You can overcome cancer without chemotherapy or radiation

[Guest guest]

Cancer does NOT have to be a Death Sentence

Most Cancers can be eliminated!

When a cell loses 60% of its oxygen it is considered cancer! You can defeat

cancer with diet change, herbs and a return to whole foods. The word Cancer

means crab and/or creeping sore. Cancer tissue and cells cover a broad spectrum

of malignant (bad) neoplasms (new cells). There are over one hundred types of

bad new cells (malignant neoplasms) classified as cancer. Each is believed to

have a different cause. The types of cancer are carcinomas, which affect glands,

skin, organs, and mucous membrane skin; lymphomas, which affect lymph glands and

fluid; sarcomas, which affect bones, muscles, connective tissue; and leukemia,

which affect blood. Cancer is a disease that has become a profit-making

industry. As an industry, it must expand the medical signs and symptoms of

cancers as well as the definition of cancer. This expands the market share

(amount of people to buy treatments). This industry also expands its arsenal of

treatments, such as drugs, research projects, chemotherapy, and surgeries, which

increase profit. Unfortunately, cancer is not a disease, but an industry.

Cancer develops when cells in a part of the body begin to grow out of control.

Although there are many kinds of cancer, they all start because of

out-of-control growth of abnormal cells.

Normal body cells grow, divide, and die in an orderly fashion. During the early

years of a person's life, normal cells divide more rapidly until the person

becomes an adult. After that, cells in most parts of the body divide only to

replace worn-out or dying cells and to repair injuries.

Because cancer cells continue to grow and divide, they are different from normal

cells. Instead of dying, they outlive normal cells and continue to form new

abnormal cells.

Cancer cells often travel to other parts of the body where they begin to grow

and replace normal tissue. The cancer cells get into the bloodstream or lymph

vessels of our body. When cells from a cancer like breast cancer spread to

another organ like the liver, the cancer is still called breast cancer, not

liver cancer.

Cancer cells develop because of damage to DNA. This substance is in every cell

and directs all its activities. Most of the time when DNA becomes damaged the

body is able to repair it. In cancer cells, the damaged DNA is not repaired.

People can inherit damaged DNA, which accounts for inherited cancers. Many times

though, a person's DNA becomes damaged from exposure to something in the

environment, like cigarette smoke.

Cancer usually forms as a solid tumor. Some cancers, like leukemia, do not form

tumors. Instead, these cancer cells involve the blood and blood-forming organs

and circulate to other tissues where they grow.

Not all tumors are cancerous. Benign (non-cancerous) tumors do not spread to

other parts of the body (metastasize) and, with very rare exceptions, are not

life threatening.

Different types of cancer can behave very differently. For example, lung cancer

and breast cancer are very different diseases. They grow at different rates and

respond to different treatments. That is why people with cancer need treatment

that is aimed at their particular kind of cancer.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States. Half of all

men and one-third of all women in the US will develop cancer during their

lifetimes. Today, millions of people are living with cancer or have had cancer.

The risk of developing most types of cancer can be reduced by changes in a

person's lifestyle, for example, by quitting smoking and eating a better diet.

The sooner a cancer is found and treatment begins, the better are the chances

for living for many years.

For more information go to www.drafrika.com

[Guest guest]

re: Cancer is a disease that has become a profit-making industry. As an

industry, it must expand the medical signs and symptoms of cancers as well as

the definition of cancer. This expands the market share (amount of people to buy

treatments).

Hmmm. 1 in 3 men will get a serious cancer in their lifetime, and 1 in 2 women.

So if you are correct, the physicians, scientists, and regulators, who also get

cancer - whose children and loved ones also get cancer - all know this but are

complicit anyway?

~ Karl

Patients Against Lymphoma

www.lymphomation.org

[Guest guest]

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: You can overcome cancer without

chemotherapy or radiation

Karl,

There is no big conspiracy, no cabal, but there is an overarching

capitalist paradigm for healthcare. This makes as much sense as

making police and fire protection capitalism based: no protection

unless your credit card is on file along with an adequate credit ceiling.

Physicians are indoctrinated by the pharmaceutical

manufacturers. Physicians know that if they rock the boat they are

open to litigation and to having their licenses suspended. There is

no motive to becoming an outcaste within their own

guilds. Physicians have no idea how to cure any chronic

disease. This is why it is called chronic. Chronic disease is their

cash cow and there is no motivation to do anything but suppress

competition. It is a rare physician who can wrest himself/herself

away from their indoctrination to effectively treat a family member.

Scientists care about their next grant or their next contract. That

is what they do. Their research is extremely reductionist and they

would have no idea what to do to treat a family member. I have

participated in thousands of meetings, conferences, and dinners with

molecular biologists, biochemists, cell biologists, and

physician-researchers. The conversations are mostly technical or

about stock value. If the topic of nutriceuticals comes up then

attitudes often become dismissive and antagonistic -- the same as one

would get from an allopathic clinicians.

Typical attitudes:

" Isaiah J. Fidler, a senior cancer researcher from M.D. in

Houston, warns that it is " biologically impossible " for any single

treatment, however successful, to have an impact on every kind of

tumor in every organ of the body.

" Don't be depressed when you see a paper that says, 'We cured

cancer,' " Fidler advised colleagues attending a medical meeting in

Philadelphia last month. " No, we didn't. Everybody here will have a

job for years to come. "

and,

" There's no room in the market for a non-toxic cancer

therapy. " Quote from a V.P. in a MAJOR pharmaceutical company I'd

rather not name.

and,

" Hittle, a top biotech analyst at A.G. in St. Louis,

indulges in a little gallows humor. " We sometimes joke that when

you're doing a clinical trial, there are two possible disasters, "

Hittle said. " The first disaster is if you kill people. The second

disaster is if you cure them. The truly good drugs, " he continued,

" are the ones you can use chronically for a long, long time. "

--International Herald Tribune SATURDAY, MARCH 1, 2003

Regulators make their living by going along with the program and

following the law to the nth degree. I have never met one with a

venturesome bone. Those at the top levels know that they can always

have a future as a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical manufacturers.

