No announcement yet.

Iodine: a discussion, and perhaps a civilized debate

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hi Oxide,
    Your story was intriguing about the moles. I have never used any of these suggestions.

    Hands-On: Removing Moles with Iodine Part 2.

    Here they talk of a dry ice technique.

    Freeze away moles?

    Hope it helps.



    • Originally posted by t2t View Post
      Have you had a chance to get an MRI? I know they are very expensive.
      i've had several, for varying health things & an ultrasound aimed specifically at my ovaries and uterus

      i send positive vibes for you snl, no mater what treatment she chooses

      hi, maybe you missed it but could you tell me who is advocating NOT taking iodine?
      yeah you are

      Baby if you time travel back far enough you can avoid that work because the dust won't be there. You're too pretty to be working that hard.


      • Still following, have been reading all the links and done some searching on Iodine myself without any great revelations yet, there definately seems to be something in the story, but obviously more research still needs to be done.

        On the Cancer issue, I haven't had a personal experience and do not know what choices I would make if faced with that issue, so this is just where I stand currently.
        Like a previous poster mentioned regarding Thyroid problems, my partner had a similar experience in that basically the prevailing medical advice was if it does not self correct within 18 months the only options available are Surgical removal or Radioactive Iodine to ablate it, well after 5 years of treatment (meds, diet, lifestyle etc.) she now has a fully functioning normal thyroid and from what I have read about other diseases including cancer the policy is much the same. So I have come to the conclusion that most conventional medicine is based on what I now term the "Slash & Burn" protocol, in some cases this may be the best treatment, but in many cases there may be more appropriate treatment protocols.
        Cancer and other terminal diseases present a difficult situation with research because of the moral dilema of withholding treatment, this came to light for me when reading about lactate and brain injury recovery (Dr George A Brooks) where there has been some good success by treating Brain Trauma patients with excess lactate, but limited because of the conditions of having to use a patient on "deaths door" and moral considerations with family members.
        This predicament restricts lines of research in areas like Cancer, so what naturally happens is research is generally funneled into the current accepted "best practice" being Surgery, Chemotherapy, Radiation etc., just because all the research is in this area does not mean it is the best treatment protocol, if conventional treatment had a 100% or even 90% success rate then there would be little question, but as successful treatment is far less than that and often the treatment proposed is only quoted as a life extension figure with a 0% survival rating, there is still a question on it's efficacy.
        We also like to apply the rigors of scientific studies well how do you apply these to cancer?
        I have not seen a study that has screened a random population, identified trial subjects, prepared two groups of age & criteria matched individuals, then conducted a double blind placebo study to determine the true effectiveness of treatment. The only real data we have is from individuals that were diagnosed with some form of cancer and then treated with either positive or negative outcomes, we don't know how many individuals there are out there that had a cancer of some form that has self resolved without them ever being aware and whether those diagnosed and treated would not have had the same degree of success if not treated, I know of about 10 people in my life who were diagnosed with a cancer and all went down the conventional treatment path only 4 are alive today.
        So when we tout scientific studies being required for Iodine or any other protocol when comparing with Cancer treatment or any other terminal condition, remember with cancer the data is generally one sided, there is no placebo.
        Recently I stumbled across a small article in the paper recently that reported on a study of secondary cancer incidents post breast cancer treatment were far worse for those that worried a lot more about getting a secondary cancer, just did a google search this is another report about breast cancer and stress, saying those that had the stress reduction group therapy were 45% less likely to have a recurrance and 56% less likely to die from breast cancer than those that didn't:
        Stress-Reduction Therapy May Hike Breast Cancer Survival Rates - Breast Cancer -
        Doesn't this type of information even raise the question that with appropriate diet, nutrient supplements & lifestyle changes (stress reduction) that survival rates as good as or possibly better than conventional treatment may actually be possible?

        I am in no way advocating that Iodine as a miracle cure or that anyone should refuse conventional treatment for cancer, that is a personal choice, I'm just trying to add to a balanced debate.
        "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"


        • 38 years ago when I was 17 I used to go to a dentist named Dr. Duncun down in Atlanta. He was an Emory University graduate. His dental hygienist was a lady, who like many was torturous with the scraping tools and the infamous stainless steel hook. My “gums” were in the greatest shape or “their” lives but were no match for her devilish regimen of cleaning teeth and leaving bloodied and tattered GUMS as collateral damage.

