Cancer Lover Sugar - MRI Scan Proof

reply to post by beckybecky


Why do you keep on posting the same thing.
You need to learn to explain yourself better then maybe, just maybe, people will take you seriously.

I'm not sure what you mean by "people like you".
Is that people who don't agree with you?
Or people who have the background, education and intellect to understand medical studies and sniff out woo and falsehoods?

I'll attempt to reply to your post (I already have but what the hell).

I'm guessing by negative survival rate you mean chaemo ending cancer sufferers lives prematurely.
Is that correct?

If it is, then yes, it certainly does happen.
Believe it or not, people with cancer aren't very well, so treating them with cytotoxic chemicals will be bad for them. Thankfully though chaemo is more targeted nowadays and there are various options to counter side-effects. Still, if the cancer is progressed then the regime is more aggressive and the mortality rates go up, for obvious reasons.

The actual mortality rate from chaemo itself is still less than 10% though. That's a figure which fully encompasses all cancers at all stages though. Individual mortality rates have multiple factors.
The actual mortality rate from untreated cancer is always 100% (give or take the very odd cases of spontaneous remission).

What people seem to be forgetting though (and I did mention it before) is that chaemo is not the only option.
It's only used on its own for a few specific cancers and is generally used alongside surgery and/or radiotherapy.
(That's where the Australian study fell down a bit, it was lumping the efficacy of chaemo on ALL cancers).

So beckybecky, rather than shoot down the current treatment regime for cancer why not share with us your solution for it.
Naturally this should be fully backed-up with reproducible and verifiable evidence (not YouTube vids and testimonials please).


Whilst you're Googling for them please take time to read this.

scienceblogs.com...

Reading comprehension 101...

Originally posted by beckybecky
reply to post by Mirthful Me

 

also you ignored the false cancer positives just as i expected as if that is taken into account the chemo has a negative survival rate.

also people like you never explain why if your wonderful chemo is so successful why 560000 died from cancer last year in America.

care to explain that?

I have no idea where you get the idea that there are all these "false cancer positives," would you care to site specific studies (a study would be a peer reviewed academic effort, not some whack job website that sling whatever agenda driven drivel is their cause du jour). Cancer is quite easy to identify and stage. It's done at a cellular level as cancer is a cellular disease (hence the term cytotoxic chemotherapy). That's why biopsies are done, or in the case of some cancers like leukemia, a blood test will suffice. There's no mystery when it comes to diagnosing cancer.

As for the efficacy of chemotherapy, I refer you to this document:

www.cancer.org...

The 5-year relative survival rate for all cancers diagnosed between 2002 and 2008 is 68%, up from 49% in 1975-1977 (see page 18). The improvement in survival reflects both progress in diagnosing certain cancers at an earlier stage and improvements in treatment.

A 20% improvement... That's fantastic, and we are getting better at it all the time.

On a side note, I don't recall ever advocating chemotherapy, just pointing out the glaring flaws in your suppositions.

I sense much fear in you young beckybecky, and that fear seems to have clouded your ability to be rational regarding this topic.

I haven't read all the replies but wouldn't the key to be find an isotope that is proven to kill cancer but not healthy cells which also binds with the glucose molecules and is still absorbed in the same way? Could this be possible? I'm no chemistry expert

reply to post by Mirthful Me


quote "A 20% improvement... That's fantastic, and we are getting better at it all the time".


a 20% improvement on 3% survival rate is unverifiable and subject to error.

i mean 20% of 3% is 0.06%.

so you need to do better.

also all of you have just ignored the 560000 pile of dead bodies from cancer in America every year DESPITE YOUR WONDERFUL CHEMO.

why do you ignore that figure.because your chemo does not work as you claim?

Originally posted by beckybecky
reply to post by Mirthful Me

 

quote "A 20% improvement... That's fantastic, and we are getting better at it all the time".


a 20% improvement on 3% survival rate is unverifiable and subject to error.

i mean 20% of 3% is 0.06%.

so you need to do better.

also all of you have just ignored the 560000 pile of dead bodies from cancer in America every year DESPITE YOUR WONDERFUL CHEMO.

why do you ignore that figure.because your chemo does not work as you claim?

edit on 16-7-2013 by beckybecky because: pressing it home.

Your calculation, like your argument, is wrong.
20% of 3% is 0.6% not 0.06%.

Have you got your other numbers out by a factor of 10 too?

Once again I'll ask what the alternative is.
Once again I'll ask you how many people would be dead without treatment.

I'll also ask you to read another link (not that you will though...)

Read This

Back to school...

Originally posted by beckybecky
reply to post by Mirthful Me

 

quote "A 20% improvement... That's fantastic, and we are getting better at it all the time".


a 20% improvement on 3% survival rate is unverifiable and subject to error.

i mean 20% of 3% is 0.06%.

so you need to do better.

also all of you have just ignored the 560000 pile of dead bodies from cancer in America every year DESPITE YOUR WONDERFUL CHEMO.

why do you ignore that figure.because your chemo does not work as you claim?

edit on 16-7-2013 by beckybecky because: pressing it home.