In 2005 there were 1274 registered pharmaceutical lobbyists in

Washington, D.C. -- more than two for every member of Congress. In

2008 a record $189 million-plus was spent on federal lobbying. If

the industry was honest there would be no lobbying of congress and

the FDA. Pharmaceutical manufactures would do their trials, submit

the results, and let the chips fall where they may.

If the pharmaceutical industry was honest there would be no need for

" direct-to-consumer " advertising, but more is spent on marketing than

on research. It is very effective advertising. Why should the

physician say no to a patient when he already has a closet full of

samples and the drug rep will be more than happy to supply the

physician with more free samples of her wares.

Right now the US is in serious economic difficulty because of a total

lack of banking regulation, a lack of transparency, and a roll back

of progressive taxation that began in 1981. The pharmaceutical

industry has gone down a parallel track. Millions of people have no

healthcare. The industry as a whole does not want any cure for

anything -- only more expensive treatments that are incrementally

better, and of course the industry wants more discomforts and social

problems that can be portrayed as problems in need of pharmaceutical attention.

Karl, the whole industry is money driven. If the Obama team worked

out a financial algorithm that was based on preventing and curing

chronic diseases for even greater profits for the industry, and

failure was punished with ignominy and fines, we would see the end of

virtually all chronic disease.

The whole medical industry makes its living by convincing their

potential customers that they just want to help. Are they all

crooks? Not at all. They are simply doing what is legal, or what

they can get away with, or what they are told to do. Of course the

morality of this is a very different matter.

Karl, I hope you study more and reflect more on these issues. As you

are an intelligent person you might help the country and the world

find a better paradigm.

At 01:59 PM 3/22/2009, you wrote:

>re: Cancer is a disease that has become a profit-making industry. As

>an industry, it must expand the medical signs and symptoms of

>cancers as well as the definition of cancer. This expands the market

>share (amount of people to buy treatments).

>

>Hmmm. 1 in 3 men will get a serious cancer in their lifetime, and 1

>in 2 women. So if you are correct, the physicians, scientists, and

>regulators, who also get cancer - whose children and loved ones also

>get cancer - all know this but are complicit anyway?

>

>~ Karl

>Patients Against Lymphoma

>www.lymphomation.org

[Guest guest]

75% of the physicians refuse chemotherapy

The great lack of trust is evident even amongst doctors. Polls and

questionnaires show that three doctors out of four (75 per cent) would refuse

any chemotherapy because of its ineffectiveness against the disease and its

devastating effects on the entire human organism. This is what many doctors and

scientists have to say about chemotherapy:

Dr. Hardin , lecturer at the University of California, after having

analyzed for many decades statistics on cancer survival, has come to this

conclusion: when not treated, the patients do not get worse or they even get

better. The unsettling conclusions of Dr. have never been refuted.

(Walter Last, The Ecologist, Vol. 28, no. 2, March-April 1998)

Many oncologists recommend chemotherapy for almost any type of cancer, with a

faith that is unshaken by the almost constant failures.(Albert Braverman, MD,

Medical Oncology in the 90s, Lancet, 1991, Vol. 337, p. 901)

Several full-time scientists at the McGill Cancer Center sent to 118 doctors,

all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they

had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they

themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental

therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they

would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum“ one of the

common chemotherapy drugs they used“ while 58 out of 79 believed that all the

experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness

and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy. (Philip Day, Cancer: Why

we're still dying to know the truth, Credence Publications, 2000)

More at : http://www.jmbblog.com/75-of-the-physicians-refuses-chemotherapy/

Chemotherapy and radiation can increase the risk of developing a second cancer

by up to 100 times, according to Dr. S. Epstein.

Congressional Record, Sept. 9, 1997

bottom6307

S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational

Medicine (University of Illinois School of Public Health)

[Guest guest]

79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any

treatment containing cis-platinum, one of the common chemotherapy drugs they

used.

No kidding. That sh*t F***s you up, and they see it every day.

[Guest guest]

,

That drug companies have a profit agenda is self-evident, however, the standard

of care in medicine evolves from peer review of published randomized clinical

studies. If a sponsor misleads physicians or the public with its promotional

materials, they will be forced to correct it by FDA.

To win marketing approval of a drug for a specific indication (not cancer in

general, but the type of cancer), requires large randomized studies, with

independent data monitoring. FDA reviewers, by law, must have no financial

conflict of interest.

For examples, see NCCN.org which publishes the expert committee-based standards

for each indication.

See for example, guidelines for lymphomas

http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/nhl.pdf

Clinical science is a group effort, based on clinical results of published

clinical studies, not advertisements.

Karl

Patients Against Lymphoma

www.lymphomation.org

>

>

> Subject: Re: [ ] Re: You can overcome cancer without

> chemotherapy or radiation

>

> Karl,

>

> There is no big conspiracy, no cabal, but there is an overarching

> capitalist paradigm for healthcare. This makes as much sense as

> making police and fire protection capitalism based: no protection

> unless your credit card is on file along with an adequate credit ceiling.

>

> Physicians are indoctrinated by the pharmaceutical

> manufacturers. Physicians know that if they rock the boat they are

> open to litigation and to having their licenses suspended. There is

> no motive to becoming an outcaste within their own

> guilds. Physicians have no idea how to cure any chronic

> disease. This is why it is called chronic. Chronic disease is their

> cash cow and there is no motivation to do anything but suppress

> competition. It is a rare physician who can wrest himself/herself

> away from their indoctrination to effectively treat a family member.

