I'm still trying to figure out how to harvest ear wax. I was always told the only thing you can put in your ear is your elbow. Well, I ain't getting any earwax out with my elbow.
The Truth About Cancer
- Thread starter naturalbornhawk
- Start date
I came here in hopes of helping people, and tried to give some nice ideas that I have had some really good success with. Just because I don't have enough time in the day to research every last thing right this instant that comes up in this debate doesn't mean that the truth is not on my side. No, I don't have all the answers, but who does? Stay classy guys.
There are literally hundreds of MD's and researchers risking their careers, their reputation, and their well being who are willing to stand up to the scrutiny saying exactly the same types of things that I am saying here, whether you want to admit it or not. Those are only the folks that are up to that challenge.
The odds are pretty high that each one of us will develop cancer at some point. This series included an interview with a guy that was saying we are now to the point where it's 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women. Throughout most of history, this wasn't the case. Humans were closer to nature, living off the land and eating good organic natural foods and getting much more exercise. Avoiding the processed junk and other unnatural toxic things we've inserted into our environment. Bringing the human body back closer to the environment that didn't include all the chronic disease and specifically cancer. That's what the majority of alternative thought is. The way I see it, you can either get on board or end up 1 in 2 or 1 in 3.
We also used to die about 40 years earlier, so there was less time to develop cancer.
I think you would be wise to spend less time looking for web sites claiming to have found miracle cures and espousing views that doctors and pharmacists are trying to keep you sick, and mire time figuring out why you have so much earwax. That's not right!
Even mainstream admits exposure to mercury vapor. It's the amount released and the amount absorbed that is in question, right?
But many others are having success with it too so why would you conclude that?
As far as the ear wax thing I'm pretty sure there has been no tests done on it because it would be nearly impossible to do. Cold sores are a bit crazy in that you never know exactly when one is going to turn up, and they happen at the most inconvenient times. I have had 100% success with ear wax, but I've caught it early, I'd say at least w/in a couple hours of first pain/tingling symptom. So, time may be of the essence. How could you gather subjects and put them under controlled conditions in that time frame? Who wants to go to that trouble, that most people wouldn't want to / couldn't be a part of anyway? That, and there's no money to be made from ear wax.
I didn't say you had to avoid all modern conveniences. You can still wash your hands, take showers, live in a house, etc. Keep the good stuff, avoid the crap as best you can, right?
Baloney. The drug makers who made things like Valtrex and other prescription meds HAD TO DO this testing in order to gain approval for their drugs, and for the labeled claims on their drugs. And in double-blinded studies, they PROVED the drugs worked. That's not some magical/ethereal 'science', it's simple statistics and math.
And it seems to be the basic math tools and statistical analysis that most of the 'alternative medicine' crowd are mysteriously 'allergic' to when it comes time to 'test' their claims.
Sure, it costs money to run these kinds of studies, but any 'alternative' university group can get a grant, or crowdfund to do it. For pretty small chump-change. Or, they could isolate the 'active' chemical in ear wax they are assuming is the mechanism behind 'healing cold sores'; that technology is straightaway biochem, which would make a really nice Master's thesis for someone who wanted to push this idea. Why hasn't it been done? It probably HAS been tried, and they came up with a big ole' goose egg....so instead of publishing a failed experiment, you take to the Internets Of Things, where you can make any old BS claim you want, and naive, gullible people will lap it right up....
Excessive earwax and numerous cold sores. That can't be good.
Sorry for the delay. I have read about various polls several times over the years. Here is one article that mentions an older poll that is likely the one quoted in the series you linked. One problem in the Truth About Cancer is that there are statements such as "oncologists were polled" or "studies reveal" and then no references were given, so it is difficult to be sure which study is being referenced (if any). Here is one link:
http://www.cancernetwork.com/articl...herapy-if-they-had-non-small-cell-lung-cancer
I am sure I have read more recent articles, but this one does reference an article from the 80's in which only 16% of oncologists would choose chemo for their stage 4 lung cancer. At that time chemo had a minimal life expectancy increase and more toxicity than our current therapies. This article summarizes a poll in the 90s with more effective-less toxic therapy in which the number of oncologists who would take chemo increased into the 60% range.
