Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Health / Natural Healing / Therapies / Nutrition

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-01-2019, 10:09 AM   #61
thermion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 2,322
Likes: 922 (603 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by techman View Post
So why are we now getting cancer charities to help children with cancer, when cancer is supposedly attributed to old age?. Why, if true, are children being diagnosed?. What's causing this?. I never saw this year's ago. I guess you could say the real "hidden" reasons are things like vaccines (proven?), mobile phone emissions (wouldn't surprise me, but again where's the proof?), unhealthy eating and lifestyle habits, ie not enough vitamin D from being in the sun (yes possible, but any proof?), wifi, pollution, GMOs (proof?), etc. Maybe it's none of those, but it certainly can't be through smoking, unless kids as young as 10 are smoking.
I'm sure cancer charities have always been keen to help children. It's certainly possible a cancer rise is affecting children, but we need accurate statistics. I know there are those who will say these are impossible to get because the facts are being withheld.

Anecdotal evidence from GPs would be a help here. (Are there any on the forum?) Unfortunately no amount of anecdotal evidence counts as proof. But it's a good place to start. Poor diet, obesity, lack of exercise have all sorts of negative health implications, including cancer I expect.

We're all better informed than we were, so examples of many things get known about that would have gone unnoticed or unreported before. This often gets confused with an increasing incidence.

But before we peculate as to the cause of childhood cancers, the first thing to establish is whether there is really an increase or not. Then the causes can be investigated. I'm not medically qualified to speculate, although anybody can see that we are exposed to many environmental influences that our parents and grandparents were not exposed to. Yet our average age at death is increasing, although that doesn't always mean a pleasant last few years. It often just seems to mean we take longer to die - and what purpose does that serve if you believe 'They' are trying to kill us all...?
thermion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2019, 07:41 PM   #62
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

If there's no evidence of an increase, then why are these children with cancer charities or groups allowed to promote their donation stands in busy shopping centres etc?. They must be trying to push some idea into people's minds (subconsciously maybe?), regardless of whether there is not. Most people who don't question them will say "of course theyre trying to help", but they never ask the obvious question: what's causing it?. And neither do the charities and medical industry.

Everything, IMO, is about big business and making tons of money for those that benefit most from people's health. If people are living longer, albeit need constant care and treatment, then that's good for the shareholders and peolple running the care homes, supplying the mobility scooters, Big Pharma with the medication, etc. It's the public at large that doesent benefit.
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2019, 08:33 PM   #63
dumbcritic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,678
Likes: 560 (294 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elpressiedente View Post
When My Engineer CURED his Bowel cancer with Bi Carb and Maple Syrup, AS HIS ONLY TREATMENT METHOD I told him he needed to fix the underlying problem of why Fungus is in his body, He ignored this advice. Continued his tin can, boxed, frozen and Margarined food intake as Yes when It came back several years later is was so aggressive there was nothing he or I could do.
This makes me guilty of "manslaughter? It does if you are a registered Doctor it seems.
You can't rule out spontaneous regression/remission. A number of case reports like this have been published http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/30/6/2351.full

It's a shame more info wasn't obtained https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...postcount=1499

Quote:
Originally Posted by elpressiedente View Post
https://respectfulinsolence.com/2008...s-in-oncology/

This link is a must for the Pharmaceutical Killing Complex.
A quick search reveals who 'Orac' is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gorski Prof. Gorski lost his mother-in-law to breast cancer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elpressiedente View Post
Cancers are pathogens.
There are a number of oncogenic viruses, bacteria and parasites. One paper from 2008 estimated the worldwide risk of cancers from these infectious causes was just over 16% https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...137-7/fulltext Thankfully, we can vaccinate against a number like HPV.

We can also engineer different viruses and bacteria https://www.nature.com/articles/s41568-018-0070-z to target certain types of cancer.