          But what she did next was nothing short of a real miracle for pain relief for my ailing gums. She took a small unmarked amber bottle and would soak a Qtip with two or three drops from the bottle. She then would apply the soaked Qtip to my gum line, first the entire outside, top and bottom and then the inside, top and bottom. The liquid would sting a little upon application but strangely give a numbing but tremendous pain relief to my entire gum line. So instead of my “gums” being very sore for two or three days they would be a little sore that afternoon and night only. By the next morning there was no pain. So the only part of my regular 6 month visits to the dental hygienist was that beloved wet Qtip that I knew was going to help wash my pain away.

          When we moved away and got a new Dentist, I suffered the 2 to 3 day “soreness” for years, again. But after rediscovering Iodine almost 5 years ago and smelling the iodine, my mind flooded with the memory of that small brown bottle that the dental hygienist had , and I realized that the liquid inside was IODINE So now every 6 months, I get my iodine with Qtip ready to do battle with the dental hygienist.

          So I challenge anyone, who has a really aggressive dental hygienist to just apply 2% or 5% Lugols iodine to one side of their gums with a Qtip and FEEL the difference.

          You’ll thank me later.



          • Originally posted by t2t View Post
            38 years ago when I was 17 I used to go to a dentist named Dr. Duncun down in Atlanta. He was an Emory University graduate. His dental hygienist was a lady, who like many was torturous with the scraping tools and the infamous stainless steel hook. My “gums” were in the greatest shape or “their” lives but were no match for her devilish regimen of cleaning teeth and leaving bloodied and tattered GUMS as collateral damage.

            But what she did next was nothing short of a real miracle for pain relief for my ailing gums. She took a small unmarked amber bottle and would soak a Qtip with two or three drops from the bottle. She then would apply the soaked Qtip to my gum line, first the entire outside, top and bottom and then the inside, top and bottom. The liquid would sting a little upon application but strangely give a numbing but tremendous pain relief to my entire gum line. So instead of my “gums” being very sore for two or three days they would be a little sore that afternoon and night only. By the next morning there was no pain. So the only part of my regular 6 month visits to the dental hygienist was that beloved wet Qtip that I knew was going to help wash my pain away.

            When we moved away and got a new Dentist, I suffered the 2 to 3 day “soreness” for years, again. But after rediscovering Iodine almost 5 years ago and smelling the iodine, my mind flooded with the memory of that small brown bottle that the dental hygienist had , and I realized that the liquid inside was IODINE So now every 6 months, I get my iodine with Qtip ready to do battle with the dental hygienist.

            So I challenge anyone, who has a really aggressive dental hygienist to just apply 2% or 5% Lugols iodine to one side of their gums with a Qtip and FEEL the difference.

            You’ll thank me later.

            Or you could always just find a less sadistic dental hygienist.

            I'm sure that the iodine did help however because it is a topical antiseptic and would keep any injuries she caused from getting infected and help them to heal more quickly. Tea tree oil does the same thing.

            But really, there is no need for massively bloody gums unless you have a serious case of gingivitis or a really incompetent hygienist.


            • Hi Paleobird,

              In the early years of my career I had to buy family dental insurance and pay the premiums on my own. Which meant sorrier dentists, and really incompetent hygienists. The only way I could choose a different hygienist was to drive an extra 60 miles or more. I had great gums for many years and didn’t develop a tad of gingivitis until I got in my late forties.

              Even as the years go by I have had several hygienists, who got extra zealous to scrape extra hard near my gum line. Not so much bloody gums anymore but certainly SORE gums.

              But "many" people I know complain about the dreaded teeth cleaning and the ensuing soreness they are left with. I’ve only had a couple, who were truly gentle. And I had much better health insurance later on.

              Last edited by t2t; 08-08-2012, 08:11 PM. Reason: or


              • My dentist has been really scrambling to find anything to justify the cost of a cleaning ever since I went Primal. I first went to him for some crown replacement and cosmetic dentistry after my cancer. So he also has seen me lose a lot of weight. His daughter who is also his receptionist has gone Primal after asking how I was doing it and she too is doing great.

                But what got the dentist's attention was the change in my dental health.

                I think this is something that we all need to keep in mind as we are changing a lot of factors in our lives in the pursuit of health. It's hard to tease out all the variable and say supplement X causes physical change Y unless all other variables have been held constant.


