Cancer Lover Sugar - MRI Scan Proof

Originally posted by intergalactic fire
Anyone saw this docu?
Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business
vimeo.com...

Didn't yet had time to research some points made in the docu and the credibility of it, maybe it has already been covered on ATS, what do you guys make of this?

I have a strong guess that Big pharma is one big corrupt, profit making bussiness, where the real descision makers care much more for power and creating a monopoly than curing people from their disease. There is no money to make in a cure.
I also believe there are other alternative, less expensive and safer cures for for example cancer.
Which those are i don't know but i would put my money in nature.

This is also an interesting docu i saw the other day.
War on Health - Gary Null's documentary exposing the FDA
www.youtube.com...

I will pardon myself now for just posting 'some youtube videos' and not the actual paper reports and other research material. When more time is available for me i will look a bit deeper into it, for the meantime maybe some other members did their research and care the share.

Latest or Burzynski :-

articles.mercola.com...

Proving this Therapy Works

Twelve phase 2 clinical trials have been successfully completed under the supervision of the FDA, and they are now conducting three phase 3 clinical trials. Six additional phase 3 trials are also being planned.

“Currently, our efforts are directed to treat patients with malignant brain tumors especially children and also patients who have advanced colon cancer which could spread to the liver. This is in the area of clinical trials.

As far as our medical oncology practice is concerned, we treat all kinds of cancers especially patients who have the disease advanced to the point that they were told that there is nothing that can be done. That’s the typical patient who is coming to us, the patient with very advanced cancer who has tried other types of treatment and who are simply told to go to the hospital because there is nothing else that can be done.”



=====================================================================

Dr. D’Agostino explains how the ketogenic diet can have such a dramatic (and rapid) effect on cancer. All of your body’s cells are fueled by glucose. This includes cancer cells. However, cancer cells have one built-in fatal flaw – they do not have the metabolic flexibility of your regular cells and cannot adapt to use ketone bodies for fuel as all your other cells can.


articles.mercola.com... =art1&utm_campaign=20130310

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by beckybecky

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by beckybecky

Originally posted by Pardon?
reply to post by beckybecky

 

Not one listing in the A-Z on here can be proven to be effective.

Not one listing in the A-Z on here can be proven to be effective.


Proven by who?

so when a company posts something anything it does not have prove anything but a person does.

the people posting are posting information just like you do.they don't have to prove anything.heard of newspapers with the latest telling about the latest wonder drug at 1000% mark up with massaged figures to support its alleged effectiveness.

you said any person who cures themselves is just some sort of magic spontaneous remission and nothing to with any action they took since chemo is the god standard in your book.

I think this may have to be my last reply to you as you're becoming quite ridiculous.


If you have any idea whatsoever about trial and study data you would understand that it's not a case of a company or person writing something and suddenly it becomes accepted.
That's what happens on fake health sites. They're called "testimonials" and they are as fake as the moon being made of green cheese.
Proper studies have to be published and subjected to peer reviews where any and usually every part of the study is challenged by others not connected with that study but with expertise in the field.

Well a review of such studies as you suggest has been done and it was found that at 80% least of these peer reviewed studies were fraudulent,plagiarized and unable to be replicated.

also they found some of the reviewers were non existent and in other cases the reviewers were on the payroll of the company whose product they were reviewing.

Also they found some of the studies were ghost written by the seller of the product!

in another case a professor was sent a cheque for $10000 and his name used as peer study reviewer.


so when you say That's what happens on fake health sites. They're called "testimonials" and they are as fake as the moon being made of green cheese
So most of your perr reviewed studies are no better then these testimonials and possibly more dangerous as they promote very toxic products which can result in fatalities.

what do you have to say to that?

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Pardon?

 

How many or how often do cancer patients, typically have diabetes.

By the way, Liposomal Vitamin C vs Walmart Tablets affect your body, WAY differently.

