The thinning of the herd

[Guest guest]

When government and medical authorities control the selection of

pharmaceuticals that statistically assure the death of cancer patients, I

can't help but see this as a thinning of the herd. A natural response is to

question why this herd needs thinning and who gives these authorities the

right to do the thinning. Certainly it is not the herd begging to be

thinned. This is part of the reason I believe so strongly that each

individual has an inherent sovereign right to see to one's own health.

It is bad enough when the authorities thin the herd, but what really dismays

and " shivers me timbers " is when I witness the herd thinning itself. This

is exactly what is going on when a person or group adheres to a limiting

treatment based on some blinkered philosophy. They are, for example,

implicitly saying, " I believe so strongly in the exclusive use of natural

products that I am willing to die for this belief. " It is the same thing

when people limit themselves to herbs named in a holy book, or to those that

grew out of " God's green earth, " or only homeopathic meds, or only

alkalinizers, or raw foods, or only those elixers sold by a stage-prancing

healer.

I think it makes much more sense to use any med that is non-toxic, or if it

is crunch time, to use, judiciously, anything that will save the day even if

it is not as non-toxic as we prefer. Great examples are the off-label use

of drugs that are usually intended for other purposes. Ivermectin is a good

example. It is thought of as a synthetic pharmaceutical, and its use is

limited to animal use in the US. In other countries it performs

spectacularly for horrendous human parasites. Its use in dogs is limited in

that it should not be used in those with a P-glycoprotein genetic defect.

Ivermectin is actually a natural product. It can be very useful off label

to control NFkB in cancer patients and it can be extremely valuable for

those with autoimmune/inflammatory CNS and myoneural disorders. Ivermectin

is cheap and I suspect it is withheld from the human market if favor of far

more lucrative, but worthless products.

Mebendazole is an antiparasitic that most of us have used. A three-day

program will rid a child of pinworms. It is very inexpensive and it has a

valuable off-label use for cancer patients in that it is a safe and potent

microtubule inhibitor. Its use can't be stopped so the authorities ignore

it -- at least until the they can dream up some sort of reason to ban it. I

am convinced that the off label use of PPAR inhibitors to kill cancer is the

real reason that the authorities are on a mission to ban their use also.

Want to use bitter almond oil, phenylacetic acid (antineoplastons), or

iodine to fight cancer? The authorities control them because they say that

these might be used to make illicit drugs.

The authorities can't stop you though from stockpiling the most valuable

tool of all in the fight against cancer. That tool is useful knowledge.

This is something that is in short supply with the government and with their

lock-steppin' physician toadies. For those sensible people on this list,

the goal should be to track down every relatively non-toxic drug with a

useful off-label application. There might be something you want to hoard

for concern that the pharmaceutical companies would use their enormous

lobbying muscle to have banned. It can be dipyridamole, cimetidine,

griseofulvin, nocodazole, periactin, cromolyn sodium...

Nothing would make me happier than for everyone on this list to hang a grand

picture frame in your house, and under the frame should be your prayer. " I

beseech you, O Holy One, please guide me and protect me. " Within your frame

will be your mirror.

[Guest guest]

Great email. Incredible message. Thank you.

[ ] The thinning of the herd

When government and medical authorities control the selection of

pharmaceuticals that statistically assure the death of cancer patients, I

can't help but see this as a thinning of the herd. A natural response is to

question why this herd needs thinning and who gives these authorities the

right to do the thinning. Certainly it is not the herd begging to be

thinned. This is part of the reason I believe so strongly that each

individual has an inherent sovereign right to see to one's own health.

It is bad enough when the authorities thin the herd, but what really dismays

and " shivers me timbers " is when I witness the herd thinning itself. This

is exactly what is going on when a person or group adheres to a limiting

treatment based on some blinkered philosophy. They are, for example,

implicitly saying, " I believe so strongly in the exclusive use of natural

products that I am willing to die for this belief. " It is the same thing

when people limit themselves to herbs named in a holy book, or to those that

grew out of " God's green earth, " or only homeopathic meds, or only

alkalinizers, or raw foods, or only those elixers sold by a stage-prancing

healer.