>

> Scientists care about their next grant or their next contract. That

> is what they do. Their research is extremely reductionist and they

> would have no idea what to do to treat a family member. I have

> participated in thousands of meetings, conferences, and dinners with

> molecular biologists, biochemists, cell biologists, and

> physician-researchers. The conversations are mostly technical or

> about stock value. If the topic of nutriceuticals comes up then

> attitudes often become dismissive and antagonistic -- the same as one

> would get from an allopathic clinicians.

>

> Typical attitudes:

>

> " Isaiah J. Fidler, a senior cancer researcher from M.D. in

> Houston, warns that it is " biologically impossible " for any single

> treatment, however successful, to have an impact on every kind of

> tumor in every organ of the body.

>

> " Don't be depressed when you see a paper that says, 'We cured

> cancer,' " Fidler advised colleagues attending a medical meeting in

> Philadelphia last month. " No, we didn't. Everybody here will have a

> job for years to come. "

>

> and,

>

> " There's no room in the market for a non-toxic cancer

> therapy. " Quote from a V.P. in a MAJOR pharmaceutical company I'd

> rather not name.

>

> and,

>

> " Hittle, a top biotech analyst at A.G. in St. Louis,

> indulges in a little gallows humor. " We sometimes joke that when

> you're doing a clinical trial, there are two possible disasters, "

> Hittle said. " The first disaster is if you kill people. The second

> disaster is if you cure them. The truly good drugs, " he continued,

> " are the ones you can use chronically for a long, long time. "

>

> --International Herald Tribune SATURDAY, MARCH 1, 2003

>

>

> Regulators make their living by going along with the program and

> following the law to the nth degree. I have never met one with a

> venturesome bone. Those at the top levels know that they can always

> have a future as a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical manufacturers.

>

> In 2005 there were 1274 registered pharmaceutical lobbyists in

> Washington, D.C. -- more than two for every member of Congress. In

> 2008 a record $189 million-plus was spent on federal lobbying. If

> the industry was honest there would be no lobbying of congress and

> the FDA. Pharmaceutical manufactures would do their trials, submit

> the results, and let the chips fall where they may.

>

> If the pharmaceutical industry was honest there would be no need for

> " direct-to-consumer " advertising, but more is spent on marketing than

> on research. It is very effective advertising. Why should the

> physician say no to a patient when he already has a closet full of

> samples and the drug rep will be more than happy to supply the

> physician with more free samples of her wares.

>

> Right now the US is in serious economic difficulty because of a total

> lack of banking regulation, a lack of transparency, and a roll back

> of progressive taxation that began in 1981. The pharmaceutical

> industry has gone down a parallel track. Millions of people have no

> healthcare. The industry as a whole does not want any cure for

> anything -- only more expensive treatments that are incrementally

> better, and of course the industry wants more discomforts and social

> problems that can be portrayed as problems in need of pharmaceutical

attention.

>

> Karl, the whole industry is money driven. If the Obama team worked

> out a financial algorithm that was based on preventing and curing

> chronic diseases for even greater profits for the industry, and

> failure was punished with ignominy and fines, we would see the end of

> virtually all chronic disease.

>

> The whole medical industry makes its living by convincing their

> potential customers that they just want to help. Are they all

> crooks? Not at all. They are simply doing what is legal, or what

> they can get away with, or what they are told to do. Of course the

> morality of this is a very different matter.

>

> Karl, I hope you study more and reflect more on these issues. As you

> are an intelligent person you might help the country and the world

> find a better paradigm.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Karl, I went on your website and I read what you wrote on CAM, the Gerson

therapy and the alternative cure for lymphoma. Nothing personal Karl but I think

that you are seriously misinformed...

Regarding the Gerson Therapy you can watch the movie : " a beautiful truth " or

visit their clinic in california and investigate by yourself.

Another way will be to fly to japan where oncologists cure cancer patient with

the Gerson Diet and dig in the hundreds of records that they kept

preciously...What is the record track of the " orthodox medicine regarding

cancer after more than 70 years of research ?

Here are some numbers :

----------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE US

According to the American Cancer Society in 2004

Male : 47 % chance of getting cancer.

Female : 38% chance of getting cancer.

These numbers are far too large, and continue to grow, despite more than 70

Years of the War on Cancer. Now a report was released by the World Health

Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer at a news conference

National Cancer Institute of Mexico

SO YOU DO THE MATH,KARL.!!

--------------------------------------------------------

From the few meta analysis that we have the success rate of chemio is 2 % to 4

%. Karl what on earth are you talking about when you said :

" Evidence-based medicine are interventions that have been proven to provide

clinical benefit for a specific medical condition. FDA (mandated by Congress)

requires studies of sufficient size and a control, capable of findings that have

statistical significance as the basis for marketing approval. "

To pass the FDA test with a drug, after spending few hundreeds million of

dollars, you just have to prove that this drug can shrink cancer tumors. NOT

CURE.. SHRINK !! In fact most drugs shrink cancer tumors at the beginning but

then >>

" A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo's supposedly strong

track record with Hodgkin's disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who

underwent chemo 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 (NCI Journal 87:10). " — Diamond,

M.D.

Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin's disease are 18 times more

likely later to develop secondary malignant tumours. Girls face a 35 per cent

chance of developing breast cancer by the time they are 40—-which is 75 times

greater than the average. The risk of leukemia increased markedly four years

after the ending of successful treatment, and reached a plateau after 14 years,

but the risk of developing solid tumours remained high and approached 30 per

cent at 30 years (New Eng J Med, March 21, 1996)

" Chemotherapy and radiation can increase the risk of developing a second cancer

by up to 100 times, according to Dr. S. Epstein.

