Of course, if you did this then it wouldn't be the cool and hip "alternative" medicine and it would just be medicine. Which makes it sound kind of nerdy.
The Truth About Cancer
- Thread starter naturalbornhawk
- Start date
Of course, if you did this then it wouldn't be the cool and hip "alternative" medicine and it would just be medicine. Which makes it sound kind of nerdy.
Most of my cold sores disappear within a week of drinking roughly a pint of vodka per night after the onset of a breakout. I find that when I'm hammered, I'm less likely to scratch the itch with my teeth. Cheaper than Valtrex and you never have to explain that your prescription isn't for THAT kind of herpes.
No. It hasn't. Anecdotes do not equal proof, not even close. That's the point of doing a study on it.
Apparently it's a two-part reason:
a. The "Mainstream" health care conglomerate doesn't want to lose big $$$ on more expensive treatments.
and
b. The homeopathic folks are very, very lazy
Otherwise ONE of the two groups would have done it, right? Of course, there is another possibility. Maybe somebody HAS done studies, and they came up negative. My money is on that one.
This is what I was referring to initially. I'm not trying to imply that traditional, or conventional medical treatments are always bad or never work. However, there is a very strong effort by the medical institution to make sure people don't look outside of it for cures or help. It's simple self-preservation. If it becomes too mainstream that an Rx isn't the best treatment, then we lose customers. Now, individual doctors probably don't have those thoughts, or conscious intention, but the institution is different.
Not sure where to come down on this, but, does anyone recall the Steven Spielberg movie, The Medicine Man, starring Sean Connery and Lorraine Bracco? It was based on the true story of an American midwife or physician's assistant who was doing work in the South American rainforest. I vaguely remember listening to an interview with the central figure of that story. He once saved the life of the daughter of the leader of the indigenous tribe. The tribal leader was forever in his debt and offered him anything he desired. A simple thank you was all that he asked. That was not good enough for the leader. So, he asked how do these cannibals shrink heads on a stick. They showed him w/o hesitation.
The American Medicine Man pondered what if he could shrink cancerous tumors with this new found knowledge. He traveled back to the USA and visited the top oncologist in New York. He was given the bum's rush exit as the doctor fearfully exclaimed, "Do you know what would happen to my business if this news ever got out?" This is what we are up against. Chemo radiation is a multi-billion a year business. Doctors seek profits like any other businessman.
In the video below, Dr. Walter Bortz, Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine at Stanford, who has written 130+ peer-reviewed journal articles, freely admits that “Nobody’s out there trying to prevent cancer, they’re all so busy treating it because you get paid for it.” He takes to quoting Dr. Jerome Kassirer’s book when he says “the entire medical system is corrupt.” Kassirer is no small potato – he is the former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. I highly recommend Kassirer’s book: On the Take: How Medicine’s Complicity With Big Business Can Endanger Your Health.
The American Medicine Man pondered what if he could shrink cancerous tumors with this new found knowledge. He traveled back to the USA and visited the top oncologist in New York. He was given the bum's rush exit as the doctor fearfully exclaimed, "Do you know what would happen to my business if this news ever got out?" This is what we are up against. Chemo radiation is a multi-billion a year business. Doctors seek profits like any other businessman.
In the video below, Dr. Walter Bortz, Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine at Stanford, who has written 130+ peer-reviewed journal articles, freely admits that “Nobody’s out there trying to prevent cancer, they’re all so busy treating it because you get paid for it.” He takes to quoting Dr. Jerome Kassirer’s book when he says “the entire medical system is corrupt.” Kassirer is no small potato – he is the former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. I highly recommend Kassirer’s book: On the Take: How Medicine’s Complicity With Big Business Can Endanger Your Health.
Study Finds Almost All Sanitary Cotton Products Contaminated with Probable Carcinogen
Posted on October 23, 2015 by Robert Barsocchini
85 percent of sanitary cotton products tested in a new study were contaminated with glyphosate, which was recently ruled a “probable carcinogen” by the World Health Organization and is the main ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup, used worldwide.
Roundup is applied to cotton plants “when the bud is open and the glyphosate is condensed and goes straight into the product,” one of the researchers reported.
