Even though doctors using this have only treated three leukemia treatments, they say that the results from this are amazing. Physicians at the University of Pennsylvania report that this treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), the most common leukemia, made it disappear in two patients, and that it reduced it by 70% in the third patient. In fact, in each patient, up to five pounds of tumor tissue was gone in a few weeks, and that it is still gone after a year.
Read on »
The method that researchers from Abramson Cancer Center removed certain types of white blood cells (leukocytes). They then utilized an engineered, allegedly harmless version of the HIV virus and inserted a number of genes into the white blood cells. These genes were designed to get the cells to target and kill the cancer cells. Researchers grew a large batch of these cells and then injected them back into patients. These cells then began to mercilessly and persistently track down the cancer cells and kill them. Reports are that side effects from this type of treatment have been minor, at best.
I just read a very good article that speaks about ‘useful idiots’, and I think that is is very relevant to what is happening in the medical field. It is also a microcosm of what has been happening in all of society, and in all major institutions in society. I don’t have the time here to delve into all of that, but suffice it to say that virtually all of the things that we take for granted as ‘facts’, are either blatantly false, or that the assumptions and foundations that support them are faulty or specious. Education, politics, medicine, sociology, economics, history, religion, etc., are all based on some very flawed logic. I’m not trying to offend anyone, but this has been my experience after many years of studying all of these (and many other) topics.
Read on »
After learning about the dubious veracity of truths I had been spoon-fed since my youth, I thought that science was not susceptible to such manipulation because it was ’empirical’. I was truly naive back then. But when I got into medical school, my spirit was unsettled, and I could not bring myself to embrace it. I was wondering where all the cures and effective treatments were, and when we were going to learn about them. I guess that I figured out that if they weren’t teaching this information to us in medical school, they were never going to share this information with us. If they aren’t teaching cures in medical school, but instead, were teaching more advanced factoids about physiology, histology, embryology, etc., what’s the point?
I had to ask myself this question after reading a blog entry entitled The Cancer Cure THEY Don’t Want You to Know About, by a writer called Healthseeker. He spoke about apricot kernels and a substance called Xanthohumol as effective, non-toxic treatments for cancer. He actually described cancer as the result of a deficiency of vitamin B-17 (also known as amygdalin, closely related to Laetrile). Xanthohumol is an antioxidant that is derived from hops. I don’t know much about it.
Read on »
Although the article was not the best, I thought that the author gave someone enough information to stimulate readers to do some research to verify what he said. I must admit that there were no references, no links, no substantiation of anything the author said in the article. But that was not what really surprised me.
Physicians had no answers to this man’s cancer problem, but he found effective actions in spite of this.
It just goes to show you that just because the ‘experts’ may be dumbfounded, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t an answer to your questions and solutions to your health problems.
Read on »
But you must be aware that this is what is termed an ‘anecdotal’ report, and isn’t scientifically valid. By that same token, there is something here that is worthy of study because of the positive result that Brad received by doing what he did. The scientific standard for a study is called the randomized, double-blind study. Neither the experimental subjects or the researchers know who is in the control group (the group that receives no treatment or a placebo) and the experimental group (the group that receives the treatment under investigation).
This is another man who has worked to treat and cure cancer. He tells a bit about his story and what he has done.
This man was diagnosed with cancer, and had cancer surgery to remove tumors from his ear and other structures that were near it (i.e., lymph nodes, neck muscles, etc.). He was told that all the cancer was removed, but he later found more tumor growths on his head. The physicians told him that chemotherapy and radiation would not work on his form of melanoma. At that point, he declined to undergo further conventional cancer treatments.
Read on »
Michael Douglas announced that he has been diagnosed with stage 4 throat cancer. He says that he has already started chemotherapy and radiation therapy. On an interview with David Letterman, he also stated that he thought he had an 80% chance of recovery. Although he sounded optimistic, I found that at one point in the interview, he said that he knew that the treatments would be hard & that his condition would get worse. This is definitely how most cases go with conventional cancer treatments. He did not look healthy to me.
Read on »
I do wish him the best of luck with this, but the prognosis is not good. Unfortunately, he has already decided to go with the highly toxic conventional cancer treatment regimen of chemotherapy and radiation. Chemotherapy is essentially chemical warfare agent type substances. I know that some people get better with chemotherapy, but I think that most of these cases could be termed Pyrrhic victories. How much value is it if a patient gets the cancer to go into remission, and then has a ‘relapse’ to which she succumbs? Even though there are people that benefit from chemotherapy and radiation, this is a small minority of cancer patients.
It is not a bad thing to be run a business for profit. Unfortunately, there can be a conflict between financial interests and what is best for the patient. Given the present corporate paradigm where profits are the first, highest priority, this can have disastrous ramifications for medical policy. A goal of more profit may motivate Big Pharma companies to sell expensive drugs to patients even though they may not be radically different from older, cheaper drugs.
Read on »
Doctors are often willing victims of Big Pharma. Their medical educations are heavily influenced by pharmaceutical companies. It is to the point now where there are incredibly large numbers of prescriptions written by physicians.
This is the third installment of this video series on Big Pharma and how it operates. The bottom line is that Big Pharma’s biggest priority is to make money, and everything else is secondary. This video series is an illustration of this. Cancer patients need to understand these facts before agreeing to any treatments that involve drugs, especially with drugs as toxic as chemotherapy. If these people are this ruthless and profit-seeking with these drugs, how much confidence does that inspire in a patient who may be seen as nothing more than a profitable sale?
I am not accusing all physicians of being complicit in this. Although they ought to know better, many physicians have been subjected to indoctrination by medical school educations that have been heavily influenced by Big Pharma. So most doctors have a definite bias towards the use of drugs.
Read on »
It is not a secret that Big Pharma inundates us with numerous advertisements for their drugs. Anyone who watches television can attest to the massive amounts of drug commercials that run. The reason they run these ads is because they work!
The marketing for Big Pharma drugs used to be focused on the health care practitioners (physicians). But there has been a shift because today, pharmaceutical companies now spend many billions of dollars on marketing drugs to patients directly through television ads and other media.
Read on »
I couldn’t contain myself after going to a blog that discusses cancer treatments. They were essentially talking negatively about homeopathic treatments for cancer in this blog post. I found it interesting. I am not sure about the effectiveness of homeopathy treatments for any disease. Personally, I haven’t seen or found any evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy. It seemed to me to be an easy target for derision. I noticed that they didn’t choose to discuss any more efficacious treatments, such as Laetrile/B-17, Hoxsey’s formula, Essiac, etc.
Read on »
So I went ahead and posted my own comments on the topic. I think it was a board that will probably be adverse to my comments and views, but I went ahead and posted it anyway. I’ll just post here what I said and let you check it out: