PDA

View Full Version : The Great Cancer Hoax Part II: The Brilliant Cure the FDA Tried Their Best to Shut Down...




donnay
09-19-2011, 08:21 AM
The Great Cancer Hoax Part II: The Brilliant Cure the FDA Tried Their Best to Shut Down...


http://vimeo.com/26874089http://vimeo.com/26874089

By Dr. Mercola

In 1971, US President Richard Nixon declared war on cancer; the National Cancer Act was enacted and the national cancer program was born. An impressive $1.6 billion dollars were allocated to the program for the first three years alone, and its director even reported directly to the President.

So, after 40 years, how has the war on cancer fared?

One would think that after four decades of fervent research and countless billions of dollars spent, we would have this dreadful disease under control. Just think of the rapid explosion of ideas and innovations within other technology areas. Your cell phone is now more powerful than the largest supercomputers of that time, for example.

Alas, the war on cancer has been a MASSIVE failure, and the reasons for this failure are clearly explained in the featured documentary Cut, Poison, Burn.

Greed bordering on the grotesque has been allowed to rule the game here, and the primary beneficiaries of this 40-year long "war" are pharmaceutical companies and the tremendously profitable cancer industry as a whole, including so-called "non-profit" organizations like the American Cancer Society.

Rather than decreasing, cancer rates have increased during the last 40 years, and now surpass heart disease as the number one killer of Americans between the ages of 45 to 74. According to statistics detailed in the film, one in three women, and one in two men will now get some form of cancer in their lifetime!

Health Freedom is Severely Restricted when You have Cancer

The film follows the struggles of Jim and Donna Navarro, whose young son was diagnosed with medulloblastoma, a malignant brain tumor. The conventional treatment methods, which included potent chemotherapy drugs and radiation, offered virtually no hope. Even if their son survived the treatment, side effects could include hearing loss, brain damage, cumulative reduction in IQ and other cancers, just to name a few.

The couple decided to refuse conventional treatment for their son and to seek alternatives, but like so many others, they soon realized that under the current medical paradigm, they were not free to seek whatever treatment they saw fit for their child… Yes indeed, the hard fought for freedoms that America's forefathers sacrificed their life for seem to have gradually eroded to this sad state of affairs.

Their doctor filed charges of child abuse and child neglect against them. Still, they fought for their right to choose; to opt to not have their son suffer needlessly from a treatment that was just as likely to kill their child as the disease itself, while making him suffer terribly in the process. They had discovered Dr. Burzynski's treatment facility in Texas, but the FDA blocked them from getting his as of yet unapproved treatment…

The Navarro's story is a heartbreaking but important one, so I hope you will take the time to watch the film in its entirety, to understand what could happen to you, should you ever be placed in a similar circumstance. Cut Poison Burn, is available to view for free. However, if you want to help the Navarro's pay off Thomas' medical bills, I urge you to purchase a copy of the film. It's being sold on a 'value-priced' basis, meaning you can download a copy of the film for $1.99 and up, depending on how much you're willing to pay. You can also purchase a DVD copy for $10. A percentage of the proceeds from the film will go to cancer organizations that donate 100 percent of their proceeds to families fighting cancer—not the American Cancer Society.

I'm also making the DVD available on my site. Of these proceeds, 80 percent will go to the producers and Jim Navarro's family. I'm giving the remaining 20 percent to Grassroots Health's Breast Cancer Prevention Project. All monies donated to them from the sale of Cut Poison Burn will be used to enroll women 60 and over in a project aimed to demonstrate the effectiveness of vitamin D in breast cancer prevention. More information about this project can be found at here.

It's important to realize that the cancer industry today is based on wealth, not health. And the federal government and the American Cancer Society are actually making matters worse, not better.


Killing the Cancer Before the Patient Dies from Treatment = Success…

People who face a lethal disease will usually try just about anything to survive. The brutal combination of fear and bullying by the medical establishment to submit to 'standard care' is part of the foundation that keeps the cancer industry going, because standard approved care is not cheap. The average cost per patient, from diagnosis to death, is $350,000, but can run as high as $1 million.

Since the war on cancer began in 1971, more than 14.8 million Americans have died from some form of cancer. Fifteen hundred people die every day from cancer, and 565,000 people died in 2009 alone.

This amounts to Big Business.