                • Originally posted by Sceptic View Post
                  Any idea why he recommends a magnesium supplement? I'm sure most people aren't getting as much as they should, but is there an actual reason related to the iodine supplementation and/or the thyroid?
                  Most likely he is including the magnesium because magnesium increases adenosine triphosphate (ATP) that fuels the cells and helps them to function properly.
                  Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 11:11 AM.


                  • Originally posted by Hoss2626 View Post
                    From the Mercola link above, I thought this was interesting. In one paragraph, he states:

                    "The new study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, revealed that study participants taking relatively higher doses of supplemental iodine -- 400 micrograms a day and more – paradoxically began developing subclinical hypothyroidism."

                    Then a few paragraphs down:

                    "The Japanese consume 89 times more iodine than Americans due to their daily consumption of sea vegetables, and they have reduced rates of many chronic diseases, including the lowest rates of cancer in the world. The RDA for iodine in the U.S. is a meager 150 mcg/day, which pales in comparison with the average daily intake of 13800 mcg/day for the Japanese.

                    There is a large body of evidence suggesting that low cancer rates in Japan are a result of their substantially higher iodine levels, as iodine has documented antioxidant and anti-proliferative properties."

                    So.... huh? Which is it? Amounts over 400mcg will hurt you. Or, amounts @ 13800 mcg will help you.

                    I cornfused...
                    I don't trust anything coming from Mercola. His claims have been discredited to many times.

                    One thing that Mercola is overlooking though is that the iodine sources the Japanese consume such as seaweeds and ocean fish are also loaded with other halogens that help prevent iodine poisoning. Apparently Mercola is not aware that the ocean contains a lot of chloride, as well as bromine and fluoride that are picked up by seaweeds and ocean animals.

                    Mercola is apparently unaware of the fact that the low rate of cancer in Japan has been linked to their higher consumption of soy that contain protective phytoestrogens that also happen to counter the adverse effects of excess iodine. Mercola though sits on the board of the Weston Price Foundation who is supported by the beef and dairy industries. So Mercola is paid to bash soy, which is the biggest competitor of the beef and dairy industries.

                    Seaweeds are also rich in immune stimulating polysaccharides that further reduce the risk of cancer.

                    Iodine does have estrogen blocking effects just like phytoestrogens, but there is no evidence that estrogen causes cancer to begin with. Estrogen appears to only be a growth factor for already existing cancers.
                    Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 11:12 AM.


                    • Originally posted by labmonkey View Post
                      I decided to take Norweigan Kelp after getting about 75 pgs into that old thread. By around page 90 there was a warning that it could contain high levels of arsenic. By this time, I was already taking it and I thought, "f it" I'll keep going with it.
                      Yes, seaweeds contain arsenic. So do a lot of common foods such as brown rice and apples. Seaweeds though also contain algins that bind heavy metals helping the body to excrete them.
                      Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 11:12 AM.


                      • Originally posted by Hawkward View Post
                        I'm curious about the supplements as well. Following are the "required" supplements:

                        1/2 tsp unrefined salt
                        Selenium 200 mcg
                        Magnesium 400 mg
                        Vitamin C 2000 mg +
                        ATP Co-Factors (100 mg Riboflavin, 500 mg Niacin)

                        I have read elsewhere (Paul Jaminet at that adequate levels of selenium are essential when supplementing iodine, but I'm not so sure about the other supplements. Obviously some level of them are required anyway (independent of iodine supplementation), and many people are likely deficient in at least a couple of them (magnesium and selenium especially). I was taking magnesium and also eating a brazil nut each day as "selenium insurance" before I ever thought about supplementing iodine.

                        As for the other supplements, the sea salt (NOT table salt !!! ) being required seems like bunk to me. Most people get plenty of salt, and I don't see why it needs to be sea salt anyway.
                        The only time I have seen salt recommended is when people are also recommending toxic levels of iodine. Refined salt is sodium chloride, and the excess of chloride helps to displace the excess, toxic levels of iodine. Sea salt will also provide small amounts of bromine and fluoride that will also displace iodine. It is interesting to watch the iodine peddlers tell people to take toxic levels of iodine. Then when the people complain of symptoms of iodism (iodine poisoning) they blame the symptoms on a "bromine detox" then tell people to do a "salt flush". First of all the "bromine detox" thing is a myth:

                        The "bromine detox" myth

                        Secondly, the "salt flushes" simply push out the excess iodine poisoning the body. But they tell people to turn right around and take more toxic levels of iodine. They got a great scam going.