I would take chemo for widespread lung cancer personally. Untreated lung cancer that is stage 4 has a near zero 2 year survival rate versus over 20% with chemo. I know those statistics are as impressive as what alternative medicine claims, but those are statistics that have been seen in well run clinical trials. Quality of life is also improved with chemotherapy- that has been shown in multiple studies.
Well stated. I also noticed that MOST of the references in those links to 'alternative' sites were 1970s/1980s/1990s era. That's now 20-40 year old information, and there is a LOT of innovation and improvement in cancer care since then.
If you want to compare other technologies from that era vs. now, just look at the gigantic car/cell phones with 6V battery packs from the 70s/80s, compared with your pocket iPhones today....it's not even close.
Nor is the quality of medical information or treatment options available from then to now. We have outright cures for many types of cancers, and early detection methods along with sophisticated surgical methods that can effectively cure people as well - many of those simply didn't exist in the 70s and 80s. The simple fact that these idiots with the 'alternative' therapies have to use 40 year old information to justify their case should be enough for anyone (with a functioning brain) to see they are FOS.....
I really didn't want to post on here again, but this deserves a post:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=cerumen herpes simplex
Here's a site that has 74 people on it saying they were successful with ear wax, and maybe 2 that tried it and said it didn't work for them. Even those may not have applied early enough. This site appears not to be a homeopathic site, so there shouldn't really be any bias in that way. That's over 95% of the people that responded that it worked for, with oodles and oodles of others on the internet saying that it worked for them. Maybe there's a bias there that I'm not taking into account on this site in particular, but 95% is a nice success rate. Yeah yeah it's not science. Whatever. If you're seeing that kind of a testimonial success rate, it should tell you that there could be more to it than just concluding it's all worthless horse crap.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=cerumen herpes simplex
I tried to find unsuccessful ear wax attempts on google and I'm turning up basically nothing. What does that tell you JP and JW?
It should tell you that when somebody is trying to tell you that they've found a nice solution to a problem maybe you should be more open to what they are saying, and maybe be a little less dbish. You might just learn something, and those with that good information might be back with more in the future. Or, you can continue to do what you did here.
Thanks for the reponse TxDoc, but that is not the same study they were referring to, and with all due respect, if you didn't know, this statement should never have been made:
"The key to that study is that the physicians were asked if they would take the chemo if they were terminal and the chemo had little chance of prolonging life. Pretty reasonable to say no to that question I would say.Indeed Oncologists recommend not taking chemotherapy very often to patients in that same situation."
This is EXACTLY what I'd posted above; someone finds an obscure article, which finds POTENTIAL compounds in ear wax, which then people on message boards and blogs take WAY out of context and start claiming it cures things. Your article even states that the LOWEST antiviral expression of the substance was in humans who HAD herpes virus expression.
The mean chemotherapeutical index in the studied groups follows a significantly decreasing sequence: dogs, humans without signs of herpes infections, rabbits, and humans with clinically expressed herpes infection.
"Significantly decreasing" means that there is SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER anti-viral activity in the last group than in the others, or at least compared to dogs (perhaps you should be using your dog's earwax, instead!)
This article is in Russian (not the typical type of article you find groundbreaking works in), which means it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to identify their methods and other aspects of the study. It would be quite easy, however, for a US 'natural healing' college to repeat or replicate the study, fairly inexpensively. That you cannot find anything in English means either no one has done it, OR it HAS been done and doesn't work, which means there aren't any links or references to it because it's mostly meaningless and obscure work.
I tried to find unsuccessful ear wax attempts on google and I'm turning up basically nothing. What does that tell you JP and JW?