The percentage of diabetic patients who contract cancer is only slightly higher than the percentage of diabetics v non-diabetics.

I'm almost certain I was talking about the end product vitamin C or ascorbic acid irrespective of the source.
Are you saying they form different substances?

reply to post by Pardon?


Absorbed by the body differently....One is broken down by the gut, due to it being coated in Lecithin, something your body needs to make every major organ and muscle in the body effectively.

Go back and read my reply again, I have edited it.

Can you be sure that these cancer patients who don't smoke or eat unhealthily, or are in any way stressed out; are the same ones undergoing the Liposomal Vitamin C, or IV treatment?

Can you even prove it?

Originally posted by beckybecky


Latest or Burzynski :-

articles.mercola.com...

Proving this Therapy Works

Twelve phase 2 clinical trials have been successfully completed under the supervision of the FDA, and they are now conducting three phase 3 clinical trials. Six additional phase 3 trials are also being planned.

“Currently, our efforts are directed to treat patients with malignant brain tumors especially children and also patients who have advanced colon cancer which could spread to the liver. This is in the area of clinical trials.

As far as our medical oncology practice is concerned, we treat all kinds of cancers especially patients who have the disease advanced to the point that they were told that there is nothing that can be done. That’s the typical patient who is coming to us, the patient with very advanced cancer who has tried other types of treatment and who are simply told to go to the hospital because there is nothing else that can be done.”



=====================================================================

Dr. D’Agostino explains how the ketogenic diet can have such a dramatic (and rapid) effect on cancer. All of your body’s cells are fueled by glucose. This includes cancer cells. However, cancer cells have one built-in fatal flaw – they do not have the metabolic flexibility of your regular cells and cannot adapt to use ketone bodies for fuel as all your other cells can.


articles.mercola.com... =art1&utm_campaign=20130310

Let's have a proper look at Burzynski's trial shall we.

See how many are complete and how many have posted the important part i.e. the results.
What's that, only one completed trial and no results!!
That can't be right, surely?

Burzynski Clinical Trials

I can post links about "Stan" too.
Burzynski's Millions


If you really think that a caveman diet will cure you of cancer then I'm afraid you're going to be extremely disappointed.
And dead.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Absorbed by the body differently....One is broken down by the gut, due to it being coated in Lecithin, something your body needs to make every major organ and muscle in the body effectively.

Go back and read my reply again, I have edited it.

Can you be sure that these cancer patients who don't smoke or eat unhealthily, or are in any way stressed out; are the same ones undergoing the Liposomal Vitamin C, or IV treatment?

Can you even prove it?

I don't really think it's for me to prove, do you?
You are the one making the changes so you need to prove that the reason that vitamin C isn't curing cancer is because of the variables.
All I see at the moment is no-one being cured. Full stop.

Irrespective of where it's broken down the active ingredient is the ascorbic acid isn't it?
The active site is in the interstitial tissues isn't it?
Therefore it's irrelevant where and how it's broken down but in what form it's in when it reaches the target area. Wouldn't you agree?

Well a review of such studies as you suggest has been done and it was found that at 80% least of these peer reviewed studies were fraudulent,plagiarized and unable to be replicated.

also they found some of the reviewers were non existent and in other cases the reviewers were on the payroll of the company whose product they were reviewing.

Also they found some of the studies were ghost written by the seller of the product!

in another case a professor was sent a cheque for $10000 and his name used as peer study reviewer.


so when you say That's what happens on fake health sites. They're called "testimonials" and they are as fake as the moon being made of green cheese
So most of your perr reviewed studies are no better then these testimonials and possibly more dangerous as they promote very toxic products which can result in fatalities.

what do you have to say to that?

I know I'm asking the obvious here but do you have concrete proof of that claim?
Do you think it applies to every single study?

Do you think testimonials promoting fake cures leave everyone feeling healthy?
Or do you think quite a few people are critically harmed because of them?