Congressional Record, Sept. 9, 1997 "

" 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 (Dr Bailer's answer

to questions put by Neal Barnard MD of the Physicians Committee For Responsible

Medicine and published in PCRM Update, sept/oct 1990.)

The five year survival rates for the major cancers are: stomach - 5%, trachea,

bronchus and lung - 5%, breast - 50%, oesophagus - 5%, large intestine - 22%,

pancreas - 4%, liver - 2% … Attacking the tumor with the slash/burn/poison

version of cancer therapy, and then pronouncing " cured " after the five year

survival period has elapsed, has, of course, nothing remotely to do with the

successful treatment of the disease. Patients who die from the effects of chemo

or radio " therapy " after more than five years have passed are counted as cured.

You have to do your own personal investigation on this subject karl before you

pass judgment on CAM. The result of chemio is even lower than placebo, in fact..

Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not

eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over

a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.

Levin, MD UCSF

What are you talking about Karl ?

" I wouldn't have chemotherapy and radiation because I'm not interested in

therapies that cripple the immune system, and, in my opinion, virtually ensure

failure for the majority of cancer patients. " —Dr n Whitaker, M.D "

Me either ... In fact 75 % of physicians wont either according to several

researches..

What are you talking about Karl ? Please !!!

>

> ,

>

> That drug companies have a profit agenda is self-evident, however, the

standard of care in medicine evolves from peer review of published randomized

clinical studies. If a sponsor misleads physicians or the public with its

promotional materials, they will be forced to correct it by FDA.

>

> To win marketing approval of a drug for a specific indication (not cancer in

general, but the type of cancer), requires large randomized studies, with

independent data monitoring. FDA reviewers, by law, must have no financial

conflict of interest.

>

> For examples, see NCCN.org which publishes the expert committee-based

standards for each indication.

>

> See for example, guidelines for lymphomas

http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/nhl.pdf

>

> Clinical science is a group effort, based on clinical results of published

clinical studies, not advertisements.

>

> Karl

> Patients Against Lymphoma

> www.lymphomation.org

>

[Guest guest]

Sometimes there just isn't justification for being overly polite when we are

faced with statements that are completely misleading and against what the list

stands for.

Shaman-urban gave a much needed response.

It is one thing to be generous and kind when a person is mis-informed but to

spread the 'party-line' should be anathema to all of us. This list was designed

as an 'Alternative cancer-cured list', not a vehicle for medical propaganda no

matter how sincere a person might be and the post attempting to educate Karl was

fitting.

The War On Cancer is a fraud and it is too bad so many sincere people are being

thrown into the fight, a war that cannot be won by people that do not want to

win using up much needed funds to further the spread of ignorance.

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

Karl,

Karl, the whole pharmaceutical industry is a fraud. Don't just

listen to me. Marcia Angel was the editor-in-chief of the New

England Journal of medicine when she wrote: " The Truth About Drug

Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to do About It. "

Read Ralph Moss's books on the drug industry. Read Epstein's,

The Politics of Cancer Revisted. " These are additional industry insiders.

There are hundreds of such titles. Most of these authors are people

who went into medicine with the desire to help and were sickened once

they realized what a scam it is. No authority is in the least bit

interested in helping patients. It is almost impossible to claw your

way to the top without being a sociopath. Google " CEO " and

" sociopath " and you will pull in 137,000 hits. That alone should tell

you something.

Tally the number of internet articles you can find that show

pharmaceutical industry fraud ( 2,060,000 ). I think there is little

question that pharmaceuticals that are used for serious chronic

disease kill far more people than they save.

Karl, thank you for reminding us exactly why we have formed this list.

At 01:01 PM 3/23/2009, you wrote:

>,

>

>That drug companies have a profit agenda is self-evident, however,

>the standard of care in medicine evolves from peer review of

>published randomized clinical studies. If a sponsor misleads

>physicians or the public with its promotional materials, they will

>be forced to correct it by FDA.

>

>To win marketing approval of a drug for a specific indication (not

>cancer in general, but the type of cancer), requires large

>randomized studies, with independent data monitoring. FDA reviewers,

>by law, must have no financial conflict of interest.

>

>For examples, see NCCN.org which publishes the expert

>committee-based standards for each indication.

>

>See for example, guidelines for lymphomas

><http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/nhl.pdf>http://www.nccn.or\

g/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/nhl.pdf

>

>Clinical science is a group effort, based on clinical results of

>published clinical studies, not advertisements.

>

>Karl

>Patients Against Lymphoma

>www.lymphomation.org

[Guest guest]

In all fairness, chemotherapy does seem to have a better success rate in

lymphatic cancers than with other cancers. And while the " cure " rate is

better we must decide if we are after just a cure or are we after a cure

meaning that the cancer is gone and the health of the individual is left

intact or at least able to be regained. This last part would be the

definition that most people would relate to when the word " cure " is used.

However, with chemotherapy/radiation it is just usually not the case.

Chemotherapy not only affects short term health with tremendous side-effects

but also has tremendous long term side-effects. I have witnessed several

young people (in their early 20's) pronounced " cured " of lymphatic cancers

using conventional medicine but their long term health was tremendously

affected. Emotional issues being at the top to where all of them are now on

some type of antidepressant drug. None of these young people will be able

to produce their own children. Two of them are unable to hold down a job

because of " chemo brain. " The long-term side effects from

chemotherapy/radiation are many, but no one ever talks about those,

especially not the oncologists.