One oncolytic virus (a virus that preferentially infects and kills cancer cells) is FDA and EMA approved for melanoma https://www.imlygic.com The inventor of that (Dr. Coffin) raised over $100 million a few months ago and is taking three new and improved versions into a number of clinical trials https://globenewswire.com/news-relea...onference.html

An engineered strain of E. coli Nissle, (SYNB1891) will enter into a PhI clinical trial in 2H https://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...-Outlines-2019

Quote:
Originally Posted by elpressiedente View Post
Buddha said to not believe anything he said but to go out and prove it to one's self, then you will believe. So many here just Quote the Pharmaceutical Killing Complex propaganda factory.
I cite evidence from peer-reviewed publications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elpressiedente View Post
For any Dr to say 'try Bi Carb' they can be banned, prosecuted and jailed or even killed like the 80 odd alt practitioners in the USA.
There is no evidence for bicarb, so doctors should face disciplinary/legal action should they recommend it to patients with cancer. As for the 'ALT MED' practitioners' deaths, then this has been debunked https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ho...th-conspiracy/
__________________
''Chlorine is a deadly poison gas employed on European battlefields in World War I. Sodium is a corrosive metal which burns upon contact with water. Together they make a placid and unpoisonous material, table salt. Why each of these substances has the properties it does is a subject called chemistry'' - Carl Sagan

Why is it that the loudest critics of ''Big Pharma'' are Big Placebo?

Last edited by dumbcritic; 07-01-2019 at 09:37 PM.
dumbcritic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2019, 11:56 PM   #64
decim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 16,137
Likes: 2,985 (1,695 Posts)
Default

The criminals who did this are now concerned about the environment and your health and well being, they love you all, honest, they've changed, turned over a new leaf...they even built us a global village...full of idiots.
You're the bad guys driving your vehicles, running your central heating, using plastic bags, having kids....breathing....existing.


__________________
DISCLAIMER: Reader discretion advised. The above post is entirely fictional, for entertainment purposes only. Any similarities to real life events, animals, humans, persons, politicians, or any other form of organisation entity living, dead or in any other state of existence are coincidental. Any opinion, comment or statements related or attributed to this username are not necessarily nor implied to be those held by the ip/computer/username or other electronic media device or service owner/user.
decim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2019, 06:03 AM   #65
grimstock
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 1,048 (637 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dumbcritic View Post
You can't rule out spontaneous regression/remission. A number of case reports like this have been published http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/30/6/2351.full

It's a shame more info wasn't obtained https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...postcount=1499



A quick search reveals who 'Orac' is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gorski Prof. Gorski lost his mother-in-law to breast cancer.



There are a number of oncogenic viruses, bacteria and parasites. One paper from 2008 estimated the worldwide risk of cancers from these infectious causes was just over 16% https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...137-7/fulltext Thankfully, we can vaccinate against a number like HPV.

We can also engineer different viruses and bacteria https://www.nature.com/articles/s41568-018-0070-z to target certain types of cancer.

One oncolytic virus (a virus that preferentially infects and kills cancer cells) is FDA and EMA approved for melanoma https://www.imlygic.com The inventor of that (Dr. Coffin) raised over $100 million a few months ago and is taking three new and improved versions into a number of clinical trials https://globenewswire.com/news-relea...onference.html

An engineered strain of E. coli Nissle, (SYNB1891) will enter into a PhI clinical trial in 2H https://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...-Outlines-2019



I cite evidence from peer-reviewed publications.



There is no evidence for bicarb, so doctors should face disciplinary/legal action should they recommend it to patients with cancer. As for the 'ALT MED' practitioners' deaths, then this has been debunked https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ho...th-conspiracy/
If there is "no evidence" for baking soda, then why do doctors use it as a buffering agent during chemotherapy to stop patients from dying in front of them? Are they putting the patient's life at risk from baking soda? - Why no, the baking soda is used to PREVENT the patient from dying from the expensive toxic shite being fed to them in chemo.
So baking soda prevents death.
Why is baking soda used as an emergency room treatment?
Why do doctors not like you using it? - is it because it can't be patented? Is it because it works so well?
The Cancer Industry is an engineered money-making scam using people's lives as scare tactics.
Just one of many scams pulled by the "medical profession".

There is no need for it to be locked away in a secret emergency room cabinet - it can be used everyday to save lives and to cure many other ailments too, and a perfectly affordable top class medicine it is too!
It can prevent and cure colds, flu -( it works wonders on flu - and the effects start immediately) and arthritis, and many more ailments, kidney, fungal/bacteria problems, low ph, etc.etc.etc.
For details of colds/flu treatment/dosing, see here:
https://drsircus.com/flu/uses-in-daily-health/

Baking soda is only one of many natural remedies that have been shown to cure cancer completely.
However, a cure is not profitable to the "professionals".