And although there have been some advances in the treatment of certain types of cancer, we've made virtually no progress at all over the last century in the treatment of the most common forms of cancer, despite spending billions of dollars in research each year.

Cancer can basically be viewed as cell growth that is out of bioregulatory control. The conventional medical approach is to "search and destroy" cancer cells using surgery, extremely potent toxins and dangerous radiation. And for all the boasting about new and improved drugs, current cancer treatments are actually rather archaic, and are nothing more than the treatment of symptoms using extremely expensive and toxic means.

As stated in the film, as long as the cancer is killed before the patient dies, the treatment is largely heralded as a success…

Most of the conventional treatments still considered standard care were created during a time when knowledge of cancer was minimal.

For example, chemotherapy was invented in 1960, when poison gas was found to kill cancerous tumors in one mouse. As it turns out, they were not quite able to replicate the success on other mice, but for some reason, for that initial one, it seemed to work quite well. This 'fluke' of an experiment was the original foundation of chemotherapy. When it became clear that chemo wasn't all that effective on its own, radiation was added, and now chemotherapy in conjunction with radiation therapy is the norm for many types of cancer.

Cancer Drugs Can Also Cause Cancer

Another problem is that many of the chemotherapy drugs have been found to cause cancer. Such is the case with the blockbuster breast cancer drug Tamoxifen. It does reduce breast cancer, but it more than doubles your risk of uterine cancer. And if you take it for more than five years, you again increase your risk of recurring breast cancer. But rather than remove it from the market, patients are simply told that uterine cancer can be successfully treated by performing a hysterectomy…

The entire cancer industry built on purging cancer cells from your body by toxic means, and they will not remove a drug simply because it's dangerous, because there really isn't such a thing as "too dangerous" when you're dealing with cancer drugs.

As Dr. Whitaker says:

"We started on the wrong foot, and stayed on the wrong foot, and now we are paying the price."

The price is your health, even if you survive the treatment, which many do not. By and large, people who get chemo die around the same time as those who do nothing. The main difference is that those who get the standard care suffer far more than those who get no treatment at all.

The question is: Does it really have to be like this?

No, it doesn't.

What Your Oncologist Won't Tell You…

In the film, Jim Navarro makes a statement that really highlights the sheer ludicrousness of the current model of cancer care. Although the doctor admitted that chemotherapy "would not work" for their son's particular cancer, and the package insert stated that the drug has not been proven safe or effective for pediatric use, he still insisted that chemotherapy had to be used, and if the Navarro's refused to submit their son to this 'standard care,' they could go to jail and their son could be legally taken from them.

Meanwhile, they were blocked from using an alternative treatment created by Dr. Burzynski—a completely non-toxic treatment with an average success rate of 50-60 percent—because it was not part of the approved standard of care.

This is a dementedly inhuman game; where a child's quality of life and entire future is tossed aside in order to maintain a highly profitable status quo.

The truth of the matter is that safe and effective alternatives to this toxic and deadly paradigm do exist.

I've already written two articles about Dr. Burzynski's gene-specific treatment using antineoplastons, peptides and derivatives of amino acids that act as molecular and genetic switches. They turn off oncogenes, the genes that cause cancer, and activate chemo suppressor genes; the genes that fight cancer. Furthermore, it's completely non-toxic, and patients suffer virtually no side effects at all. Best of all, once the cancer is gone, the rate of recurrence is slim to none.

As a testament to the safety and effectiveness of antineoplastons, Dr. Burzynski has patients who have survived with "incurable" cancers for over 20 years, and are still cancer free after going through his program. Some of these cases are highlighted in his film Burzynski: The Movie, which you can still view for free here.

A major part of the problem is that—while the drug industry initially opposed being regulated by the FDA—they soon discovered that it's an excellent way to eliminate unwanted competition.

The price per drug approval is about $1.6 billion, which effectively eliminates innovative drugs by individuals and small pharmaceutical companies. In short, the drug industry is a playground that only the largest monopolies on Earth can afford to play in. Dr. Burzynski's story is a perfect example of how the FDA effectively curtails medical innovation in order to protect the profits of these industry giants.

Instead of supporting the development of a cure for cancer, the US federal government spent $8 million of Americans' tax dollars to persecute and prosecute Dr. Burzynski over a period of 13 years, in order to prevent his remarkably successful treatment from being used…

In the end, Dr. Burzynski prevailed, but he still has not been able to get his antineoplastons approved by the FDA. And, despite overwhelming evidence that the drug is both safe and effective, the American Cancer Society placed antineoplastons on its unapproved drugs list, warning patients away from it.