I would like to also address the issue of clinical trials. In my opinion,

these trials are usually seriously flawed from the get-go. The

pharmaceutical companies pay for them and like has been said try to make us

believe that response rate = cure or that the drug in question was found to

be safe. To have a true, unbiased clinical trial would mean that you would

have to clone all the participants. They would need to eat the same food at

the same time each day, drink the same type and amount of beverages, be

subjected to the same stresses and emotional situations, be subjected to the

same environmental chemicals, the same personal care products, etc. This is

why most clinical trials look good on paper but when the drug is presented

to the public people begin to have severe reactions or even die. I have

been privy to some of the court proceedings where a family has sued a drug

company because their loved one died while taking the drug. I have seen MDs

get up on the stand and basically LIE in order to support the pharmaceutical

companies. I have seen the Big Pharma lawyers make a jury believe that

because the patient was on other meds or even supplements, which they had

been taking for a while without problems, there was absolutely no way the

drug " in question " could have brought about harm or death. Yet, hundreds of

people had already died and the thing they all had in common was that they

had taken this particular drug. And I saw the jury find in-favor of the

pharmaceutical company!!

Not only is our country in a financial crisis but we are even more so in a

health crisis. We have allowed Big Chemical and Big Pharma to run and ruin

our health. If drugs don't get you then most likely toxic chemicals, that

have been made to look very safe, will. Most all of this is in the name of

" convenience " which markets very well to most people. We don't have time to

be sick, so we want quick fixes and that is what we have been given....to

the detriment of our health. We don't have time to take care of glass

bottles (after-all they break!), cookware, etc. so we have been given

plastics to place in our " safe " microwave ovens.....to the detriment of our

health. We don't have time to grow our food or chop vegetables so we have

been given pre-packaged and " windowed " food.....to the detriment of our

health. We don't have time to run and play with our children, to mow our

own yards, to keep our house fixed-up so we hire someone else to do

it.....to the detriment of our health. We don't have time to keep abreast

of all the political issues concerning health issues so we get our

information from the biggest liar of all, TV......to the detriment of our

health.

When I was doing my month of chemotherapy, we would pass by the back-side of

MD in the afternoons. They have a patient pick-up area where

patients go outside after their treatments to wait for their rides. The

first time I witnessed this it made me sick to my stomach ---- well, maybe a

little bit of that sickness was actually from my own treatment. I saw what

literally looked like a scene from a Holocaust movie and I was shocked!

People sitting on the curb, head down with scarves around their heads,

people in clothes that looked three sizes too big but I'm sure at one time

actually fit them, hairless children running around, people sitting in wheel

chairs, others leaning against brick columns who looked like if you touched

them they would fall. All were bald and looked anorexic. I will NEVER

forget that scene which I guess happens every single day. In 2000, even my

own oncologist, who is affiliated with MD , told me that in ten

years we would look back at the way cancer was being treated in 2000 and

call it barbaric!! He indicated that the new-wave would be in vaccinations

for cancers and this is exactly what is happening. The sad thing is that we

actually believe that because chemo is so barbaric, vaccinations will be

better, thus the masses will gladly accept them.

Chemotherapy will never cure cancer. Talk about a financial crisis!

has written two excellent posts about this and I cannot say it any better

than he. Our faith has been misplaced in a huge way. We have used

conventional medicine as a " safety net " so much so that we throw caution to

the wind, live any way that we want and thus not be bothered about our

taking care of our health....that is, until disease comes knocking on our

door.

The good news is that there is ALWAYS HOPE. God has put amazing healing

abilities into the human body. But these abilities must be fostered and

nourished. You don't pour more water on a sinking ship and expect recovery,

yet that is the philosophy of conventional medicine. More drugs = symptom

relief = response = more drugs (because nothing was cured to being with) =

symptom relief = more drugs. Well, you get the picture. By the end of my

month on chemo, I had a cabinet full of drugs, each to take care of the

side-effects of the other. So I went from not being on any drugs to having

the most toxic chemicals run through my veins and a cabinet full of drugs at

home......all in order to get well. When your focus is to get every

American on at least two-three drugs and on this endless cycle.....as

someone else said, do the math.

Certainly not everyone who chooses natural medicine experiences a cure and

there are many, many reasons for this, one being because we are all

different in mind, body and spirit. However, I know personally what it

feels like to literally feel chemo drugs running through my veins and the

antics of how conventional medicine makes one " think " they have the only

answer. I also know what it feels like to timidly step-out-of-the-box

toward natural medicine, begin to feel great and actually get well. I am no

one special.....if it can work for me, it can work for others. I know all

the " what ifs " , " buts " , " cant's " , " I'm afraid " etc. I have heard them all

and said some of them myself. However, all of them are always expressed

because of FEAR and MANIPULATION from conventional medicine.

We don't have to live that way and we don't have to die that way. Take

control of your health and well-being. Nourish your body, mind and spirit

every single day of your life. Decided what is best for your situation and

then GO DO IT. Don't ever make decisions out of fear and manipulation. Do

your own research and education. And forget statistics because NO ONE has

to be a statistic.

By the way, certainly the FDA would love for us to believe that they are

always on the patient's side and looking out for their best interest;

however, they have been caught in too many lies trying to save Big Pharma's

neck. Some interesting things are unfolding with who will be in charge at

the FDA and if it continues the way it is going now, we may experience CODEX

before we think. As always has been, the underlying movement to bring

supplements under the auspices of the pharmaceutical companies is growing at

alarming rates. They remind me of termites that are basically unseen except

every once in a while but continually eat at a structure until it literally

falls down.

Again, Americans sleep and refuse to become educated, because no one has

time.

Be Well

Loretta

[Guest guest]

-I do not think that all the literature about CAM medicine

is " advertisement " .

In 2005, a Medline search about " randomized controlled trials

and complementary medicine " returned a total of 3708 items....

karla

[Guest guest]

But we also need to be able to effectively rebut the " party line " when it comes

to such claims. We need to have our ducks in a row.