I think it makes much more sense to use any med that is non-toxic, or if it

is crunch time, to use, judiciously, anything that will save the day even if

it is not as non-toxic as we prefer. Great examples are the off-label use

of drugs that are usually intended for other purposes. Ivermectin is a good

example. It is thought of as a synthetic pharmaceutical, and its use is

limited to animal use in the US. In other countries it performs

spectacularly for horrendous human parasites. Its use in dogs is limited in

that it should not be used in those with a P-glycoprotein genetic defect.

Ivermectin is actually a natural product. It can be very useful off label

to control NFkB in cancer patients and it can be extremely valuable for

those with autoimmune/inflammatory CNS and myoneural disorders. Ivermectin

is cheap and I suspect it is withheld from the human market if favor of far

more lucrative, but worthless products.

Mebendazole is an antiparasitic that most of us have used. A three-day

program will rid a child of pinworms. It is very inexpensive and it has a

valuable off-label use for cancer patients in that it is a safe and potent

microtubule inhibitor. Its use can't be stopped so the authorities ignore

it -- at least until the they can dream up some sort of reason to ban it. I

am convinced that the off label use of PPAR inhibitors to kill cancer is the

real reason that the authorities are on a mission to ban their use also.

Want to use bitter almond oil, phenylacetic acid (antineoplastons), or

iodine to fight cancer? The authorities control them because they say that

these might be used to make illicit drugs.

The authorities can't stop you though from stockpiling the most valuable

tool of all in the fight against cancer. That tool is useful knowledge.

This is something that is in short supply with the government and with their

lock-steppin' physician toadies. For those sensible people on this list,

the goal should be to track down every relatively non-toxic drug with a

useful off-label application. There might be something you want to hoard

for concern that the pharmaceutical companies would use their enormous

lobbying muscle to have banned. It can be dipyridamole, cimetidine,

griseofulvin, nocodazole, periactin, cromolyn sodium...

Nothing would make me happier than for everyone on this list to hang a grand

picture frame in your house, and under the frame should be your prayer. " I

beseech you, O Holy One, please guide me and protect me. " Within your frame

will be your mirror.

[Guest guest]

I recall the early days of my bladder cancer dx when the use of BCG

(instillation of a live but mild TB virus) was suggested which I did not

immediately refuse because it was not injected into the blood stream but rather

instilled into the bladder and then voided out. I ran it by who let me

know there was “good science†behind it,. I went ahead with the first

course because it seemed fairly harmless. The object is to ‘irritate’ the

bladder and kick-start the immune system. I like that thought. Note, nothing

was said in the e-mail below about seeking drugs as the first battle but as

people have discovered, Cimetidine and other things have good reports. It is

so easy to take up the cross of Natural and go forward without ever looking

back. Cancer is still unique. It is not the common cold and it can kill.

Sometimes it needs a direct assault, more than can be given by broccoli or

asparagus. Remember, ‘Every green thing†that was supposedly given us, also

includes Poison Ivy. Just being cute.

Joe

From: joywharton@...

Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 10:14 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] The thinning of the herd

Great email. Incredible message. Thank you.

[ ] The thinning of the herd

When government and medical authorities control the selection of

pharmaceuticals that statistically assure the death of cancer patients, I

can't help but see this as a thinning of the herd. A natural response is to

question why this herd needs thinning and who gives these authorities the

right to do the thinning. Certainly it is not the herd begging to be

thinned. This is part of the reason I believe so strongly that each

individual has an inherent sovereign right to see to one's own health.

It is bad enough when the authorities thin the herd, but what really dismays

and " shivers me timbers " is when I witness the herd thinning itself. This

is exactly what is going on when a person or group adheres to a limiting

treatment based on some blinkered philosophy. They are, for example,

implicitly saying, " I believe so strongly in the exclusive use of natural

products that I am willing to die for this belief. " It is the same thing

when people limit themselves to herbs named in a holy book, or to those that

grew out of " God's green earth, " or only homeopathic meds, or only

alkalinizers, or raw foods, or only those elixers sold by a stage-prancing

healer.

I think it makes much more sense to use any med that is non-toxic, or if it

is crunch time, to use, judiciously, anything that will save the day even if

it is not as non-toxic as we prefer. Great examples are the off-label use

of drugs that are usually intended for other purposes. Ivermectin is a good

example. It is thought of as a synthetic pharmaceutical, and its use is

limited to animal use in the US. In other countries it performs

spectacularly for horrendous human parasites. Its use in dogs is limited in

that it should not be used in those with a P-glycoprotein genetic defect.