Do they or don't they want cancer cured in America?

Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez was not interviewed in this film but he is another prominent alternative cancer physician who shared his run-ins with the conventional cancer model in my interview with him earlier this year.

The Irony that is the American Cancer Society…

It's important to realize that non-profits like the American Cancer Society (ACS) are defined by their financial support, and the ACS funding comes from the deep pockets of giant corporations and industries—all of which therefore have a vested financial interest in the cancer business.

As Dr. Whitaker says in the film, when you graciously donate to the American Cancer Society, you are perpetuating a failure. The ACS is in fact an impediment to advances in cancer therapy, and have no interest in really finding a cure—especially not a cure that doesn't cost an absolute fortune. Besides, as soon as a cure for cancer is found, the society is supposed to disband.

But you cannot disband an entire industry, and that is what it has become. It is now a cancer industry.

Did you know that even the simple PAP smear was opposed and left largely unused for some 25 years, as this inexpensive test would infringe on profits? Once the PAP smear finally did come into widespread use, mortality rates from ovarian cancer dropped dramatically.

And so, the battle to suppress innovation rages on.

Today, there are a number of alternative cancer treatments that are vehemently suppressed and opposed, while bobble-heads talk about 'doing everything we can to find a cure for cancer.'

For example, dichloroacetic acid, known as DCA also appears to have remarkable potential as a cancer treatment. The reason it's not available as an approved treatment for cancer is because it costs merely pennies a day, so no drug company wants to touch it. You probably couldn't even break even after paying the $1 billion or so to get the approval… and this is the primary problem with the current cancer paradigm: Only patents make money, and if you can't patent it because it's a natural product, or if the treatment is not going to be exceedingly profitable, it will never see the light of day as an FDA approved cancer treatment. Nor will it be part of the standard of care.

This paradigm blocks those who can really help from doing so; it blocks progress, hinders innovation; limits personal choice; and sacrifices those who need not necessarily die—such as Jim and Donna Navarro's son. His death certificate reads:

Cause of Death: Respiratory failure due to chronic toxicity of chemotherapy

After 40 years of war on cancer, that is where we are today…
"The National Cancer Program is a bunch of sh*t."
Dr. James Watson, 1975
Discoverer of DNA, Nobel Laureate

"Everyone should know that cancer research is largely fraud."
Dr. Linus Pauling, 1986
Nobel Laureate


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/19/cut-poison-burn.aspx?e_cid=20110919_DNL_art_1

steve005
09-22-2011, 11:30 PM
so what is it? thats way to much to read

donnay
09-22-2011, 11:42 PM
so what is it? thats way to much to read


I've already written two articles about Dr. Burzynski's gene-specific treatment using antineoplastons, peptides and derivatives of amino acids that act as molecular and genetic switches. They turn off oncogenes, the genes that cause cancer, and activate chemo suppressor genes; the genes that fight cancer. Furthermore, it's completely non-toxic, and patients suffer virtually no side effects at all. Best of all, once the cancer is gone, the rate of recurrence is slim to none.

You can watch the video if reading bothers you.

libertyjam
04-20-2013, 10:22 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j6_pZK_gqxk

Carson
04-20-2013, 10:33 AM
dichloroacetic acid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid

Dr.3D
04-20-2013, 10:33 AM
Seems you can buy it for your pets.
http://www.amazon.com/Canadian-Cancer-Therapy-Treatment-Pure/dp/B00946YHQO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366475525&sr=8-1&keywords=dichloroacetate

libertyjam
04-20-2013, 10:56 AM
The other side, a someone who doesn't like DCA - http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/436-a-dangerous-pharmaceutical-espoused-as-alternative-medicine-dichloroacetic-acid-dca.html

libertyjam
04-20-2013, 11:00 AM
http://toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Dichloroacetic+Acid

Thor
04-20-2013, 11:59 AM
Rick Simpson Hemp Oil appears to have cured cancer in 1,000's. Brain cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, skin cancer, plus things like diabetes, helps with paralysis in some, etc... sounds too good to be true... no wonder it is illegal.