Last edited by grimstock; 08-01-2019 at 08:01 AM.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2019, 06:45 AM   #66
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

Looks like the topic is cancer.

I watched this interview with Cliff High yesterday, and beginning at 1:03:20 he starts talking about cancer, and gets into Reishi, Lion's Mane and Turkey Tail mushrooms and their unique cancer-fighting properties...


Last edited by size_of_light; 08-01-2019 at 06:46 AM.
Likes: (2)
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2019, 07:15 AM   #67
elpressiedente
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: near beachtralia
Posts: 4,070
Likes: 274 (196 Posts)
Default

For some, no proof is necessary, for others no amount of proof will ever do.

What is evil about Gov't controlled health care is it stops people from being their own doctor and confiding among themselves and keeping statistics.

as I said in an earlier post, 100's if not 1000's have I cured not only of cancers but almost every other disease too.

And DumbCritic, there is evidence, lots of it. It just cant be published in any PISS reviewed journal. Citing the back patting of a monopolistic cabala isnt a good thing on this forum./

and again DumbCritic, there are NO studies as to how wart virus causes cancers or a virus vaccine's effectiveness in doing so... If you can find the actual SUBMISSIONS re the clinical studies, you'd be better than anyone else. Its all theory that Genital warts cause cancer. The Pap Smears showing degraded cells are from the toxins released by FUNGI. Fungi have the most toxic poisons known to mankind.

makes note to self, add dumbcritic to the sheeple class.
Likes: (1)
elpressiedente is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2019, 12:19 PM   #68
grimstock
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 1,048 (637 Posts)
Default

Why the ‘Best’ Conventional Cancer Treatment Will Never Cure You from Cancer

For all the bracelets, clothing, social media campaigns, walks, and races dedicated to finding a cure for the world’s second leading cause of death, cancer is still a hallmark disease of modern society. A disease that for all intents and purposes is just as untreatable today as it was 40 years ago ? at least from a conventional perspective.

There have been a a few minor advancements in the way socially accepted treatments like chemotherapy and radiation are administered to cancer patients. Aside from this, there have been few, if any, advancements outside the realm of the slash (surgery), burn (radiation), and drug (chemotherapy) paradigm that the establishment continues to hold up as the only form of “science-based” cancer medicine.

It’s not that more effective alternative treatments for cancer don’t exist ? they most certainly do. Sharing this information with as many people as possible is why The Truth About Cancer exists! It’s just that the allopathic system isn’t at all interested in divulging real cures. This is because healthy, cancer-free people don’t sign up for expensive therapies that generate billions of dollars a year in profits for the cancer industry.
Chemotherapy Doesn’t Cure Cancer ? It Causes It!

Chemotherapy, modern society’s “holy grail” of cancer treatment, is actually a product of World War II chemical weapons programs. It emerged as an afterthought in the wake of many decades worth of failed cancer treatments using radiation and surgery. Eventually it became an adjunct to these protocols ? a typified example of the “better living through chemistry” philosophy that swept the nation during the 1950s.

By pumping patients full of toxic chemicals, it was believed, cancer tumors wouldn’t stand a chance at survival. And for some types of cancer, it appeared as though this hypothesis was correct ? at least to an extent, and in the short-term. Chemotherapy does, in fact, kill cancer cells. But it also kills healthy cells, along with a patient’s immune system and, really, anything else that crosses its path.

Truth be told, chemotherapy is the definition of a genotoxic treatment protocol, meaning it damages human DNA. And damaged DNA is a leading cause of cancer, as per the “mutational theory” of cancer that is widely accepted among scientists as the impetus behind cancer’s emergence and spread.

What this means is that when chemotherapy is introduced into a person’s body, it causes mutational changes to occur at the cellular level that actually promote the growth and spread of malignant cancer cells. Unlike the various selectively cytotoxic anti-cancer compounds found naturally in certain herbs and plants, non-selectively cytotoxic chemotherapy chemicals destroy both good and bad cells leaving aggressive cancer cells behind and leaving patients prone to more cancer.