It tells me as much as finding anecdotal 'successful' ear wax attempts. Zero.
This kind of random abstract is NOT the same as a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Nor are 'anecdotal' stories of how people 'cured' themselves based on a Russian article they don't even understand.
To the naive, gullible and uneducated, it's apparently the same thing, though....
Lol, calm down. You might want to have your blood pressure checked. I feel that you should know that this ear wax stuff is not really that important.
You wanted some science behind the anti-viral properties of ear wax so I provided it. The study indicates decreased anti viral properties for infected humans, but that says nothing about the efficacy of a direct application on an infected site.
It is reasonable to conclude based on my success and success stories that there's probably much more to it than you give it credit. Ok I'll stop. Have a nice weekend.
It's not important for things like 'ear wax and cold sores', but when people with your mentality start posting on blogs about 'home remedies' for real and potentially dangerous ailments, and other uneducated people start listening to them, it can cause real and irreversible harm. Steve Jobs would likely be alive today if he had listened to his doctors and used conventional means to treat his cancer.
You're a jackass. For example, I have a home remedy cream for wrinkled skin around the penis. it takes literally years off the appearance. It's not FDA approved, but anyone that applies it to the penis and rubs it on with a closed hand for 2-5 minutes will magically see the wrinkles disappear. GFY.
So I just asked my mom (who gets cold sores) if she ever applies ear wax when she starts to get one. She said no. I explained this thread, and she said that the vast majority of time, the tingling sensation goes away on its own without treatment.
So I have to wonder, if after so many years of dealing with the virus, the body has enough antibodies to kind of control outbreaks under normal circumstances (fairly healthy, not stressed, etc).
So I have to wonder, if after so many years of dealing with the virus, the body has enough antibodies to kind of control outbreaks under normal circumstances (fairly healthy, not stressed, etc).
Yep. 2nd funniest bit he ever did. The other was about a little book called "If you can't afford it, don't buy it" for people w/ money problems.
You say Steve Jobs, I say Michael Landon, Suzanne Sommers, and Olivia Newton John - how many more celebrities are there? Who cares? 2 of those claim natural cures, and one of those, Michael Landon died after conventional cure but had a friend to claims that natural methods cured her and felt strongly that he would have been alive today if he had followed her path.
Actually I think the real problem is when we have other people deciding what information is available. Let all information be available and let the people make the most informed decision possible.
And let all the studies relating to that information be available.
A friend of a friend on Facebook suggested she give her son pineapple juice to help with a chest cough. "It has the same medicinal properties...same thing the medications have and it tastes better."
Well, no. And if it worked, doctors would be all over that, because I imagine patient compliance rates would skyrocket. How easy would it be to cure a cough with pineapple juice.
And of course someone else suggested honey.
Well, no. And if it worked, doctors would be all over that, because I imagine patient compliance rates would skyrocket. How easy would it be to cure a cough with pineapple juice.
And of course someone else suggested honey.
You tried googling for unsuccessful ear wax healing of heroes and couldn't find anything; ergo ear wax heals herpes. Interesting.
The reason people are so upset with you is that you're displaying the type of illogic, disdain for science, and willingness to embrace anything that sounds good to you that causes people to not vaccinate their children or convince their friends to bypass the best available treatments for serious illness.
We have a severe problem with a lack of rational thought in this country, and it results in countless problems.
Look at cynical you are towards the opinions of the best and the brightest in the world. Your burden of proof is astonishingly high for mainstream medicine, yet ridiculously low for anybody with a blog. Certainly somewhere deep inside you must be able to see the flaw in that kind of thinking.
We're not battling ear wax, we're battling willful ignorance.
Does earwax really help your mouth herpes? Can you please reexplain it? I also get cold sores from time to time and I'd love to figure out how to prevent them if possible.