                        Originally posted by Hawkward View Post
                        The other minerals in sea salt besides NaCl are in microscopic amounts anyway. Supposedly the vitamin C is for the "detox symptoms", but I'm not sure I buy that either.
                        I agree with you. First of all the synthetic vitamin C people commonly buy in stores is very unstable, so most of what people are ingesting is not even vitamin C anymore. Furthermore, even if it were still vitamin C the body cannot utilize 2 grams or more of vitamin C in one shot. All the excess vitamin C is simply broken down in to oxalic acid, which in excess can cause other problems such as kidney stones in some individuals.
                        Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 11:26 AM.


                        • My response to was too long to post in one post so I splitting up my response:

                          Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                          Please, t2t, I know you mean well but this ranks right up there with Melinda Gates is plotting to "depopulate" the world and poisonous "chemtrails".

                          This video portrays the Italian huckster who touts his cancer "cure", baking soda, based on the ludicrous idea that cancer is a fungus, as some kind of persecuted martyr attacked by the money grubbing doctors who *want* us to be sick.

                          The entire premise that it is doctors *want* us to be sick so they can shove more pills down our throats is ridiculous.
                          Actually it is not. I have been in medicine for 33 years and have seen it all. Back when I was working on the ambulance one of the paramedics put on a bag of D5W (dextrose/5% water) and ran the line full open. When the bag emptied he put a new bag of D5W on and ran the new bag as a TKO (to keep open) rate. Later when we were not around the patient I asked him why he did that. He replied "everything I can use on a patient means a profit for the company, which means new equipment for us". This is really minor compared to the numerous other examples I have seen, but the point is that medicine is a business and the goal is to make profits. Will doctors and others in medicine do unethical things to make a profit? Many will. Usually this involves prescribing drugs that are not needed but make the doctor extra profits. Part of the problem here is that doctors are often invested in to drug companies. This is one of the reasons that if you switch doctors a doctor may change your prescription to the same exact drug under a different trade name. They want you to take whatever brand name the company they are invested in to is selling. Another part of the problem is that with so many drugs the doctors receive payoffs or gifts to prescribe specific drugs. For example, for every patient a doctor prescribes Inderal to the doctor gets 10,000 frequent flyer points from the drug company. A friend of mine was Inderal for a number of years despite her symptoms being of low blood pressure, which Inderal lowers even more. I explained this to her and she told her doctor who denied that and told her that he needed to double her dose instead. She only weighs maybe 80 pounds so I explained to her that such a dose would kill her. She asked three different pharmacists that told her the same thing. She ended up going to a reputable hospital out of state and the doctor there also told her that the higher dose would have killed her. He took her off the Inderal completely and her symptoms went away.

                          I also knew a lady a while back who was given all sorts of drugs by her doctor that she did not need. In fact, she had prescriptions for three drugs that were all the same exact drug under different trade names all prescribed by the same doctor. She ended up overdosing on one of the drugs and they took her in to the hospital. Her daughter and I went to the house and collected her medications. We literally filled a gallon size ziplock bag with her bottles of pills, which included 750mg muscle relaxants. Not only did she not have muscular issues, but she was also very tiny and one of those pills would have likely killed her. Luckily she did not take any. Her daughter also told me that the doctor had prescribed her an experimental drug to restart her menstrual cycle because she was complaining of vaginal dryness. She was in her 80s. We took the bag of pills to the hospital where they suddenly and mysteriously disappeared. I guess nobody wanted the doctor being reported to the medical board and other authorities for prescribing unnecessary drugs to fund his three offices in town.

                          To make matters worse the hospital talked her in to an unnecessary operation to remove her stomach.

                          They tried a similar trick with her husband when he had a stroke. They took him to the same hospital and they called in a specialist to do a lung biopsy since he had been bleeding from his lungs since he was 17. They tried to claim he had lung cancer and wanted to operate. He refused, ended up in a nursing home where he eventually died still cancer free. Just in the last decade this tiny hospital just opened two massive hospitals here in town. And how did they fund this? By performing unnecessary operations and who knows what other criminal acts.