Ivermectin is actually a natural product. It can be very useful off label

to control NFkB in cancer patients and it can be extremely valuable for

those with autoimmune/inflammatory CNS and myoneural disorders. Ivermectin

is cheap and I suspect it is withheld from the human market if favor of far

more lucrative, but worthless products.

Mebendazole is an antiparasitic that most of us have used. A three-day

program will rid a child of pinworms. It is very inexpensive and it has a

valuable off-label use for cancer patients in that it is a safe and potent

microtubule inhibitor. Its use can't be stopped so the authorities ignore

it -- at least until the they can dream up some sort of reason to ban it. I

am convinced that the off label use of PPAR inhibitors to kill cancer is the

real reason that the authorities are on a mission to ban their use also.

Want to use bitter almond oil, phenylacetic acid (antineoplastons), or

iodine to fight cancer? The authorities control them because they say that

these might be used to make illicit drugs.

The authorities can't stop you though from stockpiling the most valuable

tool of all in the fight against cancer. That tool is useful knowledge.

This is something that is in short supply with the government and with their

lock-steppin' physician toadies. For those sensible people on this list,

the goal should be to track down every relatively non-toxic drug with a

useful off-label application. There might be something you want to hoard

for concern that the pharmaceutical companies would use their enormous

lobbying muscle to have banned. It can be dipyridamole, cimetidine,

griseofulvin, nocodazole, periactin, cromolyn sodium...

Nothing would make me happier than for everyone on this list to hang a grand

picture frame in your house, and under the frame should be your prayer. " I

beseech you, O Holy One, please guide me and protect me. " Within your frame

will be your mirror.

[Guest guest]

Wasn't going to comment on this, but I must. Chemicals do not make the body

well. Even the DO I see for blood work & labs tells me all meds are toxic. I

asked him if I could tape record him saying that….he nervously laughed. They

may help to temporarily kill off cancer cells or reduce tumor size/load, but

they do not support the body in the healing process. Even if every cancer

cell/tumor in the body could be killed, it does not necessarily make the body

well.

It’s not my experience that it's easy for most people to take up the cross of

natural (not the people I see – especially their family members) because we

are such a

chemically-minded/conventional-medicine-has-the-only-scientific-answers society.

It is very likely if not probable that chemicals are the most important cause of

the cancer epidemic we are witnessing. And even non-toxic synthetic chemicals

(I'm not convinced there is such a thing) can cause the body to develop other

health concerns in the future. I understand that sometimes the future must be

sacrificed on the altar of the present (life-threatening extreme situations).

Chemicals, even though one is using off-label or supposedly non-toxic should not

be the first line of choice, as Joe indicated. It is continually implied how

safe certain chemicals are. While there may be a response it doesn't mean they

are prudent for the long run. More times than not the body eventually gets used

to them and then another chemical must be tried. Just the same as with chemo.

Chemicals are a quick-fix in most cases and do not encourage any type of

life-style change. They are easy to take and convenient, which people love. In

other words, changing the lifestyle that obviously wasn't conducive to health

doesn’t seem as important as taking that drug or getting that shot even though

the practitioner may mention lifestyle changes are needed. Again, it's all

about being brain-washed that drugs actually do heal.

Every person's situation is so unique which makes it difficult to even expound

on the use of chemicals vs natural therapies. As my doctor always told me,

conventional drugs/chemicals will always be there, but for most people they

shouldn't be the first choice. The very few times that I grumbled a bit about

" just wanting my life back " , his suggestion was that we get up right then and go

walk the halls of MD . Because I had experienced one month of

horrendous chemo as well as 15 bottles of meds to take care of side-effects, his

statement brought be back to reality quickly.

Unfortunately I have no idea what constitutes the definition of " good science " .