Awhile back, a whole string of statements about how useless allopathic medicine

is in regards to cancer were made. Unfortunately, one of those statements,

which is widely circulated on the internet, was from 1956. We need to be more

careful. We need to tell the truth in a way that cannot be easily undermined.

I am continually amazed at how few of us there are on this site, especially

given the astronomical rise in cancer deaths in the last 20 years or so. We

need to do a better job.

Why the astronomical rise in cancer deaths?

Well, we are living longer in general, but I think that is only a small part of

the picture.

A lot of people smoked 20 - 40 years ago who no longer smoke, but are reaping

the grim consequences of that.

Outside of those factors, I think the following will cause the cancer rates to

continue to soar:

1. How incredibly polluted our food, air, and water is.

2. The gross imbalance of omega 3's and omega 6's in our diets. The average

American now has a 20-1 ratio of omega 6's to omega 3's. 100 years ago the

ratio was 1-1.

3. Lack of sunlight / vitamin D.

4. Lack of iodine, compounded by chlorine, flourine and bromine in our

environments.

And a bunch of other factors, of course.

>

> Sometimes there just isn't justification for being overly polite when we are

faced with statements that are completely misleading and against what the list

stands for.

>

> Shaman-urban gave a much needed response.

>

> It is one thing to be generous and kind when a person is mis-informed but to

spread the 'party-line' should be anathema to all of us. This list was designed

as an 'Alternative cancer-cured list', not a vehicle for medical propaganda no

matter how sincere a person might be and the post attempting to educate Karl was

fitting.

>

> The War On Cancer is a fraud and it is too bad so many sincere people are

being thrown into the fight, a war that cannot be won by people that do not want

to win using up much needed funds to further the spread of ignorance.

>

> Joe C.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I underwent the standard chemotherapy for colon cancer a year ago. This

included 5FU (5-Flourouracil), oxaliplatin, and leucovorin.

Leucovorin is pretty harmless I think. I was told the other compounds were

relatively mild in the world of chemotherapy. I asked about side effects, and

was told that for a 6-month course, I would probably not have any long-term side

effects.

A year later I suffer from permanent neuropathy. I cannot think clearly. I was

told there was no " brain fog " with these substances. I think they flat out lied

to me. I keep my mood up with 800 mg of SAMe a day, and as much sunshine as I

can get, otherwise I would be terribly depressed.

Not to mention the fact that the chemo did not stop the cancer. In fact, it

probably made it much worse, because I had MDR cancer, and the chemo wiped out

any chance my own body had of fighting it.

Half-way through my course of chemo, the lining of my stomach and intestines

just flat out sloughed off, and I could not retain a single ounce of fluid.

They took me to the hospital with no detectible blood pressure. A nurse told my

wife that I was a goner. Fortunately, after 5 days of IV fluids, I was

seemingly back to normal enough so that they sent me home. I lasted at home one

day when the ambulance had to come and take me to the hospital again, where I

spent another 5 days on IV fluids.

During my hospital stay, I could not get my oncologist to talk to me. I could

not get ANY oncologist to talk to me. After making a lot of nasty noises, my

oncologist finally talked to me for 5 minutes. He came into my room at 7:00 PM

dressed in a suit and said " make it fast. I have a dinner date in 10 minutes " .

He then told me that chemo kills a lot of people, but my only other option was

to have the cancer kill me, so take my pick. He then left.

Regarding my " brain fog " , I was told that 5FU and oxaliplatin do not cause brain

fog, and that I needed to see a psychiatrist because of my delusions.

When I was informed of the news that the chemo had not worked on me at all, I

was told to take more of the chemo that had not worked, and that had almost

killed me. They were going to up the dosage substantially. I was also told,

FLAT OUT, that THIS WOULD NOT WORK EITHER, but it was their only option, so that

is what they were going to do.

When I told them that I refused to take any more of the chemo that they told me

would not work, and that had almost killed me, they began treating me like I was

an enemy. Cold, hard, frowning, even anger... where none had existed before.

They were furious at me for not just dying the way they thought I should, with

their poisons.

My own sister, who had served as an oncologist nurse for awhile, took the exact

same attitude towards me. How dare I refuse to do what the doctors told me to

do. When I didn't die on schedule, this seemed to infuriate her even more. We

don't even talk now. How dare I not die on schedule.

I'm not out of the woods yet by any means. But I seem to be doing a lot better

than any doctor predicted.

> Chemotherapy not only affects short term health with tremendous side-effects

> but also has tremendous long term side-effects. I have witnessed several

> young people (in their early 20's) pronounced " cured " of lymphatic cancers

> using conventional medicine but their long term health was tremendously

> affected. Emotional issues being at the top to where all of them are now on

> some type of antidepressant drug. None of these young people will be able

> to produce their own children. Two of them are unable to hold down a job

> because of " chemo brain. " The long-term side effects from

> chemotherapy/radiation are many, but no one ever talks about those,

> especially not the oncologists.

>

[Guest guest]

While we may be spending more time on this subject than it seems we should, it

is important for people, especially those 'new' to Alternative measures to have

a better grasp of the subject.

While far from an expert on health issues, following the Allopaths, reading

everything one can get their hands on of theirs and their critics, for over 60

years does give one an insight to what is going on. For a few years in the 50s

I had the luck to read regular issues of the Journal of The American Medical

Association (JAMA) and in those journals, a lot of criticism of their own

profession as well as educational aspects such as reading all about Anaphylacitc

Shock from Penicillin et al. (From that moment on me and my family were

'allergic to that med).

Forgive any spelling errors dealing with these drug related words.