Please reread the quoted text and refer to the entire document cited... The overall five year survival rate improved from 49% to 68% in little more than 25 years... That's an increase of 20% (19% to be more accurate, but I'm trying to keep things simplified in order to accommodate your cognitive deficiencies) which by any reasonable standard is fantastic! It means in broad terms, seven out of every ten people who are diagnosed with cancer will live five years.

Repeated for your edification:

www.cancer.org...

The 5-year relative survival rate for all cancers diagnosed between 2002 and 2008 is 68%, up from 49% in 1975-1977 (see page 18). The improvement in survival reflects both progress in diagnosing certain cancers at an earlier stage and improvements in treatment.

As for your statistics... I have no idea where you are deriving them from, or what point you are trying to make... There are terriers who provide more cogent arguments in tightly coiled loops on their master's front yard than what you have been able to provide here...

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Back to school...

As for your statistics... I have no idea where you are deriving them from, or what point you are trying to make...

oh really?


so it is difficult for you to understand that if chemo,etc is so successful why 560000 people end up dead from cancer in america alone every year?


also it is suddenly it is beyond your wit to find these figures on the internet?

just admit you are batting for the chemo industry.

well you just keep doing that.

reply to post by beckybecky


I see we are mired in your puerile circumambages... You seem to be focused on the number 560,000 annual cancer deaths in the U.S. which you have declared to be some kind of maniacal and premeditated act by the healthcare industry. Given the 68% five year survival rate, the number of U.S. cancer deaths without comprehensive treatment would be about 1,750,000... I leave it up to you on which number you find more appealing...

Here is an interesting case that you might want to review, Mark Herzlich. In the past, Ewing's Sarcoma was treated by amputation when an extremity was involved... Today, with a combination of chemotherapy, radiation and surgery, not only is it possible to keep your leg, but to actually lead a normal life, or in Mark's case, lead an extraordinary life and not only play in the NFL, but to play in the Super Bowl (and win)...

Your prejudice towards cytotoxic chemotherapy is duly noted, and should you or anyone else who shares your misguided precepts have the the unfortunate circumstance to have to elect or decline that form of treatment, you will not fare well...

reply to post by Mirthful Me


Something I find interesting and on topic......

www.lewrockwell.com...

According to researchers Hickey and Roberts, repeated doses, and use of a special liposomal form of vitamin C that is absorbed in the gut and then into the liver before it is released into the blood stream, are key to making oral vitamin C therapy effective. Another important factor is to limit the consumption of carbohydrates (refined sugar) which impairs oral absorption of this vitamin.

Dr. John Ely, emeritus professor at the University of Washington, has also shown that sugar depletes vitamin C from white blood cells and makes them sluggish. White blood cells are the very cells that attack tumor cells and destroy them.

The cancer cell-killing effect of vitamin C is realized by the transient production of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) within connective tissues (not in blood), which then destroys tumor cells, and subsequently turns to harmless water (H2O), ensuring non-toxic therapy.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Pardon?

Click here for more information.

you are one saying it is a cure or a wonderful and only treatment for deadly cancer.

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
reply to post by beckybecky

 

I see we are mired in your puerile circumambages... You seem to be focused on the number 560,000 annual cancer deaths in the U.S. which you have declared to be some kind of maniacal and premeditated act by the healthcare industry. Given the 68% five year survival rate, the number of U.S. cancer deaths without comprehensive treatment would be about 1,750,000... I leave it up to you on which number you find more appealing...

Here is an interesting case that you might want to review, Mark Herzlich. In the past, Ewing's Sarcoma was treated by amputation when an extremity was involved... Today, with a combination of chemotherapy, radiation and surgery, not only is it possible to keep your leg, but to actually lead a normal life, or in Mark's case, lead an extraordinary life and not only play in the NFL, but to play in the Super Bowl (and win)...

Your prejudice towards cytotoxic chemotherapy is duly noted, and should you or anyone else who shares your misguided precepts have the the unfortunate circumstance to have to elect or decline that form of treatment, you will not fare well...

1) i don't intend to get cancer thru precautions.

2) if i do i will never go for the fraudulent chemo.

3) i have a method that works.

Originally posted by beckybecky

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
reply to post by beckybecky

 

I see we are mired in your puerile circumambages... You seem to be focused on the number 560,000 annual cancer deaths in the U.S. which you have declared to be some kind of maniacal and premeditated act by the healthcare industry. Given the 68% five year survival rate, the number of U.S. cancer deaths without comprehensive treatment would be about 1,750,000... I leave it up to you on which number you find more appealing...

Here is an interesting case that you might want to review, Mark Herzlich. In the past, Ewing's Sarcoma was treated by amputation when an extremity was involved... Today, with a combination of chemotherapy, radiation and surgery, not only is it possible to keep your leg, but to actually lead a normal life, or in Mark's case, lead an extraordinary life and not only play in the NFL, but to play in the Super Bowl (and win)...