The fact that many of the most popular chemotherapeutic drugs currently on the market are classified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as human carcinogens illustrates the backwards nature of conventional cancer treatment. Tamoxifen, for instance, one of the leading chemotherapy drugs used in the treatment of breast cancer, not only causes more cancer (along with more than 24 other deadly side effects), it is also often ineffective.

Radiation is Equally Ineffective as a Cancer Treatment

The same is true for radiation treatments, which are increasingly being shown to trigger secondary cancers in patients within years after administration. Let’s use breast cancer as an example. Women who opt for radiotherapy often end up developing more serious cancers like cancer of the lungs later on down the road. This is due to the fact that irradiating breast tissue induces cancer-causing DNA damage at the cellular level.

“When a breast tumor is exposed to radiation, the cells within that tumor are not uniform, but have great heterogeneity,” writes Sayer Ji of GreenMedInfo about the intricacies of how cancer tumors work, and the failure of currently accepted cancer medicine to properly address them.

“Some of the cells are fast-replicating, whereas some are slow-replicating and benign. Some cells are older, technically senescent, and by their very existence are keeping neighboring cells within the tumor and with great potential for malignancy from breaking out into invasive growth.”

In other words, the idea that simply blasting an area of tissue with radiation in the hopes of eradicating all malignant cells and curing cancer is exceptionally short-sighted. Cancer cells are smarter than both radiation and chemotherapy. They tend to find other ways of surviving and growing stronger when targeted with poisonous therapies that destroy the body’s own natural line of defense against cancer ? the immune system.

This is why we rarely hear about patients actually being cured from cancer when opting for chemotherapy and radiation. At best, these treatments might help extend a person’s lifespan by a few weeks, months, and sometimes years ? albeit with serious side effects and greatly reduced quality of life. At worst, such treatments kill patients more quickly than if they had chosen not to undergo them at all.
There’s No Money in Cancer Prevention, Only Cancer Treatment

So why do oncologists continue prescribing chemotherapy drugs like tamoxifen and deadly radiation treatments to their patients? Because these are the only cancer treatment methods accepted and endorsed by the federal power structure as legitimate cancer medicine. Even though evidence continues to mount showing their ineffectiveness.

Ever since former president Richard Nixon declared a national “War on Cancer” in 1971, very little progress has been made in actually curing cancer ? and this is no accident. The primary focus has remained on how to capitalize on cancer rather than cure it. Hence the reason why the general public has been offered only drugs and radiation as opposed to curative protocols centered around therapeutic nutrition and lifestyle changes.

As many as 90% of all cancer-related deaths have nothing whatsoever to do with cancer ? that’s right, 90 percent! Cancer-related deaths are a product of cancer treatments killing patients over time through the destruction of immunity and a failed “management” system that gives patients a false hope of survival, all while enriching the drug industry.

“The focus is on fine-tuning drugs rather than investigating how cancer functions,” maintains physician and cancer expert Dr. Josh Axe. “The most narrow focus is rewarded rather than a systemic view; cooperation and collaboration are absent and there is too much emphasis on some magic bullet of a cure (pharmaceutical drugs) rather than prevention.”

There’s no money to be made in prescribing prevention advice like eating fewer chemicals and exercising more. The “bread and butter” of the cancer industry is unleashing the next, latest-and-greatest cancer drug. Not telling you how to avoid cancer in the first place.

This is why it’s up to you to take matters into your own hands, rather than rely on a failed corporate system that’s more concerned with making money than with keeping you and your loved ones healthy and cancer-free.

Read more:
https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/conv...r-cure-cancer/

Last edited by grimstock; 08-01-2019 at 12:20 PM.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2019, 02:54 PM   #69
grimstock
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 1,048 (637 Posts)
Default

Compendium Surviving Cancer

About this Cancer Compendium

This 2,500 page cancer compendium will offer you and your family most of the information you will need to make informed choices about cancer care. This compendium will teach you about natural oncology. It is a medical book, in understandable language, about a new form of medicine called Natural Allopathic Medicine. ( it is now over 3,300 pages I believe as of early 2018 -grimstock)

The Natural Allopathic protocol for cancer is aggressive in penetrating down into the deepest roots of physiology and pathology of cancer but it does so gently by using safe, nurturing substances. The exciting part of this method is that it is easy to learn and practice at home. Anyone can start implementing it even while being treated by other approaches.