Additionally one might read a criticism from a past president of JAMA in which

the 'retired' physician tells it like it is and I remember two of them stating

that more than 50% of all operations were unnecessary. Think of the

implications of hundreds of thousands of operations being needlessly

performed.....and like most whistle-blowers, only after they retire and have

made theirs!

One of my physician clients, Chief of Staff at a General Hospital in South

Florida pointed to a physician and said, " if a women even stains, he's going to

give her a hysterectomy " and once, after a hospital stay for heart issues at

another hospital he said, " I threw away the pills these nuts tried to give me or

they'd kill me " . Obviously we got along well for him to be so open and he

was quite the character.........but fun to be with.

One of my compatriots had a Pathologist as a client and he recommended a local

surgeon for general needs and why? Because he stated, " when I do the pathology

on his surgical specimens, they all were diseased " and from that I gathered that

many surgeons were cutting out bits and pieces that shouldn't have. I used

that surgeon to remove a cyst and felt comfortable with him.

Simply shift the above to the field of Oncology, Radiation, Urology and the rest

and what do you think has changed? A bit more conservatism re surgery?

Perhaps but I don't see it. Better drugs? Perhaps worse! Less greed?

That is doubtful and the statistics convince me it is worse. One physician I

read had said, " the secret of a doctor's success is that most illnesses are self

limiting " . I would add, 'most illnesses are handled by the body's effort at

staying alive " . Let's face it, if nothing is done most people would simply get

better in due time. In many cases, instead of giving them credit for some

improvement in treatment such as 'killing less' when performing Gallbladder

surgery, state it as it really is---They May be Killing Less such as what might

be the benefit of Laporascopic surgery over more invasive cutting.

As regards the Lymphatic Cancers? Instead of giving the drugs the credit,

perhaps we should give the body the credit and most likely alternative means

would provide the so-called 'cure' rate without the horrors Loretta touched on?

Yet, with all we know and are learning from the 's of the world and I

have learned a lot from him and benefited from his knowledge, the majority of

people will never hear a word about what is going on in our world. As the

printed word slides into obscurity and Investigative Reporting, weak as it has

been, disappears, and we are left with TV Sound-bites, expect less and less

information worth anything to reach the ears of society. Yes there is the

Internet and we have it for a while but people are looking for the sensational,

not an article about the dangers of commonly taken medications.

JC

[Guest guest]

KEEP IT UP DEAR YOUR STORY ENCOURAGES OTHERS AS WELL AND FORGET ABOUT NEGATIVE

ATTITUDE PEOPLE INCLUDING YOUR SISTER (EVEN THOUGH IT'S HARD)...IT'S THE SAME

THING HAPPEN TO ALMOST ALL C PATIENTS.YOU MAY CONTACT MR/DENNIS MAY

denniamay@... who was a patient but fully cured by conventional medicine

Graviola + Immunocal...VISHWAJITH

From: jrrjim <jim.mcelroy>

I underwent the standard chemotherapy for colon cancer a year ago. This included

5FU (5-Flourouracil) , oxaliplatin, and leucovorin.

Leucovorin is pretty harmless I think. I was told the other compounds were

relatively mild in the world of chemotherapy. I asked about side effects, and

was told that for a 6-month course, I would probably not have any long-term side

effects.

A year later I suffer from permanent neuropathy. I cannot think clearly. I was

told there was no " brain fog " with these substances. I think they flat out lied

to me. I keep my mood up with 800 mg of SAMe a day, and as much sunshine as I

can get, otherwise I would be terribly depressed.

Not to mention the fact that the chemo did not stop the cancer. In fact, it

probably made it much worse, because I had MDR cancer, and the chemo wiped out

any chance my own body had of fighting it.

Half-way through my course of chemo, the lining of my stomach and intestines

just flat out sloughed off, and I could not retain a single ounce of fluid. They

took me to the hospital with no detectible blood pressure. A nurse told my wife

that I was a goner. Fortunately, after 5 days of IV fluids, I was seemingly back

to normal enough so that they sent me home. I lasted at home one day when the

ambulance had to come and take me to the hospital again, where I spent another 5

days on IV fluids.

During my hospital stay, I could not get my oncologist to talk to me. I could

not get ANY oncologist to talk to me. After making a lot of nasty noises, my

oncologist finally talked to me for 5 minutes. He came into my room at 7:00 PM

dressed in a suit and said " make it fast. I have a dinner date in 10 minutes " .

He then told me that chemo kills a lot of people, but my only other option was

to have the cancer kill me, so take my pick. He then left.

Regarding my " brain fog " , I was told that 5FU and oxaliplatin do not cause brain

fog, and that I needed to see a psychiatrist because of my delusions.

When I was informed of the news that the chemo had not worked on me at all, I

was told to take more of the chemo that had not worked, and that had almost

killed me. They were going to up the dosage substantially. I was also told, FLAT

OUT, that THIS WOULD NOT WORK EITHER, but it was their only option, so that is

what they were going to do.

When I told them that I refused to take any more of the chemo that they told me

would not work, and that had almost killed me, they began treating me like I was

an enemy. Cold, hard, frowning, even anger... where none had existed before.

They were furious at me for not just dying the way they thought I should, with

their poisons.

My own sister, who had served as an oncologist nurse for awhile, took the exact

same attitude towards me. How dare I refuse to do what the doctors told me to

do. When I didn't die on schedule, this seemed to infuriate her even more. We

don't even talk now. How dare I not die on schedule.

I'm not out of the woods yet by any means. But I seem to be doing a lot better

than any doctor predicted.

[Guest guest]

SORRY FOR MISTYPE THE EMAIL ADDRESSES OF DENNIS MAY ARE  dennismay@...

or tradeproducts@...

