Cancer: causes and cures

[Mr. Premise]

Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers

Ockham, see this from the Cassiopaea Glossary http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=14&lsel=E

The QFS uses the term entropy in a special meaning. Entropy is used to mean fall into chaos, specially societally and individually. Entropy is the opposite of creation. Creation involves ordering things so as to create meaning. Increase of entropy or destruction destroys meaning and increases sameness. A societal collapse and the accompanying reverting from civilized into purely survival oriented behavior is an example of increased entropy in this sense.

In a metaphysical sense, subjectivity and wishful thinking represent entropy. This is so because the divide between the perception and reality is in itself a form of chaos and loss of information and cohesion. Service to self (STS) is associated with the concept of entropy in the sense that this seeks to limit the free will of others and deprive them of their energy and creative potential. By exploiting others, the STS entity may create a local peak of power and order or cohesion but this is at the expense of greater depletion of the potential of the exploited. Thus entropy increases in the system as a whole.

 

[Third_Density_Resident]

Teen cancer patient seeks to stop judge's treatment order

I've never seen a friend or loved one restored to health by chemotherap

I have. But even so, that doesn't mean it is the only or best treatment. As you say, the fact that they are pushing it so hard, is cause for suspicion in itself.

Well all I can say, based on the research I've done, is that the person you knew who truly recovered from cancer after having chemotherapy, was one of the lucky THREE PERCENT. By "truly recovered", I mean that they did not/will not have any relapses of cancer again for the remainder of their life. Only 3% of chemotherapy patients fit this description. The other 97% either die during treatment, or get cancer again at some later stage. All other figures you read from the mainstream medical establishment are outright lies. As I'm sure you know, they skew statistics using many little tricks, such as defining "cured" as still being alive 5 years after initial diagnosis. If the person dies from cancer the day after the 5-year cut-off, they are still considered a "cured" patient.

And so chemotherapy is one of the WORST treatments for cancer available. In fact, to call it a treatment, when 97% of patients suffer terribly from it and then die from it, is seriously perverted.

But in my opinion that's missing the more important point, as the article said:

"This is not a case about what treatment is best," Step?anovich said after the hearing. "It's a case about who gets to decide."

Freedom to decide, based on all pertinent information being freely available in order to make an educated decision. That is what is important. In this case, not only is the freedom to make the choice under debate, but ALSO, I very much doubt if all information regarding altrernative therapies is available, and/or presented in a balanced way, as this is information that tends to be heavily suppressed, and almost automatically filtered out by a combination of a pathocratised education of medical professionals, in combination with a corporatisation of the medical/pharmaceutical industry, and so a pathocratic control of funding and/or regulation of the medical profession.

Precisely. See www.cancertutor.com for a very comprehensive look at alternative therapies as well as the dangers of mainstream "treatments" and the politics, corruption, and ponerology behind them.

 

[Ruth]

Teen cancer patient seeks to stop judge's treatment order

I would rather die healthy and strong and in my house than die in a hospital bed, bedridden and unable to even open my eyes," said Abraham, who was so weakened by three months of chemotherapy last year that at times he could barely walk.

I can just about guarrantee that people dying of cancer do not 'feel' "healthy and strong" when they are dying, even if they chose to do it at home. They usually have to be under the care of a palliative team who try as best they can to manage the symptoms as well as the pain and distress caused by the disease process.

His comments says to me that he feels 'ok', now and and may have felt ok before he had his treatment, but the side effects of the treatment were not managed terribly well, or perhaps he was not informed about them enough. Whilst I think that everybody has a right to chose, I think he needs to know all his options and this is something that should have been discussed with the people treating him and should not concern people such as social workers and judges who may not know the medical implications of treatment versus non-treatment.