Read more:
https://drsircus.com/shop/ebooks/cancer-compendium/

Last edited by grimstock; 09-01-2019 at 08:03 AM.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2019, 09:11 AM   #70
grimstock
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 1,048 (637 Posts)
Default

When dealing with natural treatments for cancer, as there are generally no side effects of the various treatments, you are not limited to one form of treatment - use multiple treatments where necessary, - as many as you like- choosing those that you would prefer. Interactions involving effectiveness may occur with such things as using vitamin C with iodine, as one example. However, the use of topical application of those nutrients suitable for transdermal use - (such as iodine as one instance) avoids any interaction with other cures being consumed.(Intake restrictions on supplements do not apply for topical use).

Naturally a low-sodium diet would place restrictions on the uses of baking soda as a main treatment, and alternatives should be used in that case.

Proactive and preventive use of natural treatments, coupled with good diet and exercise is always preferable to waiting until disease or illness strikes, and will usually mean that you have more time and headstart on any problems that may suddenly occur without warning, and is therefore always recommended. Use a daily protocol of vitamins, minerals and supplements that fits your needs and diet.

Last edited by grimstock; 09-01-2019 at 09:32 AM.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2019, 05:28 PM   #71
dumbcritic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,678
Likes: 560 (294 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grimstock View Post
Why the ‘Best’ Conventional Cancer Treatment Will Never Cure You from Cancer

For all the bracelets, clothing, social media campaigns, walks, and races dedicated to finding a cure for the world’s second leading cause of death, cancer is still a hallmark disease of modern society. A disease that for all intents and purposes is just as untreatable today as it was 40 years ago ? at least from a conventional perspective.

There have been a a few minor advancements in the way socially accepted treatments like chemotherapy and radiation are administered to cancer patients. Aside from this, there have been few, if any, advancements outside the realm of the slash (surgery), burn (radiation), and drug (chemotherapy) paradigm that the establishment continues to hold up as the only form of “science-based” cancer medicine.

It’s not that more effective alternative treatments for cancer don’t exist ? they most certainly do. Sharing this information with as many people as possible is why The Truth About Cancer exists! It’s just that the allopathic system isn’t at all interested in divulging real cures. This is because healthy, cancer-free people don’t sign up for expensive therapies that generate billions of dollars a year in profits for the cancer industry.
Chemotherapy Doesn’t Cure Cancer ? It Causes It!

Chemotherapy, modern society’s “holy grail” of cancer treatment, is actually a product of World War II chemical weapons programs. It emerged as an afterthought in the wake of many decades worth of failed cancer treatments using radiation and surgery. Eventually it became an adjunct to these protocols ? a typified example of the “better living through chemistry” philosophy that swept the nation during the 1950s.

By pumping patients full of toxic chemicals, it was believed, cancer tumors wouldn’t stand a chance at survival. And for some types of cancer, it appeared as though this hypothesis was correct ? at least to an extent, and in the short-term. Chemotherapy does, in fact, kill cancer cells. But it also kills healthy cells, along with a patient’s immune system and, really, anything else that crosses its path.

Truth be told, chemotherapy is the definition of a genotoxic treatment protocol, meaning it damages human DNA. And damaged DNA is a leading cause of cancer, as per the “mutational theory” of cancer that is widely accepted among scientists as the impetus behind cancer’s emergence and spread.

What this means is that when chemotherapy is introduced into a person’s body, it causes mutational changes to occur at the cellular level that actually promote the growth and spread of malignant cancer cells. Unlike the various selectively cytotoxic anti-cancer compounds found naturally in certain herbs and plants, non-selectively cytotoxic chemotherapy chemicals destroy both good and bad cells leaving aggressive cancer cells behind and leaving patients prone to more cancer.

The fact that many of the most popular chemotherapeutic drugs currently on the market are classified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as human carcinogens illustrates the backwards nature of conventional cancer treatment. Tamoxifen, for instance, one of the leading chemotherapy drugs used in the treatment of breast cancer, not only causes more cancer (along with more than 24 other deadly side effects), it is also often ineffective.