What's The Harm in Alternative "Medicine"?

reply to post by Pardon?


And pharmaceutical companies don't hire the very same ghostwriters?

Bull#, take your bias somewhere else...

reply to post by Pardon?


The difference in the two is in the bio-availability due to the form....I could take a 1000 mg Vitamin C tablet from Walmart, but after the timed release, my body can only use about 20% of that. However, if I'm taking liposomal vitamin c, and the lecithin must be broken down as well; it increases the bio-availability of the vitamin c to 80-90%.

The percentage of diabetic patients who contract cancer is only slightly higher than the percentage of diabetics v non-diabetics.

So essentially; quite a few cancer patients typically have diabetes...Thanks for beating around the bush to say it >.>

Even though I'm not a betting man I would wager that there would be a number of patients who don't smoke or eat unhealthily yet still no-one has been cured of cancer by vitamin C therapy. Not one person at all.

You leveled this claim or accusation. I would like to see the source or citation for such a claim...In no way is this burden of proof on me. I would like to see your citation for the cancer patients who are being treated with Vitamin C therapy, are living the compatible lifestyles to the treatment, that you say they are..

I think the reason you are attempting to shift the reverse to myself, is because you know just how hard your own burden of proof is... I also think that you should give this a nice little read if you think Cortisol/Sugar/Insulin have nothing to do with cancer.

Hazards of Refined Carbohydrates

When large quantities of simple carbohydrates enter the blood stream, the pancreas secretes insulin to try to protect the brain from the excess sugar. This depresses glucagon production, so when the sugar in the blood has been used up, the body has a hard time mobilizing sugar from storage. The result is hypoglycemia, low blood sugar. This causes cravings for sugar, which jacks the sugar level up again. This is why blood sugar starts taking a roller coaster ride, taking your mood along with it.

These high insulin levels cause fat stores to increase as the body tries to find ways to store the sugar. The hypoglycemic reactions from this can also cause stress on the adrenals, especially when someone is using caffeine to stimulate them. Stress hormones like cortisol are used to try to bring blood sugar levels up again. This contributes to adrenal fatigue.

High insulin levels also depress the production of prostaglandins that control inflammation. As the adrenals also become exhausted from the sugar and caffeine consumption, they also lose their ability to control inflammation. Chronic inflammation sets in, which leads to heart disease, cancer and inflammation in the brain which contributes to the destruction of brain cells.

Originally posted by Pardon?

Well a review of such studies as you suggest has been done and it was found that at 80% least of these peer reviewed studies were fraudulent,plagiarized and unable to be replicated.

also they found some of the reviewers were non existent and in other cases the reviewers were on the payroll of the company whose product they were reviewing.

Also they found some of the studies were ghost written by the seller of the product!

in another case a professor was sent a cheque for $10000 and his name used as peer study reviewer.


so when you say That's what happens on fake health sites. They're called "testimonials" and they are as fake as the moon being made of green cheese
So most of your perr reviewed studies are no better then these testimonials and possibly more dangerous as they promote very toxic products which can result in fatalities.

what do you have to say to that?

I know I'm asking the obvious here but do you have concrete proof of that claim?
Do you think it applies to every single study?

Do you think testimonials promoting fake cures leave everyone feeling healthy?
Or do you think quite a few people are critically harmed because of them?

What's The Harm in Alternative "Medicine"?

Where is your proof that these studies are unbiased and free influence by the pedlers of your chemo?
Your post is an embarrassing collection of assertions made by charlatans who steal money from the gullible and helplessly ill. With the exception than many real clinics employ counseling to help patients psychologically deal with their illnesses, not to cure an illness (if it isn't psychological in origin), there isn't a single medically correct statement in your post. All you have to do to prove me wrong is provide some credible research to support your points. This is a science site, so don't offer opinions or articles in websites that don't reference their claims for evidence, just provide us with some science. A forlorn hope.


only treatment is chemotherapy.and more chemotherapy.it will always be the treatment for cancer.always.just like the last 50 years.

makes a ton of money.