Here's what my book says regarding Hodgkin's disease treatment:

Treatment ModalitiesThe appropritae use of radiotherapy and chemotherapy is required for effective treatment of Hodgkin's disease. Radiation therapy is generally given to nodal areas. A total dose of 4000 to 4400 cGy (rads) to the involved nodal areas is usually well tolerated and curative. The most common chemotherapy regimes are MOPP and ABVD. Chemotherapy is generally continued for two cycles after complete remission is achieved.

Initial Therapy Because of a high percentage of patients may be cured with initial therapy, it is important to select the initial therapy carefully. Proper staging, prognostic indicators, and knowledge of toxicities of the treatment regimens are important factors considered in the selection of therapy. Staging is the most important factor in determining if radiotherapy alone, chemotherapy alone, or a combination of both is the treatment of choice. Unfavorable prognostic factors such as number of disease sites, bulk of tumour mass, presence of "B" symptoms (fever, night sweats, weight loss), age greater than 60, male gender and lymphocytedepleted histology also influence treatment choice. Finally, the long-term toxicities of treatment, such as secondary malignancy, sterility, cardiomyopathy, pneumonitis, and opportunistic infections, are considered when therapy is chosen.

Recurrent Disease Therapy After initial therapy, 20-50% of patients will have residual or recurrent disease. The optimal treatment regimen for these patients continues to be controversial[..] For patients relapsing after chemotherapy, several treatment approaches have been used, with varying degrees of success. [..] Patients experiencing relapse less than 12 months after initial therapy are less likely to achieve a complete remission. ABVD (chemotherapy) is the most common salvage regimen used in this population. Overall, 50% of patients will achieve a complete remission, and 5% to 10% will have long-term disease-free survival

Prognosis Patients who achieve remission after second-line therapy have a wide range of reported long-term survival: 20% to 80%. Patients who have residual disease or who relapse after second-line therapy have diseases that are difficult to control. Most oncologist do not believe these patients can be cured.

Otto, S. (1997). Oncology Nursing (3rd Ed). Mosby: St Louis.

Whilst nobody can be absolutely sure who will be cured and who will not, I hope this boy gets his cure, although research tends to suggest that it may be more likely if he undertook the second-line therapy rather than the alternative one. However, all patients should have the right to decide for themselves and unfortunately cancer therapy is still definately in the dark ages as far as cure and treatment goes...

The worse part is when young people go through all the agonies of chemotherapy and end being 'poor reponders'. They have to go into palliative care and the younger they are the harder it is for them (and their families) to accept death and believe me, it is a horrible, painful undignified and lingering death.

 

[Ruth]

Teen cancer patient seeks to stop judge's treatment order

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5412614.stm

Women in the UK should not panic as the benefits of current breast cancer treatment are likely to far outweigh any small impairments in attention
Dr Valerie Jenkins

The whole purpose of chemotherapy is to destroy micro-metatstisis which can't be removed (and in some cases may even be spread) with surgery. "The most common site for metastisis are: bone, lung, pleura, liver and adrenals. Less common sites are brain, thyroid, leptomeninges, eye, pericardiym and ovary". From the Otto book.

Well, I suppose they are trying to stop the cancer from metastising to the brain or anywhere else, and that's what they meant by the "benefits are likely to far outweigh any small impairments in attention".

 

[Hildegarda]

Teen cancer patient seeks to stop judge's treatment order

there was a girl in Texas under the same ordeal last year.

 

[Ruth]

Teen cancer patient seeks to stop judge's treatment order

there was a girl in Texas under the same ordeal last year.

Yeah, they need to respect the wishes of the patient, but at the same time, they need to make sure that they are fully informed of all their options as well as the likelyhood of success or failure of each of them.

Patients undergoing chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy need to know what symptoms they'll get from this and how they will be managed.

Having cancer is bad enough psychologically for an older person, for a younger person it can be just as deadly. They need to understand that the treatment if horrible, may not work and just because they feel ok now, doesn't mean they will have an 'easy' death.