Brain cancer testimony from last 30 days:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O0wndWwssM


Google "Rick Simpson Hemp Oil"for lots of info from others, but this is the main site: http://phoenixtears.ca/

Main video on his fight to get the word out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI

cubical
04-20-2013, 12:49 PM
I remember Peter Schiff had on a Dr who administered IV Vitamin C and it cured cancer patients at very high rates. Does anyone know who i am speaking of?

libertyjam
04-20-2013, 12:50 PM
Linus Pauling?

Working Poor
04-20-2013, 12:51 PM
I theorize that a person must own property, have money in the bank, premium insrance and a good credit score before a diagnoses of cancer can be made...

government_hurts_my_head
05-06-2013, 07:11 PM
A good friend of mine created a cancer vaccine which was highly effective. Problem was the FDA shut it down...

http://lib.law.virginia.edu/Garrett/plea_agreements/dockets/AmscotMedicalLabs.htm

PaulConventionWV
05-06-2013, 07:17 PM
A good friend of mine created a cancer vaccine which was highly effective. Problem was the FDA shut it down...

http://lib.law.virginia.edu/Garrett/plea_agreements/dockets/AmscotMedicalLabs.htm

How exactly do you make a "cancer vaccine"?

government_hurts_my_head
05-06-2013, 07:26 PM
Not sure. I DO know that he conducted research for years and provided the vaccine to a physician who injected it into patients with Stage IV cancer. Several years after his run-in with the feds for "misbranding", his protocol was used by researchers at Stanford, who were lauded as having "discovered" a cancer vaccine.

WhistlinDave
05-06-2013, 07:45 PM
They don't want anyone cured. They want to prolong your life, and keep you as a cash cow, and if you're lucky the treatments might send the cancer into remission, but most often they don't. Usually you still die, but you stick around long enough for tons of money to be spent on your treatments. And in the meantime, your quality of life is absolute shit. It's criminal how they suppress anything that could lead to a cure.

donnay
05-06-2013, 07:51 PM
They don't want anyone cured. They want to prolong your life, and keep you as a cash cow, and if you're lucky the treatments might send the cancer into remission, but most often they don't. Usually you still die, but you stick around long enough for tons of money to be spent on your treatments. And in the meantime, your quality of life is absolute shit. It's criminal how they suppress anything that could lead to a cure.


Outside of the norm of chemo and radiation, most peoples quality of life is much better. The fact of the matter the norm (Chemo & Radiation) will string you along, and slowly kill you while bankrupting you and your family in the process. Most people doing the norm rarely die of cancer, they die of cachexia (wasting disease), where you slowly die of malnutrition.

RickyJ
05-06-2013, 08:32 PM
I theorize that a person must own property, have money in the bank, premium insrance and a good credit score before a diagnoses of cancer can be made...

You might be right.

Thor
05-06-2013, 09:56 PM
How exactly do you make a "cancer vaccine"?

From the intertubes: http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/kindness.html


George Kindness Facing Criminal Charges
Stephen Barrett, M.D.

On November 19, 2003, George Kindness and Amscot Medical Laboratory charged with 21 counts of violating the criminal provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act by delivering and conspiring to deliver misbranded and adulterated drugs in interstate commerce. The indictment describes Kindness, who resides in Middletown, Ohio, as Amscot's president, part-owner, and laboratory director [1]. Many Internet postings say that he has a PhD, but I could find no information about its origin. Various other documents say he also has an "MD" degree, but I could find no mention of him in standard medical databases or directories.

According to the indictment:

Kindness, who resides in Middletown, Ohio, has been Amscot's president, part-owner, and laboratory director since 1992.
In 1999, the FDA discovered that Amscot had been making "vaccines" from blood and tumor tissues of cancer patients and shipping them to an unidentified co-conspirator who used them to treat patients.
After the FDA informed Kindness that such treatment was illegal without investigative new drug (IND) approval, an application was submitted.
The FDA never approved the IND, but the treatment continued.
The FDA also learned that the co-conspirator was treating patients with a similar vaccine called Theracine, which also lacked FDA approval.
In 1999, Kindness falsely represented to an FDA inspector that he had an MD degree.
Throughout 2000, Amscot continued to prepare and ship Theracine vaccines.
In 2001, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Kindness and Amscot from manufacturing, processing, packing, labeling, promoting, and distributing Theracine, any similar drug or any biologic product, or any other "new" drug.

While this might have worked, they could and did stop it at the source. If in fact researchers at Stanford have moved it forward, where is it? Still being controlled and "studied."

