280 Americans-more than 1,500 people a day-will die of cancer." This figure equates to nearly 200 people per 100,000.

Comparing the statistics in the previous two paragraphs, we can see that cancer deaths per 100,000 have more than tripled since 1900.

Source


Also...

In 1930, the lung cancer death rate for men was 4.9 per 100,000; in 1990, the rate had increased to 75.6 per 100,000.

ONCOLOGY. Vol. 13 No. 12

Compound that with the fact that the majority of cancers occur in people who would have died at an earlier age in 1900 due to other conditions, and you can see why your view of the "pristine" 1900s is quite irrational and baseless.

Not irrational, not baseless.


...but more later, am called to dinner.

reply to post by soficrow


You're missing your own point, Soficrow.

Yes, according to the statistics collected in 1900, a smaller number of people died of cancer. However, cancer is not diagnosed with a light microscope anymore, it is diagnosed molecularly. We also have a broader classification of cancer now beyond just a visible tumor.

People who died of "unknown wasting" in 1900 would most likely have been diagnosed with cancer today, as would a lot of children who died early in life due to leukemia, a condition not well understoof in 1900.

Using similar logic, we could say that nearly every metabolic disorder has become epidemic-level since 1900, as we had no tests for them. A lack of diagnostic methods creates an artificially low number of cases, and the advent of such methods creates an artificial spike for a few years. It's a common issue in epidemiology.