Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Doctor Who Cured Cancer by Kelley Eidem

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Glamorama View Post
    Interesting!

    Anecdotally, my husbands grandfather and also another one of his friends, both cured their stomach and bowel-cancer with copious amounts of organic paw-paw/papaya. And went on to live another 20 years before old age got to them. Pretty impressive stuff.
    Paw Paw is amazing stuff!I use it a lot when travelling for mossy bites and was using it for nappy rash back when the wee one was in nappies

    Comment


    • #32
      There are two women here on this board who've cured themselves of cancer via fasting. One said she did straight water fasting. The other did juice fasting. (I'm not sure if she was doing the Gerson protocol, though.)

      There are also various Native American methods.

      Lots of ways.
      "Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food." -- Hippocrates

      Comment


      • #33
        Spontaneous Cancer Remission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        It has long been assumed that spontaneous regressions, let alone cures, from cancer are rare phenomena, and that some forms of cancer are more prone to unexpected courses (melanoma, neuroblastoma, lymphoma) than others (carcinoma). Frequency was estimated to be about 1 in 100,000 cancers;[2] however, in reality this ratio might be largely under- or overestimated.
        Cognitive bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        Last edited by Marnee; 10-16-2011, 02:38 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by TigerLily View Post
          I couldn't possibly agree more.

          ACS/Walk for the Cure/Pink Ribbon = what a complete joke and none of those organizations will ever get a penny from me.

          I could write pages and pages. But I'll try to keep it brief.

          I worked for Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski in Houston for 6 years. He is the real deal. I saw some incredible turnarounds while I was there, most especially with brain tumors. He was on staff at the Baylor College of Medicine (one of the best medical schools in the country) with access to a cush $$$ biochemistry lab. The minute his antineoplastons showed anticancer activity -- guess what? His funding dried up. This man is brilliant, kind, too charitable for his own good. I could go on....

          I'm also a believer in the Gerson method. Every bone in my body believes in the integrity and sincerity of Charlotte Gerson (Dr. Max Gerson's daughter). I personally know two people here in my city (Vancouver, WA) who have cured themselves of cancer via the Gerson method. One of those women also has three relatives who have also been cured similarly.

          Having now undergone two 7-day juice fasts and 1 coffee enema and experienced first-hand what happened in my body, I'm absolutely convinced of the body's ability to heal itself if only given the opportunity. Remarkable.

          There's so many other ways, too.
          The walk for the cure stuff is insane right now. Every NFL game, bed bath and beyond, avon walks every weekend. And for what reason? Where does that money go? People are basically giving money to the ACS to prevent a cure. It's like a bad sick joke.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by fpsjosh01 View Post
            Massage therapist student. Only took a class on acupressure.

            Im just saying those bags under her eyes means she needs some magnesium. *tl;dr I'm always skeptical. Nothing personal.
            WTH!? I take plenty of magnesium and still have bags!?
            Have high hopes that journaling can keep me on track: www.southerndink.com If you are on twitter hit me up so we can keep each other motivated: http://twitter.com/SouthernDink

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by TigerLily View Post
              I worked for Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski in Houston for 6 years. He is the real deal. I saw some incredible turnarounds while I was there, most especially with brain tumors. He was on staff at the Baylor College of Medicine (one of the best medical schools in the country) with access to a cush $$$ biochemistry lab. The minute his antineoplastons showed anticancer activity -- guess what? His funding dried up. This man is brilliant, kind, too charitable for his own good. I could go on....
              Dr Burzynski movie:

              Comment


              • #37
                To be honest, this guy is not the typical esoteric dumbass (unlike 90% of the stuff that was posted here on the first 3 pages btw)

                Usually it takes about 2 minutes on google search to show that the therapy in question is useless and doesnt get any results. But in this case, every single negative article seems to concentrate on the fact, that he does this therapy without the surveillance of the FDA (and everyone knows that these people fail at life like no one else) or absurd "side effects" like higher Sodium that can be dangerous for the body (Yeah when the alternative is attacking unhealthy and healthy cells alike with radiation...)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by SouthernDink View Post
                  WTH!? I take plenty of magnesium and still have bags!?
                  I figured that was probably a bunch of bologna too. Though my eyes have been less baggy after giving up bread completely. Some nutritionist mentioned it on tv at one point. I think it was on the "biggest loser." Who knows any more?