 

[notanothermonday]

Teen cancer patient seeks to stop judge's treatment order

What kind of health care treatment disallows the use of multi-vitamins?
What kind of health care treatment disallows the consumption of whole fruits and vegetables?
What kind of health care treatmetn offers cookies and sugary drinks after the therapy is administered?

Chemotherapy... does any of that make any sense when looking to heal a body.

 

[ArdVan]

C is for Cancer

When boiled down and simplified, the difference between chemotherapy and vitamin C is that while chemotherapy kills everything in its path – cancer cells, healthy cells and immune system – vitamin C and Laetrile (also called vitamin B17, though it's an amygdalin rather than a vitamin) are toxic to cancer cells but nourish healthy cells. The FDA and the medical establishment have done everything (including going against the law and going against specific court order, as well as giving patently false court testimonies) to stop their use.

I can add here a little about B17 or amygdalin. Here's the link to a slideshow from the 60's.

G. Edward Griffin claims that cancer is the result of a lack of amygdalin or B17 as he calls it. He said that there are countries were people live (in the 60's) without cancer. But it's not their more natural environment that makes it that way. It's the food they eat, which contains daily input of B17. This B17 is harmless to the body cells because they don't have an enzyme that releases the cyanide in B17. But according to Mr. Griffin it will be released in the cancer cells because they contain this enzyme.

I can't neither prove or disprove these claims.

The thing is that it's easy to get some amygdalin. You just have to eat the apple including the apple seeds. You have to crack them so that you feel the bitter core. Or you may eat the core of the apricots. Especially the bitter once. Because people don't like the bitter taste, they also stopped eating amygdalin. If it doesn't have the smell of bitter almonds and tastes bitter you didn't eat amygdalin.

By the way there's a funny part about smoking. According to the narrator the people who claimed that B17 doesn't work, said at the same time, that smoking is helpful.

 

[Marie]

C is for Cancer

That's an interesting slideshow for sure. Laetrile is known as quite possibly the best treatment against cancer by a lot of serious researchers; the video shows that it's been an open secret for a long time.

Of course apple seeds and apricot pits are a very convenient way to add amygdalin to our diet; in case it's of any use, here is a page which lists other possible sources

 

[Ady_H101]

C is for Cancer

Just saw this film ( comes in 2 parts ) related to B17 and its effects on cancer cells. I cant vouch for the validity of it but it seemed quite interesting. ( shame it also seems to be trying to hard sell a book on the subject aswell )

Part 1 - hxxp://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=World%20Without%20Cancer%201of2.wmv

Par 2 - hxxp://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=World%20Without%20Cancer%202of2.wmv

just right click the link it brings up and save it to ur hard drive

 

[Gaby]

Chili peppers for Cancer? Bring on Dave's Insanity Sauce!

More good news on chili peppers :)

_http://www.newstarget.com/022185.html

Capsaicin from chili peppers may help prevent obesity, weight gain

Chili peppers, already seen as having anticancer properties, may also help you fight flab, according to new research involving mice from the National Chung Hsing University in Taiwan. Chili peppers are a prime source of capsaicin, and capsaicin is now being shown to prevent fat cells, or adipocytes, from growing into mature cells.

• The researchers said that early studies suggest eating chilis lower the amount of fat in the blood.

• The effective levels of capsaicin are found in people who regularly eat Thai or Indian diets, according to the researchers. The exact amount found to be effective is between 8 to 25 micromoles of capsaicin per day.

• Habaneras are the highest rated pepper for capsaicin content.

• Capsaicin is linked to fighting cancer because it promotes the natural cycle of programmed cell death, called apoptosis. Cancerous cells attempt to resist apoptosis and, if successful, eventually overtake the body with cancer.

• High intakes of hot chili peppers have been linked with increased risks of stomach cancer.[Japan and Costa Rica have high incidence for stomach cancer, Costa Ricans don't have a characteristic high intake of hot chili in their diets]

• Capsaicin has been linked to killing cancer without side effects.