Radiation is Equally Ineffective as a Cancer Treatment

The same is true for radiation treatments, which are increasingly being shown to trigger secondary cancers in patients within years after administration. Let’s use breast cancer as an example. Women who opt for radiotherapy often end up developing more serious cancers like cancer of the lungs later on down the road. This is due to the fact that irradiating breast tissue induces cancer-causing DNA damage at the cellular level.

“When a breast tumor is exposed to radiation, the cells within that tumor are not uniform, but have great heterogeneity,” writes Sayer Ji of GreenMedInfo about the intricacies of how cancer tumors work, and the failure of currently accepted cancer medicine to properly address them.

“Some of the cells are fast-replicating, whereas some are slow-replicating and benign. Some cells are older, technically senescent, and by their very existence are keeping neighboring cells within the tumor and with great potential for malignancy from breaking out into invasive growth.”

In other words, the idea that simply blasting an area of tissue with radiation in the hopes of eradicating all malignant cells and curing cancer is exceptionally short-sighted. Cancer cells are smarter than both radiation and chemotherapy. They tend to find other ways of surviving and growing stronger when targeted with poisonous therapies that destroy the body’s own natural line of defense against cancer ? the immune system.

This is why we rarely hear about patients actually being cured from cancer when opting for chemotherapy and radiation. At best, these treatments might help extend a person’s lifespan by a few weeks, months, and sometimes years ? albeit with serious side effects and greatly reduced quality of life. At worst, such treatments kill patients more quickly than if they had chosen not to undergo them at all.
There’s No Money in Cancer Prevention, Only Cancer Treatment

So why do oncologists continue prescribing chemotherapy drugs like tamoxifen and deadly radiation treatments to their patients? Because these are the only cancer treatment methods accepted and endorsed by the federal power structure as legitimate cancer medicine. Even though evidence continues to mount showing their ineffectiveness.

Ever since former president Richard Nixon declared a national “War on Cancer” in 1971, very little progress has been made in actually curing cancer ? and this is no accident. The primary focus has remained on how to capitalize on cancer rather than cure it. Hence the reason why the general public has been offered only drugs and radiation as opposed to curative protocols centered around therapeutic nutrition and lifestyle changes.

As many as 90% of all cancer-related deaths have nothing whatsoever to do with cancer ? that’s right, 90 percent! Cancer-related deaths are a product of cancer treatments killing patients over time through the destruction of immunity and a failed “management” system that gives patients a false hope of survival, all while enriching the drug industry.

“The focus is on fine-tuning drugs rather than investigating how cancer functions,” maintains physician and cancer expert Dr. Josh Axe. “The most narrow focus is rewarded rather than a systemic view; cooperation and collaboration are absent and there is too much emphasis on some magic bullet of a cure (pharmaceutical drugs) rather than prevention.”

There’s no money to be made in prescribing prevention advice like eating fewer chemicals and exercising more. The “bread and butter” of the cancer industry is unleashing the next, latest-and-greatest cancer drug. Not telling you how to avoid cancer in the first place.

This is why it’s up to you to take matters into your own hands, rather than rely on a failed corporate system that’s more concerned with making money than with keeping you and your loved ones healthy and cancer-free.

Read more:
https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/conv...r-cure-cancer/
Very dangerous lies from Bollinger.

The 10 year survival rate among children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) back in the 60s was under 10%. Now it's over 90% http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1400972 You can thank pioneering researchers like Dr. Freireich for some of these major advances https://www.houstonchronicle.com/new...ht-6164234.php

The five year survival for other haematological malignancies has improved too. From the 1970s to 2010s
CML: 22% -> 68%
NHL: 47% -> 73%
Myeloma: 25% -> 53%

Potentially better treatments are being tested all the time https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...&postcount=805 https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...&postcount=800

In the next few years the first CAR-T therapy should be approved for myeloma https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKBN1E40MQ

Radiotherapy does reduce the risk of local recurrence https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14734701/ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...201-0/fulltext https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJM199710023371402 https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJM199710023371401