I know I'm asking the obvious here but do you have concrete proof of that claim?

This is very good article and shows just bad the situation is and why you should never just believe any study no matter where it comes from.The links are in the article.

And it a shocking indictment of "research" and scientists.Read the whole article.
links are in the article.

"Worse, in medicine, it can delay the development of life-saving treatments or prolong the use of therapies that are ineffective or dangerous. Malpractice comes to light rarely, perhaps because scientific fraud is often easy to perpetrate but hard to uncover..."

more than two-thirds of the biomedical and life sciences papers that have been retracted from the scientific record are due to misconduct by researchers, rather than error...

Those who document misconduct in scientific research talk of a spectrum of bad practices. At the sharp end are plagiarism, fabrication and falsification of research. At the other end are questionable practices such as adding an author's name to a paper when they have not contributed to the work, sloppiness in methods or not disclosing conflicts of interest..

In medicine where the profit motive over rides all ethical considerations the fraud is even more prevalant.Billions rest on the marketing dangerous and ineffective drugs.

Glaxowellcome has been fined not millions but billions over the last 30 years for all sorts of practices.

This is on record.Just google them.You will be shocked.

At this very moment they are being investigated in China or have you not heard? How convenient.



www.guardian.co.uk...

Originally posted by Pardon?

If you really think that a caveman diet will cure you of cancer then I'm afraid you're going to be extremely disappointed.
And dead.

Than you should ask those uncontacted tribes how they survived untill the western world tried to 'civilize' them, after that all sorts of diseases appeared.
That's extremely disappointed.
Having a disease is civilized.

I've seen that article.
And it would be pretty naive of me if I thought that the peer review method was infallible, it's not and never has been.
Just look at the likes of Linus Pauling and Andrew Wakefield for proof.

But for you to say that it effects 80% of studies is just a complete fabrication.
The Guardian article you cites is one I read a while ago and it's main body is about fakery in psychology journals. As you know, psychology is a very theoretical based disciple and also very subjective, hypotheses and theories can be very difficult to prove and/or replicate therefore it makes faking studies that much easier.

Science and medicine based studies are comparatively easy to reproduce and whilst it's still easy to fake results this tends to happen just the once. If someone else performs the same study but gets different results both will be cast under scrutiny.
The other thing about these studies is generally, you can see straight away whether results add up or not. The important thing is to read the study from start to finish though, not just the results and/or conclusions.
Plus you seem to think that there are only certain bodies allowed in on peer reviews. Erm, the whole point of peer review is sort in it's name.

Like I said, it's not 100% safe, but it IS 100% better than anonymous testimonials generally written by the author of the website promoting the woo and the important thing to remember is that these fraudsters have no regulation whatsoever. If something adverse happens to someone who uses their method off the internet do you think they care?
No, not at all. They just take your money and run.

Ask Kim Tinkham's family about Robert Young.
When she died of a cancer that he said he would cure (and actually said that on TV) do you know what he said?
He said that "she mustn't have followed his instructions properly" and that was it. No condolences, no apology, no "I need to look into this and find out what might have gone wrong" just glibly said the above and forgot about it.
He's still touting that he can reverse metastatic breast cancer though...
Now that's what you call not giving a crap but loving the payment.

You also have the cheek to quote from Mercola.
Mercola is a marketeer first and foremost. Again, he's doesn't care one jot about your or anyone else's well-being. Just your wallets.
He fills his site with controversial articles knowing it drag in the demographic he's targeting his sales of products to along with the paid ads for all types of "miracle" cures.
Give him his due though, he does it well. His main offices near Chicago would make a big pharma one seem a bit shabby and he can afford it, he makes nearly $2000 per day just on ads alone.