                          I am helping someone right now that the doctors have made numerous mistakes with including doing a bypass in to a vein instead of an artery. And some of his doctors keep adding to his medications while his other doctors are trying to get him off the medications since most are not needed. For example, some idiot doctor put him on Amiodarone that caused iodine poisoning. And he never needed the drug. They gave him the Amiodarone to prevent atrial fibrillation even though he was already on another drug for that reason. And they have had him on furosemide (Lasix) for quite a while with no potassium, which by the way can cause atrial fibrillation. We took him to a new cardiologist who admitted that the Amiodarone was causing iodine poisoning and cut his dosage in half, which threw him in to a severe state of hypothyroidism. We are slowing correcting the problem then they added a new drug just a few days ago and he went right back downhill. So he has now been taken off that drug and we are waiting to see how things over the next few days.

                          Again, most doctors are in medicine to make money. And hospitals are also in business to make money. Will some of them use illegal and unethical methods to do this? No doubt at all. I can give you so man more examples that I have personally witnessed.

                          Why to you think it is that in this country where we have a capitalistic medical system we are not allowed to use cures that are allowed in other countries. And before you try to come up with some excuse about how these other countries are somehow behind us let me point out that this is not true. A decade ago the U.S. was ranked 32nd in the world for health care and ranked even higher for infant mortality. Now we are ranked 38th in the world for health care, so we are going backward. The difference between a capitalistic medical system and socialized medicine is that in capitalized medicine more money is being made by keeping people sick but comfortable in most cases. In socialized medicine though the government foots most of the bill so the government does not want long term illness, they want cures. Don't want to believe it. Then tell me what is the allopathic cure in this country for asthma? Autoimmune disorders? Type 2 diabetes? Hepatitis? Herpes? Even with cancer they are still using the generally low success rate chemotherapy and radiation therapies, which are both well known carcinogens and rarely address the cause of the cancers. Yet in countries with socialized medicine actual cures, such as ozone therapy that also address the causes of most disease are allowed.
                          Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 11:30 AM.


                          • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                            Even the idea that all MDs "push pills" is outdated.
                            Not at all. I still see it going on with many of my friends and clients.

                            Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                            My Dad's doctor has taken him off of 4 of his five meds so far as he has gotten healthier with Primal eating.
                            Yes, there are some doctors that are coming around. But they are rare.

                            Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                            If you have a pill pushing doctor, you are free to find another one. They do exist. And people need to take responsibility for their health via lifestyle changes. Many people would rather have a pill than give up the junk food. Blaming that all on teh eeevil doctors is a tinfoil hat cop out.
                            You are overlooking an important fact. Many people are brought up with the trust the doctors indoctrination. In addition, people tend to know very little about how their body's actually work. Why do you think there are so many people developing iodine poisoning from following the advice of the iodine peddlers on Curezone but cannot figure out that the symptoms are of iodine poisoning, not "bromine detox"? Because most people don't have a clue how their bodies really work they have to put their trust in someone, which is often doctors. And when they realize the doctors are not really gods and do not know as much about medicine as they pretend to people will often resort to the internet. And again, some doctors are "evil" and put profits before patient health and safety. Ever hear about all the unnecessary bypasses a doctor was doing at Redding Hospital in California? If not look it up. Not all doctors have ethics. In fact, most I have seen and worked with have little if any ethics.

                            Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                            And that guy who cons gullible people into thinking that cancer is a fungus is not giving his treatment as a public service. He charges tens of thousands of dollars (for baking soda). Who is the one with a financial motive?
                            That part I agree with. Cancer is not a fungus. I am working on a book on alternative cancer therapies right now and I have a whole chapter on Simoncini's fraud.

                            Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                            My oncologist gets the same HMO salary weather I live or die. He actually cares. And he has a real cure. One that works.
                            Are you aware that HMO doctors are paid extra by the HMO to NOT prescribe certain expensive tests? This has been a major problem with HMOs since they came in to existence.

                            Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                            Nobody is "suppressing" anything. If there is a real cure for cancer discovered, it will be front page news on the JAMA and there will be Nobel Prizes awarded.
                            Not true at all. I started researching cancer 31 years ago as part of a project I was working on for a new cancer, and other disease treatment. As I started researching cancer I found a very interesting pattern. Every cancer therapy that had shown any real significant effect on treating cancer had been banned by the FDA and attacked by other groups such as the AMA. The only exception I have seen is the drugs Vincristine and Vinblastine, which have been shown to have a fairly high success rate. Ironically these drugs are derived from an herb Madagascar periwinkle. The drug also has such as high success rate because they are strong antivirals and the cancers they are used for have viral origins.