VISHWAJITH

[Guest guest]

Jim,

I started out as an oncologist RN in Quebec, Canada in my early 20s. I was

diagnosed with a brain tumor when I moved to the states in 1989. I had to

re-evaluate my view on life, quality of life, etc and especially face the fact

that medicine never cures. It took long hours of soul searching amidst the

terrible symptoms of this growing brain tumor.

I refused surgery because I had seen its effects on the patients I cared for.

The tumor grew.

I refused gamma knife after we interviewed a bunch of people like me that had

been diagnosed with the same thing. The tumor grew.

I just did not have the guts (or the money) to go all out and no faith to

believe that all this natural stuff would affect and cross the blood/brain

barrier.

Then our second child got struck with lymphoma. After going to Mexico, I left my

'nursing' mindset behind for good and plunged into the world of clinical

nutrition.

is now 17 years old, never had a reoccurence with this terrible

affliction and I am free of the brain tumor, the breast cancer, the cervical

cancer, the skin cancer and the ovarian cancer.

For me, it affected me in my early 20s and 30s. Now in my 40s, I have learned

what it means to be healthy....

We homeschooled our four children and they all know how to be healthy.

Yes, you can overcome cancer without radiation or chemo.....I've helped many in

the last 20 years. It is hard work, expensive but you can do it.

You can do it.

You can do it.

Johanne

>

> I underwent the standard chemotherapy for colon cancer a year ago. This

included 5FU (5-Flourouracil), oxaliplatin, and leucovorin.

>

> Leucovorin is pretty harmless I think. I was told the other compounds were

relatively mild in the world of chemotherapy. I asked about side effects, and

was told that for a 6-month course, I would probably not have any long-term side

effects.

>

> A year later I suffer from permanent neuropathy. I cannot think clearly. I

was told there was no " brain fog " with these substances. I think they flat out

lied to me. I keep my mood up with 800 mg of SAMe a day, and as much sunshine

as I can get, otherwise I would be terribly depressed.

>

> Not to mention the fact that the chemo did not stop the cancer. In fact, it

probably made it much worse, because I had MDR cancer, and the chemo wiped out

any chance my own body had of fighting it.

>

> Half-way through my course of chemo, the lining of my stomach and intestines

just flat out sloughed off, and I could not retain a single ounce of fluid.

They took me to the hospital with no detectible blood pressure. A nurse told my

wife that I was a goner. Fortunately, after 5 days of IV fluids, I was

seemingly back to normal enough so that they sent me home. I lasted at home one

day when the ambulance had to come and take me to the hospital again, where I

spent another 5 days on IV fluids.

>

> During my hospital stay, I could not get my oncologist to talk to me. I could

not get ANY oncologist to talk to me. After making a lot of nasty noises, my

oncologist finally talked to me for 5 minutes. He came into my room at 7:00 PM

dressed in a suit and said " make it fast. I have a dinner date in 10 minutes " .

He then told me that chemo kills a lot of people, but my only other option was

to have the cancer kill me, so take my pick. He then left.

>

> Regarding my " brain fog " , I was told that 5FU and oxaliplatin do not cause

brain fog, and that I needed to see a psychiatrist because of my delusions.

>

> When I was informed of the news that the chemo had not worked on me at all, I

was told to take more of the chemo that had not worked, and that had almost

killed me. They were going to up the dosage substantially. I was also told,

FLAT OUT, that THIS WOULD NOT WORK EITHER, but it was their only option, so that

is what they were going to do.

>

> When I told them that I refused to take any more of the chemo that they told

me would not work, and that had almost killed me, they began treating me like I

was an enemy. Cold, hard, frowning, even anger... where none had existed

before. They were furious at me for not just dying the way they thought I

should, with their poisons.

>

> My own sister, who had served as an oncologist nurse for awhile, took the

exact same attitude towards me. How dare I refuse to do what the doctors told

me to do. When I didn't die on schedule, this seemed to infuriate her even

more. We don't even talk now. How dare I not die on schedule.

>

> I'm not out of the woods yet by any means. But I seem to be doing a lot

better than any doctor predicted.

>

> > Chemotherapy not only affects short term health with tremendous side-effects

> > but also has tremendous long term side-effects. I have witnessed several

> > young people (in their early 20's) pronounced " cured " of lymphatic cancers

> > using conventional medicine but their long term health was tremendously

> > affected. Emotional issues being at the top to where all of them are now on

> > some type of antidepressant drug. None of these young people will be able

> > to produce their own children. Two of them are unable to hold down a job

> > because of " chemo brain. " The long-term side effects from

> > chemotherapy/radiation are many, but no one ever talks about those,

> > especially not the oncologists.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

" Johanne " ...please don't leave us there! Your story is so promising... but

could you tell us where in Mexico you went for your treatment, and what they

did? I want to refer this information to a cancer patient here in San Diego

but I need more info to give her the hope to even try it.

Marji

**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or

less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)

[Guest guest]

This was an interesting post.

Could you tell us all some of the protocol you used? Or have you done that in a

previous post I missed?

Thank you.

g

You wrote:

lol! Hi Joe, that makes sense actually, no proof necessary, haha Since

reading and hearing about how important our pH is, I've tried to learn more

about it. Taking an 'alkalizer' helped me in the past to quickly get an alkaline

reading.

But I recently tested myself and the pH strip showed me as alkaline, and what a

pleasant surprise that was--I've only been on the Budwig protocol for about a

month which includes not only the oil/protein aspect but lots of greens (which I

juice) as well as fruits, and other things such as plenty of sunshine, etc.

I've never gotten an alkaline reading as a result of a good diet alone, unless I

used a bicarb-type remedy as well. So I'm a believer! Rose

[Guest guest]

hi, Johanne,

How did you overcome brain tumor? It is really exciting to know you did it

naturally. What kind of brain tumor did you have?

hope