The studied products were purchased in Argentina, which receives them from Brazil, including via the US.
RT notes that “cientific studies have linked the chemicals in Monsanto’s biocides [such as Agent Orange] to Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, autism and cancer.”
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015...ts-contaminated-with-probable-carcinogen.html
Posted on October 23, 2015 by Robert Barsocchini
85 percent of sanitary cotton products tested in a new study were contaminated with glyphosate, which was recently ruled a “probable carcinogen” by the World Health Organization and is the main ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup, used worldwide.
Roundup is applied to cotton plants “when the bud is open and the glyphosate is condensed and goes straight into the product,” one of the researchers reported.
The studied products were purchased in Argentina, which receives them from Brazil, including via the US.
RT notes that “
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015...ts-contaminated-with-probable-carcinogen.html
Total.bullcrap
EVERYONE is trying to prevent cancer!!!
Your doctor tells you to stop smoking to prevent lung cancer.
Your doctor tells you to use sunscreen to prevent skin cancer.
Your doctor recommends a colonoscopy when you reach 50, & remove polyps that can lead to colon cancer.
Your doctor recommends OTC/cheap anti-acid meds for acid reflux, which can lead to Barrett's esophagus & ultimately (incurable) esophageal cancer.
Your doctor recommends eating less red meat, a risk factor for many cancers.
To claim 'the medical establishment' doesn't try to prevent cancer is a mind-numbingly stupid thing to claim....You'd have to go Full Retard to presume mainstream physicians are trying to INCREASE your cancer risks, just so SOME OTHER specialist gets to make the money treating you.
Sorry JP, I think
Yes. It has. I prove it every time I get a cold sore.
But many will say that c and r work initially, the tumor goes away, and the patient is considered "cured". But what actually happened is the c and r destroyed the daughter cells, but not the stem cells. The stem cells remain and the c and r actually strengthen them and they come back worse than before. The process takes years, the number I keep hearing is 5 or less, which they say the cure rate data doesn't look at.
That's not how that works. Right now you have a correlation. You'd need to (at the least) test different products, and each time, apply the product the same way/time/frequency as every other product. So let's say as soon as you have a tingle on your lip, you put ear wax on the spot. You'd have to do the same with, say, Carmex the next time. Then maybe petroleum jelly. Then Valtrex. Then something else. You'd have to document symptoms (severity of pain/tingliness, discoloration, etc) and take pictures. You'd also need to make sure diet, exercise, stress levels, etc, remained consistent during each outbreak.
Because right now, it could just be that as soon as you sense a cold sore, you think "hey, I'm getting a cold sore, that tends to happen when I'm stressed, I need to relax" and then you relax and your immune system does its thing, regardless of the ear wax.
And maybe it is the ear wax. None of us is saying it isn't. We just want actual evidence and research. Right now we have anecdotal evidence. Heck, maybe your ear wax needs to be studied if it's that awesome.
Patients who have lymphomas or non-Hodgkins, etc. are never considered 'cured', they are considered 'in remission'. They ABSOLUTELY look at that for 'cure rate data'. You really do not have any rational grasp of actual medical literature; I'd suggest getting an actual medical-school related book on cancer and the therapies used, because you are finding WAY too much disinformation and garbage on the internet. Get something that actually has some peer review behind it, not a random, anti-establishment book.
Cancer was virtually UN-curable barely 50 years ago. Today, mainstream medicine CAN cure many types of cancer, put others into remission permanently or for many years, and can PREVENT many from forming with pro-active intervention (e.g. Barrett's esophagus, colon polyp removal). NONE of those are 'alternative' therapies; they are PROVEN methods that prevent cancers and prolong lives.
Even RF or microwave ablation for liver tumors is effective for many people - they DO NOT cure cancers in the liver, but they can make it a chronic condition you can live many years with, and not have the cancer spread.
MOST of the mainstream therapies for cancer today are:
1. Surgically remove it entirely from the body before it spreads - cures MANY people of local cancers.
2. Find and use chemo or other drugs that target specific cancers very well (this is why Lance Armstrong is alive today)
3. Radiate the area and kill the faster growing cancer cells more prevalently than surrounding normal cells - a 'last resort' mostly, but this has cured MILLIONS of people.
4. Hyperthermia** (an 'alternative' therapy not available in the US). Heat works in combo with radiation to make it more potent, and can trigger apoptosis of cancer cells faster than normal cells.
5. Other 'experimental' therapies, like gene therapies, viruses to attack cancers.
'Cancer' is not 'one' specific disease; cancers of various organs vary widely in their responses to the above treatments. Some treatments are perfect cures for certain cancers, while others are not possible or are completely ineffective. Oncologists now KNOW what mostly works by trial and error AND using simple scientific and statistical methods to identify what HAS cured people or delayed cancer growth/spread.
'Alternative' therapies need to follow this same basic method to be accepted, and should NEVER be tried until standard therapies have failed. NO doctor is willing to use 'alternative' methods on his/her patient when there are clear and viable/proven options already established and available. There are MILLIONS of pages of research on this over the past 50-70 years. You'd be well served to look some of that up and read it....
**I should also note - hyperthermia was 'discovered' as a viable therapy by a physician back in the late 1800s or early 1900s. His patient had an advanced stomach cancer, proven by biopsy/histology, and got a back infection which resulted in a very high fever. He thought the patient would be dead within a day or so; the high fever temperature over several days actually killed the cancer cells and the patient lived. This is an incident (anecdotal at the time) in the medical literature, which led many other physicians to try using slightly elevated temperatures (41-42°C vs. normal 37°C body temperature) as a therapy. It actually can work quite well, but because heating things uniformly is so difficult in a patient, it has had limited clinical application. And, because 'hyperthermia' is not a pre-1976 indication for a device, FDA will not approve 510k submissions for it, which means any device has to go through a very long/involved PMA process for US approval. It is, however, a therapy which has caught on quite a bit in Europe and is often used in conjunction with other therapies. MOST oncology regimens do not use 'monotherapy' (one method) to treat a cancer, they combine several approaches. And anything found to be effective or improve outcomes gets added to the standard literature....
Last edited:
So follow me here.
I am having a terrible time with cold sores when I get them, only a rate of maybe a couple a year, but still very annoying when I do get them. A period of 20 years go by and all the over the counter stuff does not work at all. Total garbage.
I go to the internet for a solution to see if there is anything others are doing that people are having good success with and I find that people are using their own ear wax with good success.
I have a distinct feeling on my lip like what my lip feels like every time I get a cold sore and I decide to try it and the cold sore feeling disappears without the cold sore breaking out at all. I do this every time I get that distinct feeling over the next 4 years, and every time it goes away. Every time I got that distinct feeling before I found out about the ear wax, a cold sore would break out.
I can conclude A) That the ear wax works, and probably does for most people. There must be some disconnect somewhere, probably because it's a free treatment. Or B) That ear wax doesn't work because there are no published studies out there saying it works.
B is what you are saying, which I'm sorry but it's stupid.
I suppose there is a C) Ear wax is just too disgusting and the general population feels that it's too much so to be putting on lips.
You can't take the results out of (very poorly done) case study and extrapolate them for use with the greater population, so saying "...and probably does for most people" is entirely inaccurate.
A: there are FEW OTC therapies that are effective against cold sores. And certain types of the herpes viruses do not respond at all to them
B: if you want a real remedy, get a prescription. If you 'think' ear wax works for you, go for it. Placebo effects are real things, but they don't 'prove' any home remedy works better than established medicine.
The "and probably does for most people" is a belief that I have based on my experience, and anecdotal evidence from others. Yes, it may or may not be the truth.
....that you do not have a grasp of the medical literature?
And there is WAY too much medical disinformation on the internet?
I'd agree with that....
A blanket statement that it works for most people based on anecdotal evidence...if you admit it may not be the truth, then why make that claim?
Are you talking about the same science that told you that cigarettes are ok, that lead in the air isn't really a bad thing, or that mercury should be avoided because of its toxicity, but it's ok to permanently put in your mouth, etc.