                            There are a number of very successful cancer therapies I can think of though that not only have a significantly higher success rate than chemotherapy or radiation therapy but also have a much higher safety record. Take for example ozone therapy that not only kills cancer cells on contact without damaging healthy tissues. Ozone also provides numerous other benefits to fight cancer such as destroying cancer microbes, increasing immune stimulating cytokines and peroxides, destroying carcinogens through oxidation, increasing antioxidant enzyme levels, etc. It is the most effective cancer therapy I have ever seen. And a study conducted in Germany following over 6.5 million doses given only reported a little over 30 adverse reactions. Most of these were minor such as irritation at the injection site. No allopathic treatment comes anywhere close to the safety and effectiveness of ozone therapy as a cancer therapy. So why is it not front page news? Do you really think the media is going to bite the hand of their largest and most lucrative advertisers? Why is it not approved by the FDA? Because it already has a grandfathered approval status. Under the law any therapy in use prior to the induction of the FDA (1909) that shows no unreasonable risk to human safety has a grandfathered approval. Ozone therapy came to the U.S. in 1898 therefore preceding the FDA. And its safety record has been proven over and over. Aspirin, which has FDA approval kills over 5,000 people a year. I have yet to see even one death attributed to properly applied ozone therapy. So under the law ozone is 100% legal. Why does the FDA break the law by arresting doctors for using ozone therapy and illegally seizing their bank accounts? Because ozone therapy is a major threat to the profits of drugs companies that top FDA officials are illegally invested in to. It has been reported for decades that over 150 FDA officials own stock in the drug
                            companies they regulate in direct violation of insider trading laws. Even ex-Commissioner for the FDA Herbert Ley testified before Congress that the FDA was using governmental police powers to protect the profits of the drug companies. And in turn these officials were being rewarded with money, gifts and high level positions within the drug companies. In fact, this is another subject I could give you numerous examples of. I have been studying the extensive corruption within the FDA for a very long time. So why does the FDA seize the bank accounts of the doctors they illegally arrest in violation of their Constitutional rights? Because they know what they are doing is COMPLETELY illegal so they seize the doctor's bank account to prevent them from hiring a high powered attorney to nail their asses to the wall. This actually happened to a medical doctor friend of mine in another city and I heard the FDA did the same thing to another medical doctor here locally.

                            It has been said that if an effective cancer cure were ever allowed on the market that it would put every medical school in the nation out of business because they would lose the research grants and donations that keep them alive. And think about what would happen to the economy. The losses to hospitals, doctors, equipment suppliers, their raw material suppliers and their suppliers...., ambulance companies, the food companies that supply the hospitals and again their suppliers, the morticians, groups that would lose billions a year in donations such as the American Cancer Society, etc. Then people would also be living longer putting more strain on social security and insurance companies would have to pay out more for aging related diseases. And it goes on an on and on and on.....

                            Let me put it this way. Let's say that I came up with a magic pill that was 100% proven to cure any disease you can name. And I was selling that pill for $5.00 each. Do you really think they would let me keep selling that pill despite all the companies that would be put out of business, and all the people who would be laid off and putting more stress on the social security system?

                            And why do you think tobacco is legal despite having killed millions of people? Again, it is about the money not health or safety. Why are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs still on the market and over the counter despite the FDA's own estimates of these drugs killing over 16,500 yearly and injuring numerous more? Speaking of which, why were these same drugs considered once so dangerous that they required a prescription when they first came out then as soon as the patents expired the FDA thought their toxicity magically reduced and the drugs were suddenly made over the counter? Why did the FDA keep 710 prescription drugs found to be ineffective or too dangerous for human use on the market despite a 1969 Court order to remove them from the market? Not only did they leave these drugs on the market, many have since been made over the counter such as dextromethorphan (DM) used in cough medicines despite several studies showing that the drug was no better than placebo? Why are so many chemotherapy drugs that have also been shown to be no better than placebo have FDA approval? And where are the front page headlines since these known facts are so important and newsworthy? Ah, that's right, the media is largely owned by or financially supported by the pharmaceutical industry. How many times do we hear a little blurb about some great cancer advancement that will take 10 years to fully develop and yet we never hear anything about it again. This is not always because these ideas failed, it is because they will never be allowed on the open market to protect the profits of the drug companies and to prevent economic collapse. So if you waiting for the big news of a cancer cure you should not hold your breath. No proven highly successful cancer cure is ever going to come to the open market in this country.