The interesting thing about Cannabis Oil treatments is that it can't be stopped or controlled. Sure, they can imprison people for growing and making it, but the knowledge is out there now.... Google "Rick Simpson Oil Cancer". It would be far more cost effective and help 1,000's more if it could be grown on a large scale and manufactured without the threat of jail, but it still can be made and people can still be cured - regardless.

A "government of the people, by the people, for the people." Oh, no, not you people... just a select few people.... JustUs

Origanalist
05-06-2013, 11:00 PM
They don't want anyone cured. They want to prolong your life, and keep you as a cash cow, and if you're lucky the treatments might send the cancer into remission, but most often they don't. Usually you still die, but you stick around long enough for tons of money to be spent on your treatments. And in the meantime, your quality of life is absolute shit. It's criminal how they suppress anything that could lead to a cure.

As a cancer "survivor", I can say your post is not entirely true. While I don't discount the profit motive, cancer treatments are always progressing and mortality rates dropping. And I don't believe the researchers are looking for ways to make a buck as opposed to curing a disease.

WhistlinDave
05-06-2013, 11:10 PM
As a cancer "survivor", I can say your post is not entirely true. While I don't discount the profit motive, cancer treatments are always progressing and mortality rates dropping. And I don't believe the researchers are looking for ways to make a buck as opposed to curing a disease.

That's really encouraging... I should probably clarify that I'm talking about the guys at the top of the big Pharmaceutical corporations and the ones who used to have their jobs, who are now running the FDA. I don't doubt that the researchers working for them have good intentions and that some good things are coming from their efforts. But I do think the guys at the top deliberately suppress certain things when they can't make any money off them, like DCA which is super cheap, and concentrated cannabis oil which people can grow in their own back yards and cook in their kitchen.

By the way--congrats! :)

opal
05-06-2013, 11:16 PM
and then along comes this

http://www.trojanhorsecure.com/

Origanalist
05-06-2013, 11:17 PM
That's really encouraging... I should probably clarify that I'm talking about the guys at the top of the big Pharmaceutical corporations and the ones who used to have their jobs, who are now running the FDA. I don't doubt that the researchers working for them have good intentions and that some good things are coming from their efforts. But I do think the guys at the top deliberately suppress certain things when they can't make any money off them, like DCA which is super cheap, and concentrated cannabis oil which people can grow in their own back yards and cook in their kitchen.

By the way--congrats! :)

Thanks for that, and I agree with the rest. I have no doubt suppression of findings happens if they can't make a buck.

Thor
05-06-2013, 11:27 PM
and then along comes this

http://www.trojanhorsecure.com/

Sure, similar to the phkillscancer.com method. Raise blood alkalinity, with sugar that the cancer is attracted to. My father had prostate cancer and tried baking soda and molasses method from phkillscancer.com. Got his PSA numbers to drop to safe levels. But then I don't know what he did (or did not do) other than talk to his oncologist who told him "it works for a while, but the body adapts and then it is not effective. you need the surgery." We don't talk that much... my opinion, he was hoodwinked by the Dr who needed to pay for his new expensive robotic cutting device. (I didn't know about RSO when he was going through this, but he probably would have ignored that anyway, as it is "illegal" and all.)

If it were me, I would raise my blood alkalinity to 8.5 for a few weeks and take the cannabis oil at the same time. Chemo kills more than it saves.

donnay
05-07-2013, 05:58 AM
What is the shame of all of this-- in a truly free market people would have the option of trying different methods without government interference.

As usual when government gets involved people die. :(

ClydeCoulter
05-07-2013, 06:11 AM
I'm taking my uncle for more chemo today. The oncologist has convinced him that it's for "pain management", since I got him to admit it won't help in stopping or slowing down the cancer, and that it is debilitating. This is his 5th round (of 3 day sessions). I just watch as he gets worse and worse with each round of chemo, then goes a few weeks, gets more strength and starting to get his color back, then....doc talks him into more chemo... (and he hasn't had any scans since the chemo started end of last year).

KingNothing
05-07-2013, 06:12 AM
As a cancer "survivor", I can say your post is not entirely true. While I don't discount the profit motive, cancer treatments are always progressing and mortality rates dropping. And I don't believe the researchers are looking for ways to make a buck as opposed to curing a disease.


Congrats on surviving! I'm sure the experience was tremendously unpleasant, but I'm definitely happy for you!