                  Edit:
                  OMG I'm even more confused: http://www.livestrong.com/article/51...nder-the-eyes/

                  It says fluid retention is the problem, but then recommends more water. How do people believe this doublespeak/doublethink?
                  Last edited by fpsjosh01; 10-17-2011, 12:40 PM.
                  Blag: The FPSJosh01 Ego Experience
                  Follow me on google+
                  Superraw: the Autism Buster blag
                  "Don't spread the word, spread the butter"

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in patients with recurrent glioma

                    Be wary of reading a book full of anecdotes and taking that as evidence. Controlled studies of antineoplastons are lacking in proven benefit. No patients in this Phase II study showed tumor regression and a majority showed tumor progression during therapy. That's the reason that medicine is based on the scientific method, to remove the bias (typically confirmation bias) from medical treatment. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence and, in most of these cases, the results fall way short of the claims.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by HandBot View Post
                      Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in patients with recurrent glioma

                      Be wary of reading a book full of anecdotes and taking that as evidence. Controlled studies of antineoplastons are lacking in proven benefit. No patients in this Phase II study showed tumor regression and a majority showed tumor progression during therapy. That's the reason that medicine is based on the scientific method, to remove the bias (typically confirmation bias) from medical treatment. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence and, in most of these cases, the results fall way short of the claims.
                      Watch the movie, Dr Burzynski explains how that study was not following the protocol the treatment was designed for. Here is another Phase II study showing that it works:

                      Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma : a preliminary report.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by mistigi View Post
                        Watch the movie, Dr Burzynski explains how that study was not following the protocol the treatment was designed for. Here is another Phase II study showing that it works:

                        Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma : a preliminary report.
                        Also, doesn't a patient have to go through chemo/radiation before they are eligible for the Phase II study? That would be seem to play a huge role in the outcome.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by hazmat View Post
                          Also, doesn't a patient have to go through chemo/radiation before they are eligible for the Phase II study? That would be seem to play a huge role in the outcome.
                          I think it depends on the study. Some studies will not accept patients after a chemo. This very question is also brought up in the movie. Some Dr Burzynki's patient were receiving chemo before they came to him for treatment. The questions was if it was possible that cancer was cured because of chemo therapy, however in many instances there were new tumors growing still after chemo and his treatment was able to cure it in some patients.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            In that Phase II glioma study, the NCI was not following Dr. Burzynski's protocol. The patients were getting only about 1/3 the effective dosage. NCI would not release those patients' medical records to Dr. Burzynski during the trial. And now we know why.

                            The documentary gets into all this at about the 1:25:00 mark and shows on screen the correspondence from Dr. Burzynski to NCI where he is strenuously objecting.

                            This sickens me. These are peoples' lives, dammit! These people died while NCI/FDA played their games (and an NCI scientist was busy stealing the Antineoplaston patents).
                            "Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food." -- Hippocrates

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by jammies View Post
                              I have not read the books, but I do tend to take these types of claims with a large grain of salt.

                              I know it is easy to claim that researchers simply don't want to find a cure, but I really don't believe that at all. A very large percentage of research done in the academic world is done without any thought towards whether a treatment has potential for profits or not.

                              It is very hard to specifically target a biologic process and change it. Think about hair or aging - billions of dollars are spent on research to prevent male pattern baldness or to stop unwanted hair growth in women. These are normal cells and processes and even then we can barely change it. Or wrinkles - you wouldn't think it would be that hard to convince a few cells to make a little extra collagen - still there are very few good strategies.
                              When you add to that the fact that cancer cells don't have to obey the rules of the body, then it makes some sense to me that it is very challenging.

                              Don't get me wrong - there is undoubted corruption and piles of wasted research money in cancer research. But don't underestimate how powerful a cancer cell can be.
                              +1. It is fair to be skeptical of the medical industry, but there are plenty of researchers and doctors out there who take healing people very seriously. I AM skeptical of medicine. I am also skeptical of anyone who claims to have THE cure for cancer (or anything) based on anecdotal evidence.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by mistigi View Post
                                I think it depends on the study. Some studies will not accept patients after a chemo. This very question is also brought up in the movie. Some Dr Burzynki's patient were receiving chemo before they came to him for treatment. The questions was if it was possible that cancer was cured because of chemo therapy, however in many instances there were new tumors growing still after chemo and his treatment was able to cure it in some patients.
                                I believe that at this point that in order to be accepted as a new patient by Burzynski that the FDA wants any patient to have already going through chemo/radiation. So if a person got cancer tomorrow and thought about running down to texas to start treatment you would first have to go through conventional chemo/radiation. Dr. Burzynski even says that his treatment is much more effective if you aren't poisoned by chemo/radiation first.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X