Could you please point out to me where I claimed that "it works for most people"?
The implication based on the bolded part and your subsequent statements being that "The ear wax works, and probably does for most people."
But if I'm incorrect about your implication, then I ask that you be more clear in expressing your thoughts.
I will say this; Doctors get stuff wrong. I went through a fiasco getting the right blood pressure meds. It wasn't until the 3rd doc, a cardiologist, that I got it right.
My point is that these items have piles and piles of medical literature that says that these practices are ok, but we know the truth that they're not. We certainly can apply that same concept here. Is it the truth? Don't know for sure, but it is reasonable to be skeptical.
"And probably does for most people" does not mean "It works for most people". The first claim is reasonable, the second is not. The second is what you said that I said, but didn't.
Mainstream science has NEVER stated that, once the evidence was gathered showing links to lung cancer. INDUSTRY 'scientists' tried to misinform the public, but the AMA and other medical groups have been clear on this for decades.
'lead in air', or any contact in high enough concentrations IS a bad thing; this is why it's now BANNED as a gas additive and paint additive. Where are you even getting this from....50-80 year old magazine ads?
Are you referring to the MINISCULE amounts of mercury in vaccines? Because those are WELL BELOW the levels that will affect you.
Learn about LD50 or other dose-related toxicity concepts.
Radiation is bad for you in high doses (Google firefighter victims Chernobyl for an example), but you are bombarded with LOW DOSES of radiation all the time, constantly (we get a lot more up here in the Rockies where there are uranium deposits, AND due to altitude allowing more cosmic rays through). But humans have evolved DNA repair mechanisms which counteract low radiation exposure and prevent long-term damage to normal background radiation rates. HIGH doses overwhelm the repair mechanisms and kill you either immediately (within hours) or over a few years when you'll develop cancers due to all the accumulated DNA damage that was not repaired correctly.
Mercury exposure is bad for you chronically (not ACUTELY) because chronic exposure builds up in your brain. And it is also easily absorbed through the skin, so how it gets into you is irrelevant - it's the AMOUNTS that matter.
Mercury amalgam fillings are a mercury ALLOY that is stable (look up the phase diagram for it), and results in very tiny amounts of mercury being absorbed into your body. The amalgam alloy is a completely different animal from plain mercury. For the same reasons, this is why plain iron cannot be used as a medical implant, but an alloy made of iron, chromium and a bunch of other things (316L stainless steel, or 400 series steels) CAN be implanted, because it does not break down/corrode and poison you. How do we figure these things out? SCIENCE!!! CHEMISTRY! BIOLOGY! Standard textbooks...NOT uneducated internet rants on obscure websites!
That's enough Gish Gallops from you....learn a little of the science behind your internet 'examples' before you post more nonsensical blather...
Ironic, because you seem to be extraordinarily unskeptical about anything outside of the mainstream.
Wait, I never distinguished between mainstream and industry before, why are you now? Many in these debates consider science to be science. Why would you claim that the AMA has been clear on this for decades? - Who would argue against that - I'm not? They haven NOT been clear from the beginning.
Sure, but from what I understand they went back and forth on this issue margarine and butter style before they took it out of the products you mention.
I'm referring to amalgams. I'm pretty sure animal studies have indicated decreased organ function as a result of amalgam exposure, even after relatively short periods of time. What long term studies have been done to indicate that long term exposure indicates that amalgams are safe for humans since it's the chronic exposure that is in question? Are there any? Regardless, there is mercury in the fillings, and the body does absorb it, that same mercury absorbed is the same mercury that is known to be toxic to human tissue, and there are alternatives that are much safer, so why would you ever use the amalgams?
Oh yeah, margarine and butter. Which one do you prefer?
Ummmm.....because 'science is NOT always science' when those generating it have a vested financial interest in it. You didn't distinguish between it, because you do not understand the difference.
A foundational premise of the publication process is DISCLOSURE of any financial interests in the results.
That doesn't mean good science CANNOT be performed by industry, but there is a reason to be skeptical of it when the result is in line with financial or other interests.