So spare me the money is god for big pharma, health is god for alt med.
Money's god for both, the difference being that one is regulated and the other isn't.
You don't need any qualifications or experience to set up a woo site. All you need is a good story (and looking at some of them, they don't even have to be good). You don't need to offer any proof or evidence and if you're asked for some all you have to say is "Who needs proof when I have testimonials like this?".
And the gullible and desperate will come.

Still waiting for your method though.
Care to share it, naturally with verifiable proof that it works.
As there has been none whatsoever from you other the other anti-medicine people yet.

So yes, prove to me beyond all doubt that any of these methods work and I'll take you seriously.
If you just keep on attacking conventional methods to try to prove your "theories" I will take that as agreement that you don't have any proof at all.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Pardon?

 

The difference in the two is in the bio-availability due to the form....I could take a 1000 mg Vitamin C tablet from Walmart, but after the timed release, my body can only use about 20% of that. However, if I'm taking liposomal vitamin c, and the lecithin must be broken down as well; it increases the bio-availability of the vitamin c to 80-90%.

The percentage of diabetic patients who contract cancer is only slightly higher than the percentage of diabetics v non-diabetics.

So essentially; quite a few cancer patients typically have diabetes...Thanks for beating around the bush to say it >.>

Even though I'm not a betting man I would wager that there would be a number of patients who don't smoke or eat unhealthily yet still no-one has been cured of cancer by vitamin C therapy. Not one person at all.

You leveled this claim or accusation. I would like to see the source or citation for such a claim...In no way is this burden of proof on me. I would like to see your citation for the cancer patients who are being treated with Vitamin C therapy, are living the compatible lifestyles to the treatment, that you say they are..

I think the reason you are attempting to shift the reverse to myself, is because you know just how hard your own burden of proof is... I also think that you should give this a nice little read if you think Cortisol/Sugar/Insulin have nothing to do with cancer.

Hazards of Refined Carbohydrates

When large quantities of simple carbohydrates enter the blood stream, the pancreas secretes insulin to try to protect the brain from the excess sugar. This depresses glucagon production, so when the sugar in the blood has been used up, the body has a hard time mobilizing sugar from storage. The result is hypoglycemia, low blood sugar. This causes cravings for sugar, which jacks the sugar level up again. This is why blood sugar starts taking a roller coaster ride, taking your mood along with it.

These high insulin levels cause fat stores to increase as the body tries to find ways to store the sugar. The hypoglycemic reactions from this can also cause stress on the adrenals, especially when someone is using caffeine to stimulate them. Stress hormones like cortisol are used to try to bring blood sugar levels up again. This contributes to adrenal fatigue.

High insulin levels also depress the production of prostaglandins that control inflammation. As the adrenals also become exhausted from the sugar and caffeine consumption, they also lose their ability to control inflammation. Chronic inflammation sets in, which leads to heart disease, cancer and inflammation in the brain which contributes to the destruction of brain cells.

edit on 21-7-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

Dear me.
Once again, I'm talking about high-dose vit C therapy.
High-dose doesn't mean what you take, it means what's delivered.
Have I cleared that up now?

Obviously I need to make things a little simpler for you to understand.
Diabetics, for various reasons and not all to do with their diabetes per se, have a slightly increased chance of developing certain cancers than people who don't have diabetes.
Ergo the percentage of people who are diabetics and have cancer will be slightly higher to those who have cancer but aren't diabetic.
Say out of 100 diabetics, 5 may have cancer compared to 3 out of 100 having cancer without diabetes.
Since the percentage of people who have diabetes in the US is around 9% it's not hard to see that your statement is a little off the mark.

Now I'm quite up to date with physiological processes involving sugar metabolism but thanks for your refresher.
However, your description is very close to a fabricated disease called "adrenal fatigue" of which there is no such thing.
Every post you write is making me less convinced.