                            Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                            The "miracle cure" in the meantime is not on some website peddling conspiracy theories, it is at the oncologist's office. They cure cancer every day.
                            They get lucky once in a while. But the average success rate for nearly every chemotherapy drug and for radiation therapy still remains so low that by definition they are quackery.
                            Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 11:34 AM.


                            • Originally posted by t2t View Post
                              Hi Paleobird,

                              I just find the video’s message compelling that a cheaper more natural way to treat cancer would never see the light of day given that cancer is a 50 billion plus dollars a year business. (not talking about the baking soda one)

                              If a cure can’t be patented it stands virtually no chance to make it to the market.

                              Originally posted by t2t View Post
                              I have seen first-hand what chemo and radiation did to several of my relatives. It was horrible and I believe with all my heart (what’s left of it) that the chemo and radiation expedited their deaths.
                              Again, you are 100% correct. I have spent a lot of time working in the oncology ward and there is no way in hell I would ever undergo chemotherapy. The success rate for nearly every chemotherapy drug is extremely low and the drugs often do shorten the life of patients. In fact, I have a textbook on cancer written for doctors called Cancer. There is an interesting quote in the book where they state that chemotherapy kills 95% of the patients undergoing chemotherapy from cachexia. Granted the book was written back a while ago and we have made a few minor advances such as total parenteral nutrition (TPN) to help counter this problem, but chemotherapy drugs still kill people sometimes.

                              People also need to be aware that all chemotherapy drugs are known carcinogens and immune suppressants, which is why in part a lot of cancers come back or secondary cancers develop in some incidences within a few years.

                              Originally posted by t2t View Post
                              Have you seen the multi-million dollar law suits of late on the boob tube? So many FDA approved drugs that had tainted studies but hit the market anyway.
                              And with so many drugs the known side effects are hidden until numerous deaths finally force the FDA to take action. But this usually means a small fine in comparison to the profits already made and the drugs are rarely ever taken off the market.

                              Take for instance nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). It has been known since these drugs hit the market that they increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes. But this information was not made public until decades and hundreds of thousands of deaths later. NSAIDs increase the risk of heart attack and stroke for the same reason they can cause liver or kidney failure even with a single recommended dose. These drugs work by constricting the blood vessels, which reduce the blood supply to the organs. This increases the risk of these problems especially in certain individuals such as diabetics or people with congestive heart failure.

                              Originally posted by t2t View Post
                              MONEY is a big motivator to suppress any cure that might find its way in front of Big Pharm’s profit.
                              That is my opinion.
                              And your opinion is 100% accurate!

                              Originally posted by t2t View Post
                              Thank you for being polite.

                              Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 11:38 AM.


                              • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                                I have seen first hand how surgery and chemo saved my life. No, they can't save everyone and I am sorry for the losses of your loved ones. There is a much better chance of real medicine working however, when people are diagnosed and treated early.
                                That is true whether they go allopathic or holistic. Early stage malignant tumors are less mass to deal with and less chance of metastases.

                                Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                                If someone talks them into the alternative "all natural" way instead, by the time they get desperate enough to go to a real doctor, it may be too late.
                                The problem is that most people go allopathic first, which has a dismal success rate. When the cancer grows, becomes more aggressive and metastasizes then they find out how ineffective allopathic medicine generally is for cancer then they finally go holistic. Of course now that it is often too late the allopathic treatments often fail and people then say "see, holistic therapies do not work" forgetting or ignoring the fact that it was allopathic medicine that failed them in the first place.

                                Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                                I don't know all about all of the examples given in that film but I do know about that Italian cancer is a fungus guy. If he is being held up by that film as a martyr to the money grubbing evil doctors who are suppressing cures........ Sorry, it's just ridiculous. And I feel so sorry for anyone duped into giving their life savings to that guy.
                                Again, there is quackery on both sides. How many people were duped in to taking AZT when they tested HIV positive? Not only does HIV+ mean nothing since antibody tests are so inaccurate, but it was also proven that the drug causes AIDS and shortens the life of people started on it. By the way, AZT was developed as a chemotherapy drug back in the early 60s. It was originally banned for human use because it was found to be so deadly. Unlike HIV, AZT can and will cause a complete collapse of the immune system. Again, allopathic medicine is driven by money, not patient safety or effectiveness of therapies.