Bottom line
In addition to anticancer properties, chili peppers also may have anti-obesity benefits, according to findings involving mice.

And plus the diabetes breakthrough where capsaicin was involved too:

_http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=a042812e-492c-4f07-8245-8a598ab5d1bf&k=63970

Suspecting a link between the nerves and diabetes, he and Dr. Salter used an old experimental trick -- injecting capsaicin, the active ingredient in hot chili peppers, to kill the pancreatic sensory nerves in mice that had an equivalent of Type 1 diabetes.

"Then we had the biggest shock of our lives," Dr. Dosch said. Almost immediately, the islets began producing insulin normally "It was a shock ? really out of left field, because nothing in the literature was saying anything about this."

 

[LQB]

Chili peppers for Cancer? Bring on Dave's Insanity Sauce!

If you're really serious about cancer in yourself or a loved one, or anyone you know - get the body PH at 8+ for some time depending on the volume of cells that need to be destroyed (without killing the healthy ones). This is best done with Cesium Carbonate/Citrate - do the research (and be sure to add magnesium and potassium). The best scientific research shows that cancers start 8 yrs before clinical detection. So occasional boost of PH will eliminate the better part of the risk - this, due to increased oxygen to the cells. Test your urine with PH paper to ensure maintanence at the desired PH. If dealing with active cancer, you may want to add nitrilosides (apricot seeds are a good source). Nitrilosides kill cancer cells directly.

 

[Hildegarda]

Chili peppers for Cancer? Bring on Dave's Insanity Sauce!

There is also this:

\\\http://sinusbuster.com/


It is a capsaicin nasal irrigation product -- the best thing for colds sinus infections, headaches, allergies, etc. makes you jump to the ceiling but really works.

 

[Gawan]

damage control!?: New German Study Downgrades Cell Phone Cancer Risk

About one week ago I had two small-talks with some students about health risks in using cell phones (one information: this has been in two different cities, with different students). And most of them seemed to be calmed down, because of a new study. I haven't heard of it myself, so I did a small research:

_http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3417521,00.html

Germany's main radiation laboratory has concluded that mobile phones are safe and pose no cancer risk to users, according to a nearly-10-year-long study obtained Monday, June 16 by German press agency DPA.

The survey by the Federal Radiation Protection Bureau found no evidence whatever that cell phones, cordless phones or cordless base stations situated next to beds caused brain cancer, headaches or disturbed sleep in adults.

But the scientists said they would like to study the issue longer to make absolutely sure that young children exposed to such electro-magnetic fields did not develop health problems in old age.

The bureau, which employs top radiation scientists, advised parents not to let children keep phones permanently in their clothing until such a risk had been ruled out.

Large numbers of Germans fear mobile phones may be lethal after alarming reports about them in the media.

More than 50 German research projects since 2002 were analyzed for the report.

In some cases, genetic activity in human cells was observed to change under the influence of radiation, but this did not alter the overall conclusion that the phones were safe.

German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel was due to unveil the study on Tuesday.

Hmm, that sounds like that nothing new is recovered. But for some people, the students I met, it's already enough not to change their cell phone habit. Maybe this is the first attempt what Laura mentioned in a comment from "Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'":

Prepare for the damage control articles that will reassure everyone that this is all a tempest in a teapot! Remember that the only real research that gets funded is that which agrees with the BELIEFS of those in power. […]

I have to add, "that half of the costs of this study is funded by the 4 German mobile network operators".
Unfortunately, I can provide only an German article where this is stated: _http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,560166,00.html

 

[Divide by Zero]

damage control!?: New German Study Downgrades Cell Phone Cancer Risk

Science is screwed up, I remember seeing an study that said that nutrasweet was linked to cancer made by a big University in Italy. This was not publicized at all.. I feel like I have no hope convincing friends and co workers that diet soda is worse than regular. This is because our media is bought and paid for.