Anyway, you are still trying to obfuscate the issue with minutiae.
Can you show me a verified and corroborated case where vitamin C therapy cured someone of cancer or not?
That's the bottom line and if you can't then no amount of pretence will change that fact.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


That's great coming from you.
All of the cases cited on the website are easily researched further should you wish to find out more about them.

The truth of the matter is that these cases are probably only the tip of the iceberg as these are the one that have been found out about and/or reported.
How many aren't found out about?
How many people present themselves to oncology clinics when they realise (always too late) that their alternative therapy isn't working?

reply to post by Pardon?

Obviously I need to make things a little simpler for you to understand. Diabetics, for various reasons and not all to do with their diabetes per se, have a slightly increased chance of developing certain cancers than people who don't have diabetes. Ergo the percentage of people who are diabetics and have cancer will be slightly higher to those who have cancer but aren't diabetic. Say out of 100 diabetics, 5 may have cancer compared to 3 out of 100 having cancer without diabetes. Since the percentage of people who have diabetes in the US is around 9% it's not hard to see that your statement is a little off the mark.

I'm sorry maybe I should have chose what I said a little better....

So essentially what you are saying is, more cancer patients are diabetic, if by a small degree, compared to those who are not. Correct?

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Obviously I need to make things a little simpler for you to understand. Diabetics, for various reasons and not all to do with their diabetes per se, have a slightly increased chance of developing certain cancers than people who don't have diabetes. Ergo the percentage of people who are diabetics and have cancer will be slightly higher to those who have cancer but aren't diabetic. Say out of 100 diabetics, 5 may have cancer compared to 3 out of 100 having cancer without diabetes. Since the percentage of people who have diabetes in the US is around 9% it's not hard to see that your statement is a little off the mark.

I'm sorry maybe I should have chose what I said a little better....

So essentially what you are saying is, more cancer patients are diabetic, if by a small degree, compared to those who are not. Correct?

No.
Are you just being obtuse now?

To make it as simple as I possibly can, around 12% of all cancer patients have diabetes. This includes being diabetic before developing cancer and becoming diabetic because of the cancer or complications surrounding it.
So this means around 88% of cancer patients do not, will not and never have had diabetes.
Is that better?

reply to post by Pardon?


Give him his due though, he does it well. His main offices near Chicago would make a big pharma one seem a bit shabby and he can afford it, he makes nearly $2000 per day just on ads alone.

how much does Glaxowellcome make in a day?

The ones who have been fined billions already and are under investigation right now again.

and you forgot about the drug vioxx which killed 100000 people..

you seem to have a selective memory.

reply to post by Pardon?


Sorry, read things a little bit backwards sometimes. It's like a form of dsylexia. I thought you were saying like 3 in 100 people have cancer, and 5 in 100 people have both... Apologies.

However, can I see some kind of citation on this? You won't mind of course, will you?

Originally posted by beckybecky
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Give him his due though, he does it well. His main offices near Chicago would make a big pharma one seem a bit shabby and he can afford it, he makes nearly $2000 per day just on ads alone.

how much does Glaxowellcome make in a day?

The ones who have been fined billions already and are under investigation right now again.

and you forgot about the drug vioxx which killed 100000 people..

you seem to have a selective memory.

Why do I have a selective memory when this thread isn't about pharma bashing nor Vioxx?

The case is that you have an agenda against big pharma.
That's fine but this thread is about cancer and sugar isn't it?

Oh, if Mercola could make as much money as Glaxo he would, believe me.
But the point I was making (as you so spectacularly missed, yet again) was that he's in it for the money and the money only.
He's not this altruistic health guru he's suckered you into thinking he is nor does he really care how true or factual the articles on his website are.
As long as the site keeps on getting the numbers of hits from the desperate and gullible, he's laughing all the way down to his second home in Florida.
And third in the Caribbean.

reply to post by beckybecky

Cancer Lover Sugar

So does all other cells in the human body. In fact, so does all other cell of all other animals and even plants.