AMA HAS been clear on this for decades. 'Studies' by cigarette manufacturers simply attempted to discredit that consensus. AMA 'was not clear from the beginning', because early on, people did not understand the mechanisms - there were only correlations. Correlation is important when figuring something out, but correlation does not equal causation.
More Gish Gallop. This has nothing to do with the 'lead' issue you posted.
"I'm pretty sure" is not really looking into the review articles available, now, is it?
How about you look at the review done by NIH on this issue. They still recommend amalgams as 'ok' because they are cost-effective. They do carry some risk, but have been safely used for over a century and a half. That's a pretty good track record, despite what some internet jockey may claim.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3388771/
This is their conclusion:
The current use of amalgam has not posed a health risk apart from allergic reactions in few patients. Clinical justifications have not been available for removing clinically satisfactory amalgam restorations, except in patients allergic to amalgam constituents. Mercury hypersensitivity is an immune response to very low levels of mercury. There is no evidence that mercury released from amalgams results in adverse health effects in the general population. If the recommended mercury hygiene procedures are followed, the risks of adverse health effects in the dental office could be minimized. Amalgam is safe and effective restorative material and its replacement by nonamalgam restorations is not indicated. Also a recent review by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs states that: “Studies continue to support the position that dental amalgam is a safe restorative option for both children and adults. When responding to safety concerns it is important to make the distinction between known and hypothetical risks.”
If I am going to make decisions about my health and healthcare options, I'm going to utilize the expertise and resources of places like the NIH, where people who have been doing this independent research have decades of experience, and probably a thousand years worth of cumulative/collaborative experience. I don't go to some idiot who started a blog on the internet who MIGHT have a junior high level of education; nor would I listen to one or two outlier dentists or physicians - I'd listen to the consensus first. THEN I'd see if the detractors made any valid points.
But you cannot make that distinction if you come to the table w/o any understanding of the mainstream position and evidence and/or you have no scientific background to understand what they are talking about. If you don't have the science background, then LISTEN to what the lead scientists and lead scientific organizations recommend to you; they are rarely wrong.
Regarding your butter/margarine Gish Gallop. BOTH are bad for you in large amounts. The risks of trans-fats in margarine were not fully understood when that product hit the markets; decades later, they are identifying that margarine is less healthy than originally hoped.
Personally, I eat butter; my parents use 0 trans fat margarine. But I use olive oil and canola oil for anything else, and only use butter for baking, etc. None of them are 'good' for you, but including a little in your diet isn't really an issue. Why is there debate on these things? Because sometimes the effects take a LONG time to manifest themselves, and you need to track people for decades to find out the true risks. Funny, how all the 'alternative' and 'natural' products never undergo that type of testing....I mean, arsenic is 'natural', but I'm not recommending that as a balanced part of anyone's diet....
Lol, how many times have I posted this in debates against those who defend GMOs? You don't understand that I understand.
Ok, so is my original point false? "My point is that these items have piles and piles of medical literature that says that these practices are ok"
The point here being that science - from industry or otherwise - indicated it was OK to include lead in the products, and they went back and forth on the lead issue before it was finally taken out of the products.
http://www.mercuryexposure.info/con...sideration/adverse-effects-on-kidney-function
The studies are in the references. Have you found any studies on amalgams that look at health impacts of long-term chronic exposure?
Again...I'll go with what NIH, AMA and ADA say on the topic, vs. some random website with a partial article that has about 5 total references, NONE of which I can identify specifics on the experimental designs or actual results.
Not sure how many times that has to be stated to you before it sinks in: there are THOUSANDS of publications on this topic, and NIH has evaluated MOST of them. I trust their judgement over a sensationalistic website that calls itself mercuryexposure.info
The rest of your responses make little sense here. I really do not believe you have a clue as to what you are talking about.
You can also go with what the ADA itself has to say on the matter:
http://www.ada.org/en/about-the-ada...es-and-statements/statement-on-dental-amalgam
Now, couple THAT with your sensationalistic website, which quite astonishingly seems to have a LOT of ads/articles relating to amalgam REMOVAL for people who are freaked out by it...(OMG!!!!). Seems to me to be run by people promoting the removal of your money to take out your amalgam fillings. And removing them CAN pose hazards - leave them in and they are fine. Not really unlike asbestos insulation in houses - so long as it is there and is behind the walls, it's not really a hazard, but when you try to remove it, it can be pretty dangerous.