)

Be Well

Dr.L

[Guest guest]

In the sense I used “good science’, I could have used ‘good reports’

because that is what I meant. Those reports come from studies which I suppose

could be called Good Science. Nothing I have seen today, on this list,

suggests that Chemotherapy or drugs in general are the first line of defense and

you Loretta simply highlight again that there are those situations where tumor

load or whatever the situation, perhaps imminent death, something other than

natural needs to be done and quickly. I think that is all that has been said

here. Some of the things we use in Alternative healing are not exactly

‘natural’ in the sense an apple is. Come to think of it, some of the

“green things given to us†were not actually “given to us†but rather

developed by horticulturalists and their ‘scientific’ manipulation of seeds

and pollen.

Ascorbic Acid? Though I’ve done the I.V. thing, exactly how natural-like is

it? It is man made as is NAC which has extremely ‘good reports’ (good

science) to back up its use. It seems one of the important things that needs to

be done is actually see what is being written and if a question about something

arises, question it to find out what the person meant. Gubi did that earlier

regarding some Aloe product wanting clarification about but what was said.

There was no jumping to conclusions. Writing is a difficult way to express

oneself in a short piece because the ‘eye of the beholder’ comes into play

and with that is brought prejudices and pre-conceived ideas......a lot of them

justified. This is when Reading Comprehension comes into play.

Few of us would be competent enough to take advantage of conventional methods

and then knowing what else to do as had to when approaching his cancer.

Some were probably not list members at that time but it was quite an eye-opener

for me. To sum it up, Loretta is correct Chemicals “do not make the body

well†and nobody here said they do....but under certain circumstances provide

a ‘stop-gap’ means to buy some time for that to happen. Some people are

falling all over themselves over LDN (Low Dose Naltrexone).......a drug. I

have no evidence to the contrary but it is a drug but is clearly Alternative

when it comes to cancer. When that time comes when drastic measures are

needed, it might be beyond most of our abilities to work with. That is when we

do need to work with someone that knows what works and what doesn’t. That

applies equally to Alternative as well as Conventional.

JC

From: Dr. Loretta Lanphier

Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 12:09 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] The thinning of the herd

Chemicals do not make the body well. Even the DO I see for blood work & labs

tells me all meds are toxic.

[Guest guest]

I can compile a list of thousand unfamiliar chemicals with biological

properties, half the chemicals would be completely synthesized, and the

other half would be extracted from nature. There is not a person on this

list, including the professionals, who could do better than chance in

guessing if a chemical is natural or not.

No chemical, natural or synthetic " will make a body well. " Almost any

chemical, natural or synthetic, is a medicine or a toxin depending on the

wisdom of its application. Almost all chemotherapies are derivatives of

nature's meds. Even the completely natural forms such as oleander or vinca

extracts are toxic in the dosages required to see results. There are no

bright lines to divide the synthetic chemicals from natural foods, minerals,

herbs. Sometimes you have synergisms in nature, but then I can give

examples of harmless laboratory analogs of synthesized aspirin that

synergize against cancer when used together.

The differences between synthesized and the natural have more to do with

marketing ploys and indoctrination than they do with reality. Most

prescription meds are toxic. This is considered desireable by many in the

pharmaceutical industry as they can charge higher prices if the med is

considered too toxic to use without professional oversight. Most herbs are

sold in doses that are too weak to be toxic -- or to do much good.

A skilled practitioner will ignore all the nonsense about synthetic and

natural and go straight to core issues: is the proposed medicine homeostatic

or non-homeostatic? For true homeostatic treatments you are limiting

yourself to detoxes, replenishments, and some immune regulators. Virtually

all herbs, like chemos, are non-homeostatic. Sure we prefer to use

non-toxic homeostatic treatments, but when it is crunch time we often have

to initiate therapies with the oft-toxic herbs and synthetics.

For my own stage 4 cancer which came on like gangbusters, I had to use

toxic therapies just to get well enough to stand up in the laboratory.

There I synthesized non-toxic meds that would certainly have been illegal if

I were to give them to others. I no longer have any evidence of cancer. It

is hard for me to imagine beating a cancer without violating a few laws or

stepping on someone's patent.

I like to tell people that if your cherished beliefs aren't working, then

park those beliefs at the door, do what you have to do to beat your cancer,

and then return to the world from whence you came if you choose.

..

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=106033/grpspId=1705061620/msgId=

47449/stime=1296450595/nc1=5191946/nc2=5191951/nc3=4507179>

[Guest guest]

,

How does iodine help, what doses? What brand?

Thanks, Robyn