For breast cancer the use of adjuvant (after surgery) chemo, targeted and hormonal therapies (like Tamoxifen) have contributed to a decline in mortality by ~40% since 1989 in the US https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...322/caac.21412

Opdivo (a type of immunotherapy) was tested in non-small-cell lung cancer. In the group who got it 42% are alive at 1 year vs. 24% treated with Docetaxel (a type of chemo drug). At 2 years, it's 30% vs. 10%. In addition, Opdivo has a better response rate (20% vs. 9%) and fewer side-effects (7% vs. 55%) https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1504627 New long-term data show that ~16% who were treated with this lived for more than five years, about four times what is typically expected for those who get Docetaxel http://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/JCO.2017.77.0412

Another immunotherapy (Yervoy) in advanced melanoma has a 10 year survival rate of ~22% http://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/JCO.2014.56.2736
__________________
''Chlorine is a deadly poison gas employed on European battlefields in World War I. Sodium is a corrosive metal which burns upon contact with water. Together they make a placid and unpoisonous material, table salt. Why each of these substances has the properties it does is a subject called chemistry'' - Carl Sagan

Why is it that the loudest critics of ''Big Pharma'' are Big Placebo?

Last edited by dumbcritic; 10-01-2019 at 05:39 PM.
dumbcritic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-01-2019, 07:13 PM   #72
grimstock
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 1,048 (637 Posts)
Default

Of course there is little chance of survival amongst those attending surgeries -that is exactly what I have been saying, DC.
Avoid surgeons! Simples!
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-01-2019, 09:12 PM   #73
elpressiedente
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: near beachtralia
Posts: 4,070
Likes: 274 (196 Posts)
Default

The Tijuana Cancer Clinics survival rates are in direct proportion to how LITTLE surgery and chemo and radiation they received north of the border.

ALL Govt sponsored health (sickness) care is designed to milk you til they bury you.

Will you ever figure this out dumbcritic? That all statistics from any govt source is skewed to make you want their Phrankenstien Quackery?
elpressiedente is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2019, 05:33 AM   #74
TomKoyote
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 33
Likes: 26 (19 Posts)
Default

Dumbcritic:
I have been following TTAC and Ty Bollinger for 3 years now. All I can say is most of what he has written and said is close to reality. I have seen a member of my family, and in the past 4 years, friends, friends of friends, acquaintances wiped out by conventional treatment, half of them are now 10 feet under, the rest trying to survive.
I have been to a cancer clinic in Tijuana and heard and seen people first hand alive and lively recovering from stage 3 and 4, positive, with high spirit who were there on their 3th and 4th annual visits - absolutely no comparison with what you see at any conventional hospital. Their success rate is close to 80%, which is pretty good considering that the majority of people who end up in Tijuana have already been severely beaten up and damaged by conventional treatment.

dumbcritic, your are a professional troll, your post are full of useless statistics, useless theories, useless studies, bogus researches conducted by some high profile educated baboons, "new therapies" that are hailed as the newest/best/brightest and turn out to be another killing machine.

You seem to endorse immunotherapy. Let me tell you something about immunotherapy. An acquaintance, late 50s, lung cancer, was told by his bright oncologist that this is the newest thing and very little side effects. I saw him after 7 months. Was told that his tumors have shrunk by 20%. The guy had shockingly aged, not much juice left in his body. They will keep hammering him; in a few months, his oncologist will be ecstatic to see his tumors shrink by another 10%, and..... the guy on his knees. Last Christmas his daughter told me she wasn't sure that she will see him alive next Christmas.

You seem to support Tamoxifen for breast cancer. Tamoxifen is a poison. dumbcritic, since you advocate Tamoxifen why don't you take a few tablets a day for a few months and prove to the rest of us that it is harmless.

You very clearly endorse, advocate and support conventional treatment; well, you know that statistics say that 45% of women and 55% of men (or vice versa, can't remember exactly) will get cancer. So YOU have 50% of getting cancer. The day you do, don't chicken out, go full force and with high confidence with conventional treatment and prove to the rest of us that it is safe and it does work, and we'll all bow to you.

Because of trolls like you I rarely post on this forum, and I think that'll be my last post.
Likes: (1)
TomKoyote is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:37 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.