                                Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                                See your whole money motivator theory falls apart when people have insurance. My cancer did not cost me anything.
                                So you never paid for the insurance? It was not paid for out of your wages? Insurance companies do not stay in business giving away insurance for free.

                                Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                                It would have been cheaper for my HMO to treat me with herbs or baking soda instead of surgery and chemo.
                                HMOs are bound to certain rules just as their doctors are. There can be major repercussions if they go outside the "norm" set by groups like the AMA.

                                But HMOs have found ways to cut costs such as investing in to the companies that make the drugs they prescribe and by paying their doctors to not prescribe certain expensive tests.

                                Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                                I pay the same dues either way. You know why they do the surgery and chemo? Because that actually works. Five years post cancer, I can tell you, it works.
                                These fail way more often than they work. I read your post about having the breast tumor removed. Even you mentioned it was caught early and it sounds like they did a lumpectomy. Lumpectomies can be performed when the cancer is still very tiny, which also means that it likely did not tap in to any major blood vessels and did not metastasize. When they do the surgery though they still take a certain area around the border of the tumor to make sure all the tumor is removed. If they do chemotherapy after this point it is done just in case there are any metastasized cells such as from the biopsy, which has been shown to metastasize cancer cells. So how can you say the chemotherapy was effective when the whole tumor was already excised by the lumpectomy?

                                Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                                I never said the cure was fun. Effective but not fun. See above about money motivation.

                                That Italian guy with his baking soda infusions via tubes into peoples bodies has killed several folks too.
                                Wow, a few people died. Still a lot less than hundreds of thousands that have died as a result of chemotherapy drugs. And how can we even say the baking soda killed the person? Maybe their cancer was so advanced that the cancer got them instead. After all this is always the excuse used when chemotherapy kills people.

                                Although, I do agree with you that baking soda should not be used as a cancer treatment. For one thing, Simoncini claims that cancer is actually Candida albicans. But C. albicans actually thrives in an alkaline environment. C. albicans is a dimorphic microbe meaning it can exist in two forms. In an acidic environment Candida remains as a benign yeast and the growth gene is turned off. In an alkaline environment the Candida growth gene is turned on and the Candida converts in to an aggressive and dangerous fungal form. Cancer is not Candida anyway in any form.

                                Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                                The actual numbers get hushed up because it takes place in "private clinics" overseas. If someone dies in a US hospital there is automatically an M&M assessment, stands for Mortality and Morbidity. All out in the open.
                                Not even close. Deaths from chemotherapy are almost always blamed on the cancer, not the treatment. So the actual death toll from allopathic treatments is not out in the open, it is heavily censored. Same applies to other drugs. In fact, I find it interesting that any adverse events to herbs and supplements have to be reported to the FDA. But there is no such mandatory reporting for pharmaceutical drug adverse events since again a major role of the FDA is to protect the profits of the drug companies.

                                Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                                "Stomping down" on snake oil salesmen is a good thing.
                                Then better go after those chemotherapy manufacturers since their success rate is so much lower than many of the holistic cancer therapies that have been labeled "quackery". In fact, the average success rate for most chemotherapy drugs is 3% or less. Factor in things such as placebo effect, changes in diet, the use of herbs and supplements, etc. and the actual success rate of the chemotherapy drugs themselves drop even further.

                                A large part of this problem is that it has been shown that many of the drug companies have been dropping people from clinical studies if they die or do not respond to their drug to make the chemotherapy drugs appear more effective than they really are. I actually first read about this a while back in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Funny how that never made front page headlines. If it were some faulty study claiming an herb or a supplement was dangerous then it would definitely made the news.

                                And it is not just chemotherapy drugs that have made it to the market despite being proven ineffective. As I mentioned in an earlier post the FDA was Court ordered to remove 710 dangerous and ineffective prescription drugs from the market back in 1969. The FDA found a loophole though and left all the drugs on the market. Many of these drugs are still on the market to this day and some are even available over the counter now. Look at dextromethorphan (DM), which a second study published in the Journal of Pediatrics showed yet once again the drug was no more effective than placebo. Yet it still has FDA approval and still remains on the market. You can find it many over the counter cough medicines.

                                My favorite though are the "sleep" medications such as Ambien and Lunesta that the drug companies admit do not work. Yet they still remain on the market with full FDA approval.

                                Yep, so much snake oil in allopathic medicine. So where do you want to stomping?!!!
                                Last edited by JamesS; 08-09-2012, 11:44 AM.