I think your take on this is exactly correct - cancer treatments today are far more humane than they were a generation or two ago, and the success rates are much higher. And thank God for that, because even now the treatments are terrible and the success rates not high enough. But, as you rightly stated, things are progressing, and just last week I read an amazing article about the hormones that cancer cells give-off that prevents white blood cells from attacking them, and how scientists have found ways to stop the cells from creating that hormone.

KingNothing
05-07-2013, 06:23 AM
As a cancer "survivor", I can say your post is not entirely true. While I don't discount the profit motive, cancer treatments are always progressing and mortality rates dropping. And I don't believe the researchers are looking for ways to make a buck as opposed to curing a disease.

It is a shame that some folks around here have a desire to denigrate the tremendous and difficult work that so many scientists, researchers, doctors, and nurses are doing to make the battle against cancer less horrific.

And it belies logic. The company that finds a "cure" for cancer, will be obscenely wealthy. And they'll be the toast of every town, and anyone involved in the project will have absolutely no trouble finding speaking engagements after the fact. A cancer cure DOES make financial sense, for the company that discovers it.

Origanalist
05-07-2013, 06:49 AM
I'm taking my uncle for more chemo today. The oncologist has convinced him that it's for "pain management", since I got him to admit it won't help in stopping or slowing down the cancer, and that it is debilitating. This is his 5th round (of 3 day sessions). I just watch as he gets worse and worse with each round of chemo, then goes a few weeks, gets more strength and starting to get his color back, then....doc talks him into more chemo... (and he hasn't had any scans since the chemo started end of last year).

Ya, that's the kind of stuff that really sucks. Watching people go down a slow torturous path like that. My kids had a friend with leukemia, he finally decided he wasn't going to do it anymore and opted to die. Nobody could blame him. This shit can be a really ugly business.

I stopped my radiation treatments before they were done, said no mas.

donnay
05-07-2013, 06:51 AM
It is a shame that some folks around here have a desire to denigrate the tremendous and difficult work that so many scientists, researchers, doctors, and nurses are doing to make the battle against cancer less horrific.

And it belies logic. The company that finds a "cure" for cancer, will be obscenely wealthy. And they'll be the toast of every town, and anyone involved in the project will have absolutely no trouble finding speaking engagements after the fact. A cancer cure DOES make financial sense, for the company that discovers it.


Yeah tell that to Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and G. Edward Griffin. The FDA is the armed enforcers for Big pHARMa. Big pHARMa does not want anyone cutting into their profits. They instruct doctors with a one-size-fits-all approach to combating certain cancers and by putting people in the poor house as a result.


The Cancer Industry is a booming trillion dollar industry. In Boston alone, the Dana Farber Institute brings in $800 million a year. If cures were found, imagine the cut in revenue that would bring? I personally knew three people who went to Dana Farber and died a slow painful death within a year of being diagnosed. Their families had to mortgage their homes, and were pretty much left bankrupt in the process. Sorry if I am a little cynical about how the norm operates.


Sources:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon353.htm
http://www.newson6.com/story/22057839/tulsa-cancer-clinic-temporarily-shut-down-amid-federal-investigation
http://www.downsizedcfoundation.org/fda.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/032998_Burzynski_cancer_cures.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana%E2%80%93Farber_Cancer_Institute

Origanalist
05-07-2013, 06:53 AM
What is the shame of all of this-- in a truly free market people would have the option of trying different methods without government interference.

As usual when government gets involved people die. :(

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to donnay again.

I don't have anything against the pharmaceutical companies doing what they do obviously, but government involvement can't do anything but stifle advance and pick winners like always.

donnay
05-07-2013, 07:42 AM
Evidence suggests that up to 90 percent of landmark cancer research may be false
Tuesday, May 07, 2013 by: Jonathan Benson (http://www.naturalnews.com/040230_cancer_research_false_conclusions.html), staff writer




The vast majority of the published scientific literature on cancer and cancer research is inherently flawed and non-reproducible, reveals a new review published online in the journal Nature. Researchers C. Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis found that a mere 11 percent of 53 papers on cancer published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals was solid, while the other 89 percent could not be reproduced, implying that it may be false or at the very least misleading.

Preclinical studies are the basis upon which the scientific community at large determines how best to develop treatments for disease, including potential new approaches to treating cancer. But such studies, though sure to contain some minor flaws from time to time, appear to be missing the boat in major ways on a regular basis. And the end result of this intrinsic failure is a cancer treatment system that is not only outdated but potentially completely misguided.