Tell that to these people.
http://thetruthaboutcancer.com/experts-info-sheet/
These are just a fraction of the doctors and researchers that I've seen that are saying the very same things that I'm saying, as there are many more not listed here who have come out. Like I said before these are just the folks that are willing to risk their career, their livelihood, and their reputation to come out and say what they believe, not only do you have to be truly courageous to do such a thing, you must also have a strong conviction. How many more are there that haven't come out yet? Clearly there must be something wrong.
There are a lot of studies that say that vaccines are not safe and not effective, and there are a lot of studies that say that they are safe and effective. There are a lot of studies that say that ge crops are safe, increase yields, etc, and studies that say they aren't and don't, etc. Studies that say that fluoride in the water supply is warranted, and other that indicate it's not. Lead, smoking, asbestos, margarine, butter, milk, red meat, eggs, saturated fat, grains, etc. The entire food pyramid was turned upside down from its first debut. When do you suppose we will learn that we often have much more to learn before we actually know the truth of things?
I love science, but it doesn't have all the answers yet, and I think there is a lot of conflicting info, corruption, and misinformation behind it. Forgive me, but I think it is you who are ignorant to think that whatever mainstream science cooks up next is the set in stone truth w/out question.
Is there no one else out there who believes that the cure(s) for cancer will be found in nature? It's not really that far out there, as that used to be mainstream thought at least at one point if it's not anymore. Yet, here in this forum I'm found crazy for thinking it.
Last edited:
Any explanation for the mechanism behind earwax neutralizing your mouth herpes? Or are we supposed to take your word on it because you've figured out that science doesn't have all the answers?
There is only 'conflicting information' if you are digging up largely irrelevant and discredited information from blogs, obscure and non-peer-reviewed journals, or white papers.
This is why it is best to go to some of the core sources of information, where there are review articles that summarize the BEST science available, not all the random stuff out there. You can find people who STILL try to publish on the 'ether' as the explanation in place of Einstein's special relativity; but mainstream physics debunked that 100 years ago. So, if you WANT to find crackpot stuff, sure, you can find it. Mainstream scientists mostly ignore it, because it's a waste of their time to pursue 'red herrings' when they can do ACTUAL science.
That doesn't mean there aren't still scientific controversies on many issues; but among the best journals, most are mainly settled science. Specifically, vaccines have had MANY mass studies performed to look for risks associated, and the GOOD studies have never been able to identify anything more than 'slight' or 'minimal' risks (these studies have been performed in numerous countries, by completely independent organizations and physicians). That doesn't mean you won't find someone who has gotten a really poorly designed (and statistically incorrect) study in an obscure journal that says something different. This is why teams of scientists and professional organizations often post the best information on their websites, which is really the best place to find the clearest (AND most recent) information. I have noted to you many times, that the references for many of the things you are complaining about are 20-40 years old. That is a LONG TIME in many of these fields.
Do you really think your doctor 'makes extra money' writing you a prescription for a Valtrex drug for your cold sores, vs. just recommending 'hey, you can use ear wax and it'll work just as well'. That is why your doctor WON'T recommend ear wax - he also has not seen the evidence that it will do any good; he has a legal obligation to provide you with accurate information based on the best medical evidence, NOT based on something he read on the internet. He recommends the prescription, because there is actual evidence to back it up; evidence which is supported by the AMA and other groups of really smart people.
The study I link is a study referencing the 1985 McGill study and a followup study in 1997. The 1985 McGill study is the study that has the same statstics that are quoted in the Truth About Cancer and many alternative sites. If there is a different study , I would be happy to look at it.
And as in my link, the McGill study asked oncologists about using cisplatin for widespread lung cancer. Stage 4 lung cancer was indeed terminal and cisplatin had little chance of prolonging life. As I stated.
My entire point about the videos, though, is that in nearly every scene there are misquotes and outright lies. In fact, here is the next scene after the above I just mentioned.