Your prejudice towards cytotoxic chemotherapy is duly noted, and should you or anyone else who shares your misguided precepts have the the unfortunate circumstance to have to elect or decline that form of treatment, you will not fare well...

1) i don't intend to get cancer thru precautions.

2) if i do i will never go for the fraudulent chemo.

3) i have a method that works.

Not once have I said chaemo is a cure or that it's "wonderful".
It's one treatment that has some effectiveness for certain types of cancers (I really don't know how many times I need to write that before it sinks in).
Try to read others' posts before you reply.

Hopefully you will never get cancer, most people don't.
However, no matter how healthy people are or how hard they try to prevent it, they get it.
I've seen that so many times.

Would you care to share the your "method that works" with us alongside all the proof you have gathered?

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by beckybecky

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
reply to post by beckybecky

 

I see we are mired in your puerile circumambages... You seem to be focused on the number 560,000 annual cancer deaths in the U.S. which you have declared to be some kind of maniacal and premeditated act by the healthcare industry. Given the 68% five year survival rate, the number of U.S. cancer deaths without comprehensive treatment would be about 1,750,000... I leave it up to you on which number you find more appealing...

Here is an interesting case that you might want to review, Mark Herzlich. In the past, Ewing's Sarcoma was treated by amputation when an extremity was involved....

.

Would you care to share the your "method that works" with us alongside all the proof you have gathered?

Nope.

since you have made it clear in your mission statement is to extol the virtues of chemo and denigrate anything else that is not corporate sponsored.

Originally posted by beckybecky

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by beckybecky

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
reply to post by beckybecky

 

I see we are mired in your puerile circumambages... You seem to be focused on the number 560,000 annual cancer deaths in the U.S. which you have declared to be some kind of maniacal and premeditated act by the healthcare industry. Given the 68% five year survival rate, the number of U.S. cancer deaths without comprehensive treatment would be about 1,750,000... I leave it up to you on which number you find more appealing...

Here is an interesting case that you might want to review, Mark Herzlich. In the past, Ewing's Sarcoma was treated by amputation when an extremity was involved....

.

Would you care to share the your "method that works" with us alongside all the proof you have gathered?

Nope.

since you have made it clear in your mission statement is to extol the virtues of chemo and denigrate anything else that is not corporate sponsored.

edit on 18-7-2013 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)

Why did I know that was going to be the answer?
(That was a rhetorical question by the way.)

I knew it would be the answer as you haven't got a provable nor successful method, you've just read or seen something on Youtube which fits your beliefs and gone with it.

You immediately think I'm pro-pharma because I'm not against it.
Not everything's black or white I'm afraid.
I've been looking for a "better" treatment for cancer probably since you were in nappies (diapers you call them I believe).
I've looked at all sorts of alleged "cures" over the years and not one has any credence when scrutinised properly (I'm fortunate to have a background to easily sort the wheat from the chaff and not be sucked in by pseudo-science and the odd big word).
There are break-throughs in cancer research almost every week but given that I've seen things which look promising and then fall flat after further studying and scrutiny I have a natural scepticism.

So, if you're what you like to consider opposite to big pharma (i.e. you care about people's health more than you do about money or fame), do people a service by telling us your secret method.
If it works (and I'll know pretty much immediately if it does or not) I can gurantee I will be your biggest advocate.
And you can believe me on that.

Is anybody going to stop arguing with Becky, and actually comment on-topic to my own post, proving that cancer loves sugar?

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by beckybecky

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by beckybecky

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
reply to post by beckybecky

 

If it works (and I'll know pretty much immediately if it does or not) I can gurantee I will be your biggest advocate.
And you can believe me on that.


but you have already said only chemo works in your book.this automatically means that anything that is not chemo does not work in your book.

Originally posted by Pardon?


So, if you're what you like to consider opposite to big pharma (i.e. you care about people's health more than you do about money or fame), do people a service by telling us your secret method.
If it works (and I'll know pretty much immediately if it does or not) I can gurantee I will be your biggest advocate.
And you can believe me on that.

but you have already said only chemo works in your book.this automatically means that anything that is not chemo does not work in your book.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Is anybody going to stop arguing with Becky, and actually comment on-topic to my own post, proving that cancer loves sugar?

Are you feeling left out?

Firstly, as I think I wrote earlier, cancer doesn't love sugar any more than any other cell in the body does.
It just uses more of it than normal cells.
The only reason cancer cells use more than normal cells is that they grow faster than them.
They don't grow faster because there's more sugar available.

I've struggled to find anything concrete on John Ely, the only reference to the U of W being as a Physics Professor. That leads me down so many paths I've been down before...

Vitamin C like many other cancer "cures" has shown initial promise in the odd individual study but like so many others has failed to deliver when those studies have become more robust.


I know you won't like my answer but that's the only one I can give you after seeing lots of vitamin C "evidence".