"The scientific community assumes that the claims in a preclinical study can be taken at face value - that although there might be some errors in detail, the main message of the paper can be relied on and the data will, for the most part, stand the test of time," wrote the authors about their findings. "Unfortunately, this is not always the case."

Based on a review of 53 published papers on cancer, Begley and Ellis discovered that only six of them could be reproduced and confirmed in a clinical setting. And the worst part was that the 53 papers were considered to be "landmark," which means they are generally recognized as having had a significant impact on cancer research (http://www.naturalnews.com/cancer_research.html)due to presenting some new cancer treatment approach or novel therapy for targeting cancer cells.

"[I]t looks like the scientific literature is contaminated with a growing number of tainted studies, which may reach 89 percent, the results of which are not reproducible by any means," writes Eleni Roumeliotou for GreenMedInfo.com about the shocking findings. "This means that to an extent, we have based our healthcare and clinical guidelines on fake studies that reported untruthful results in order to accommodate the interests of industrial corporations."


Many cancer studies influenced by Big Pharma conflicts of interest

The fact of the matter is that a considerable amount of published scientific research is questionable at best due to influence from the pharmaceutical industry. A similar but unrelated study that looked at research (http://www.naturalnews.com/research.html) funding found that at least 17 percent of published research papers in general were conducted with serious conflicts of interest, which more often than not stemmed from drug industry funding that steered the research in a pre-determined direction.

"Given the frequency we observed for conflicts of interest and the fact that conflicts were associated with study outcomes, I would suggest that merely disclosing conflicts is probably not enough," says Dr. Reshma Jagsi, M.D., author of a University of Michigan (UM) study that found a considerable percentage of cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/cancer.html) research to be tainted by conflicts of interest. "It's becoming increasingly clear that we need to look more at how we can disentangle cancer research from industry ties."

Sources for this article include:

http://www.uofmhealth.org

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7396/full/485041e.html

http://www.greenmedinfo.com

http://www.cancer.org

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23277767

Thor
05-07-2013, 08:33 AM
I'm taking my uncle for more chemo today. The oncologist has convinced him that it's for "pain management", since I got him to admit it won't help in stopping or slowing down the cancer, and that it is debilitating. This is his 5th round (of 3 day sessions). I just watch as he gets worse and worse with each round of chemo, then goes a few weeks, gets more strength and starting to get his color back, then....doc talks him into more chemo... (and he hasn't had any scans since the chemo started end of last year).

Please Google (or Duck Duck) "Rick Simpson Oil Cancer". Cannabis oil will far exceed any "pain management" from chemo, and it might just cure the cancer too. But the success rate is lower for people who have had chemo as well, due to the horrible effects of the chemo alone.

There are pages and pages of Facebook testimonials and many YouTube videos on being cured by RSO.

ClydeCoulter
05-07-2013, 08:48 AM
Please Google (or Duck Duck) "Rick Simpson Oil Cancer". Cannabis oil will far exceed any "pain management" from chemo, and it might just cure the cancer too. But the success rate is lower for people who have had chemo as well, due to the horrible effects of the chemo alone.

There are pages and pages of Facebook testimonials and many YouTube videos on being cured by RSO.

Thanks, I will look into that. I watched a video about Rick Simpson. I'll have to find out how it's made.

Thor
05-07-2013, 10:09 AM
Thanks, I will look into that. I watched a video about Rick Simpson. I'll have to find out how it's made.

Here is the video on making it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZXGH6mYr3Y

I have never made it. I just found it about a month ago when a dog we _had_, had aggressive cancer and I started searching. Too late for our dog, but now I know (and many testimonials on dogs and beating the cancer the dog had.) But from all that I have seen and read about, to summarize:

1 lbs indica or indica predominant, bone dry bud (NOT stems, leaves, shake, trim, etc - the bud) with 20%+ THC and good CBD %. He prefers "white widow", but he knows one white widow from another is highly variable, so it is not an end all be all. But strong indica for the relaxation it gives, and the body needs to relax when healing. Indoor grown will cost more, due to costs to grow it. Outdoor grown is fine too, and should be cheaper (no light bills.)
Wash in 2 rinses of pure light naphtha using a 2 x 2 stick to mix and break buds. (Pure, not with anything else in it), 3rd rinse is a waste and will start getting plant material / chlorophyll. ISO alcohol will work too, but need to filter better to remove chlorophyll. Some people use freezing grain alcohol, but he says naphtha gets the right spectrum of THC / CBD's etc and not the unwanted things outside that spectrum that other solvents will get. Naphtha (pure, light) is the choice.
Boil off naphtha in rice cooker or another device (presto kitchen kettle / distiller) where temp control is just at / below water boiling point. OPEN AIR / NO FLAME, smoking, etc. This can take a couple hours.
Add 5-10 drops of water close to end, as water boils at higher temp than naphtha.
Move to a small steel measuring cup / bowl and put on coffee cup warmer or coffee machine warming plate and let all water / naphtha completely cook off. There should be no more bubbles. But don't burn the oil. Again, a couple hours. (Some people with the Presto thing say they just lower temp and leave in that, overnight even.)
Package for use while warm. Will thicken when cool.

Should be a dark oil type color that will thicken to a sticky grease when cool. When smeared on white paper, the smear should ideally be golden honey amber colored without a green hue. No plant material / chunks in the oil. Final THC should be 95%+. Heating during this many hour long process will decarboxylate, which is needed. Shelf life should be many years if air tight, cool, dark place to store. Buying from someone else (Medical Dispensary, or other who says "yeah, I got RSO") will not promise right oil and may or may not be any good for the reasons you want it, unless it is someone who has saved others from cancers with the oil.

1 lbs of material to start will make about 60 grams of oil (more or less depending on material used and amount of resin, etc) If you want to start with 1/2 lbs, then about 30 grams should be output.

Start off with an amount that looks like 1/2 a grain of dry white rice. Build up to 1 gram a day (spread out through out day.) 60 grams should be about 3 months (because of the ramp up period) and should (according to testimonies) cure most cancers. Some take more / longer. Some take less. Skin cancers can go in a few days with the oil in a band aid left on the spot for a few days. Has supposedly helped with diabetes, skin ulcers, arthritis, wrinkles, bald spots, etc. Can put in gel caps and swallow / use as suppository, etc. No cancer or a maintenance dose is about a grain of rice every couple / few days.

Here is the link to make it from the man who rediscovered it (Rick Simpson): http://phoenixtears.ca/make-the-medicine/

Good luck. We need to share info like this. Let us know if you do it, and what it does for your uncle.

My goal is to make some to have on hand for when I or someone I know needs it.

For those of you on Fakebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rick-Simpson/298774923502987?id=298774923502987&sk=photos_stream

opal
05-11-2013, 04:55 PM
Sure, similar to the phkillscancer.com method. Raise blood alkalinity, with sugar that the cancer is attracted to. My father had prostate cancer and tried baking soda and molasses method from phkillscancer.com. Got his PSA numbers to drop to safe levels. But then I don't know what he did (or did not do) other than talk to his oncologist who told him "it works for a while, but the body adapts and then it is not effective. you need the surgery." We don't talk that much... my opinion, he was hoodwinked by the Dr who needed to pay for his new expensive robotic cutting device. (I didn't know about RSO when he was going through this, but he probably would have ignored that anyway, as it is "illegal" and all.)

If it were me, I would raise my blood alkalinity to 8.5 for a few weeks and take the cannabis oil at the same time. Chemo kills more than it saves.

There's an update on that site
www.trojanhorsecure.com (http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trojanhorsecure.com&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNECHqb2yElYqWjFu3IW6Gbh7Li31A)

ok.. coming clean here - it's my dad's site, his very first blog - wish I knew where to point him toward the oil - he's managed to get his ph to hold higher, longer than 15 minutes (overnight)

I did send along a couple of format suggestions - break up by date the subject matter and such.

Thor
05-11-2013, 05:18 PM
wish I knew where to point him toward the oil - he's managed to get his ph to hold higher, longer than 15 minutes (overnight)


I did the phkillscancer method for a week like 9 months ago. I got my ph up over 8.5 for like 4 days. I tested with test strips several times thoughout the day to check. You need to drink the foul tasting stuff 2 -3 times each day. Yes, to me it taste horrid.

As far as pointing him to the oil, search. The Shona Banda method is for small amounts to get something. Google it.

Also, look around here a little: http://hempoilhope.org/

Wish I could say, hey, I got some oil for ya... but then of course I would be "breaking the law." ;)