At approximatelty 23 minutes in an "expert" states that "After 5 years, there is a 2.1 % 5 year survival rate for people who take chemotherapy" Another expert claims therefore that" 97% of those who undergo chemotherapy at 5 years have died". The error here is that they provide a screen shot to the study they are referencing. At 23:13 into the first video on the "Truth about chemotherapy" the screen shot shows a table from a December 2004 Clinical Oncology article.
Well actually the 2.1% number is the benefit of chemotherapy to the 5 year survival rate. For example, you give chemotherapy after lung cancer is removed and an additional 2% are alive at 5 years due to the chemotherapy. The surgery did the majority of the work. The article itself clearly states that the 5 year survival rate is 60%.
Thus these interviews in the video are clearly lying. They state that 97% are dead from chemotherapy by quoting an article that states 40% have died in total. The article actually shows an increase (albeit modest) increase in survival with chemotherapy. Either the interviews don't know how to read a scientific article, or they are purposefully deceiving the viewer. Really, does anyone believe 97% of people who take chemotherapy have died by 5 years?! That is a ridiculous statement passed off as a fact in the video.Either way, how can you trust anything further they say, even if it bolsters your own biases?
You had asked last time you posted these videos why someone like a physician wouldn't watch these and keep an open mind. The above paragraphs explain why. I have an open mind to new therapies, but these videos are so erroneous and deceptive that they provide no value.
Last edited:
EVERYONE huh? Don't confuse family physicians with research physicians.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.
Despite Whining By Monsanto, Roundup DOES Cause Cancer … and Many Other Diseases
Posted on November 7, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog
The World Health Organization is right when it announced recently that Roundup weedkiller – also known as “glyphosate” – probably causes cancer.
In response, Monsanto has been whining that the WHO is wrong.
But Reuters notes:
“There are a number of independent, published manuscripts that clearly indicate that glyphosate … can promote cancer and tumor growth,” said Dave Schubert, head of the cellular neurobiology laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. “It should be banned.”
The Salk Institute is one of the world’s top neuroscience facilities:
In 2004, the Times Higher Education Supplement ranked Salk as the world’s top biomedicine research institute, and in 2009 it was ranked number one globally by ScienceWatch in the neuroscience and behavior areas.
Indeed, Roundup has been linked with numerous diseases, including autism, dementia, thyroid and bladder cancer, kidney failure, bowel and intestinal disease, high blood pressure, obesity and diabetes.
Roundup has been found in 75% of air and water tested, and in virtually all sanitary cotton products.
And crops are drenched in Roundup right before harvest … meaning that we get alot of it in our food.
And yet the EPA recently raised the allowable amount of a glyphosate – the main ingredient in Monsanto’s toxic Roundup – by 3,000% … pretending that it won’t have adverse health effects.
And EPA uses Monsanto’s own biased research – largely based on outdated studies from the 197os – to pretend that Roundup is safe. (Monsanto studies from the 1970s and 1980s – shared with the EPA at the time – allegedly showed that Roundup was toxic.)
We should instead ban the poison …
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015...oes-cause-cancer-and-many-other-diseases.html
What's Monsanto got to do with my statement?
Family physicians ADVISE you to avoid risk factors for cancers.
Research physicians IDENTIFY risk factors for cancers, so you can be given good ADVICE on reducing your risks.
Not sure that's much of a difference. But, for someone who likes to post loads of unscientific nonsense, I presume you don't understand any of it....
You said EVERYONE is trying to prevent cancer and that is BS. Monsanto, in bed with the Fedgov, is allowing chemicals into the food supply that causes cancer.
The Salk Institute is unscientific? Hmmm...didn't know that. The World Health Organization? Okay.
You're simply delusional. The context was DOCTORS and the MEDICAL profession, if you followed the thread.
Then I guess you know more than Dr. Walter Boortz from Stanford and Dr. Jerome Kassirer. I'll answer that for you. You don't.