Thus, pretty sure your site is all about drumming up customers to get their (perfectly safe and fine) amalgam fillings removed (long with your money). A small subset of the population DOES have allergy to things like amalgams (and silver, and nickel, and other metals). But just because someone ELSE has a peanut allergy doesn't mean peanuts pose a hazard to YOU....
http://www.ada.org/en/about-the-ada...es-and-statements/statement-on-dental-amalgam
Dental amalgam is considered a safe, affordable and durable material that has been used to restore the teeth of more than 100 million Americans. It contains a mixture of metals such as silver, copper and tin, in addition to mercury, which binds these components into a hard, stable and safe substance. Dental amalgam has been studied and reviewed extensively, and has established a record of safety and effectiveness.
The FDI World Dental Federation and the World Health Organization concluded in a 1997 consensus statementi: “No controlled studies have been published demonstrating systemic adverse effects from amalgam restorations.” Another conclusion of the report stated that, aside from rare instances of local side effects of allergic reactions, “the small amount of mercury released from amalgam restorations, especially during placement and removal, has not been shown to cause any … adverse health effects.”
The FDI World Dental Federation and the World Health Organization concluded in a 1997 consensus statementi: “No controlled studies have been published demonstrating systemic adverse effects from amalgam restorations.” Another conclusion of the report stated that, aside from rare instances of local side effects of allergic reactions, “the small amount of mercury released from amalgam restorations, especially during placement and removal, has not been shown to cause any … adverse health effects.”
Now, couple THAT with your sensationalistic website, which quite astonishingly seems to have a LOT of ads/articles relating to amalgam REMOVAL for people who are freaked out by it...(OMG!!!!). Seems to me to be run by people promoting the removal of your money to take out your amalgam fillings. And removing them CAN pose hazards - leave them in and they are fine. Not really unlike asbestos insulation in houses - so long as it is there and is behind the walls, it's not really a hazard, but when you try to remove it, it can be pretty dangerous.
Thus, pretty sure your site is all about drumming up customers to get their (perfectly safe and fine) amalgam fillings removed (long with your money). A small subset of the population DOES have allergy to things like amalgams (and silver, and nickel, and other metals). But just because someone ELSE has a peanut allergy doesn't mean peanuts pose a hazard to YOU....
According to the IAOMT, "Relatively few experiments have been done on chronic trace level exposure to elemental mercury vapor, and fewer still made use of amalgam as the mercury source". So very few studies then, doesn't sound very convincing.
http://iaomt.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Case-Against-Amalgam.pdf
http://iaomt.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Case-Against-Amalgam.pdf
....and that particular issue is MOSTLY relevant to a dentist who is REMOVING amalgams routinely.
A: You CANNOT be exposed to 'mercury vapor' by fillings already in your mouth. No more than you can be exposed to 'iron vapor' by 316L stainless steel implants in your knee or ankle
B: If you have amalgams removed, you will not be getting 'chronic' exposure, you will get 'acute exposure', for which there are LOTS of studies, and the amount of exposure you would get falls FAR below any safety guidelines which are well established.
Few studies have been performed, because it is mostly irrelevant - we already know what the risks are to chronic mercury exposure. 'Trace levels' is a rather mundane term. You get exposed to 'trace levels' of mercury if you live near a coal-burning power plant....
The particularly worded statement 'using amalgam as the mercury source' tells me they are trying to sell crap to dentists worried about exposure when they remove amalgams. As well as patients. Newsflash: you probably get HIGHER exposure from coal fired power plants relative to heavy metals you're breathing in, than from any dental procedures - even if you are the dentist. And if you eat lots of fish from certain areas of the world, you can intake quite a lot of mercury that route as well....
Let's be clear here, since you conveniently left off the second part of his reply on this topic. Good science is good science whether it's industry funded or not. Thats what's been argued in the conversations you're referencing.
