Cancer Prevention
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » EDS Lounge

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:24 am

TheresaMary wrote:

There’s very little proof in some of these things Aprile that you are saying (i.e. radiation causes cancer) and so its just your personal opinion not factually based. My dear hubby if he hadn’t had a biopsy would never have found that he had cancer, and it would have no doubt spread without doubt in my mind if it hadn’t been addressed. Whilst the body is a wonderful thing, it needs help at times of crisis. I’m all for prevention, but when things like cancer show up I think its definitely something people need to be educated about and research but the side effects that you mention are not common place. I’m UK based, so our medical protocol is for sure a bit different but they don’t do things unnecessarily (and there would be court cases all over if they did and it was provable).

aprile wrote:

Keliu wrote:

aprile wrote:

Don't be a victim of our current medical model and protocol which is to radiate, overbiopsy and all the rest. Take control of your health now and you will be healthy! Wishing you all the best. Smile

HTH, Aprile

The only way to find out if a breast lump is cancerous or benign is to have a biopsy. Five of my friends have been diagnosed with breast cancer and they have all gone through radiation, chemo and two had a mastectomy. As traumatic as all that was, they have all come out the other side cancer free and healthy. Without treatment there is every chance that they would not have survived.

I would hate to think that a women who finds a lump in their breast would not seek treatment. I think to advise women not to have a breast lump checked is irresponsible.

Read up on the side effects of chemotherapy and biopsies before you post here Keliu. Chemo is causing more re-occurence of breast and other cancers because the cancer cells become resistant. But more importantly biopsies are spreading any existing cancers in the breast via needle track marks. Radiation is a cause of cancer...why use it to treat it? The medical profession has bamboozled all of us into believing their B.S. rhetoric. There's a perfectly viable alternative to mammograms for detection and that's thermograms...the "do no harm" method. Cancer and chemo are big business to the tune of $18,000 a "vile"...WHY on earth would they want to find an alternative or natural cure? But more importantly, after all these years, WHY on earth would they not preach more about prevention? I think you know why.

T~ While I certainly sympathize with all that you and your husband have gone through, I am sorry....there is ABSOLUTE PROOF that radiation causes cancer. Fallout from nuclear explosions causes cancer from inhalation of radioactive iodine. Yet in the U.S., they give thryoid cancer patients radioactive iodine to destroy their thyroid and put them on medication for the rest of their lives...for whatever that's worth.

Yesterday a patient's husband came into our practice to tell us that his wife had passed away from colon cancer. She had the surgery but had not yet begun chemo treatments. She was too sick to start them. Her new oncologist at Sloan Kettering revealed to them that she another cancer called MDS which apparently is being seen in more and more patients who have had previous radioactive iodine therapy for thyroid cancer, which she did. HOW SAD when she could have taken large doses of potasium iodide/iodine and cured her thyroid cancer!!

As for lawsuits, I'm sure they exist... Yet in most cases, the surviving spouse and family are too shaken to press charges. Incompetent medicine exists when doctors can't stand up and say "I don't know why happened or don't think outside their standard protocols." The reason SLoan Kettering in NY has a better survival rate is they administer chemo differently than other institutions. They give patients magnesium and potasium infusions and other things too...which btw, is probably what's helping them ,, NOT the chemo and radiation.

Wise up people!! Most of the U.S. is iodine deficient, and I'm sure many other countries as well. http://www.nleducation.co.uk/seminars/david-brownstein-md-thyroid-health-and-iodine/

Also, whoever posted that this is NOT a skincare thread is correct. The entire thread should be moved to the Lounge area of the forum for discussion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions...BUT, make no mistake about it... even in areas where medical care is FREE, the doctors and institutions providing care are following standard protcols involving the use of toxic pharmaceutical drugs and they too are benefiting from this.
I'll take my chances using organic whole supplements and foods in the "A ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" protocol.

~ Aprile

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:25 am

panoslydios wrote:

Are you crazy ?
Did anyone suggest almonds as a formal treatment for someone?

Once again: I have been told that bitter almonds are powerfull anti cancer stuff.

To suggest the above statement is telling someone to throw away his/her formal medications and just eat bitter almonds is 100% retarded.

These were your exact "words of wisdom" posted on the last page:

Quote:

I suggest doctors who fight diseases are idiots and nothing more.

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:31 am

10Sylvia5 wrote:

totally agree with you TM, my mother is still in remisssion from breast cancer, and we had fantastic oncology care, she had a mastectomy and it was a very agressive tumour but Not oestrogen dependant. Also she wasnt iodine deficient as has been talked about on another thread regarding Breast cancer.

I also find it completely irresponsible/ dangerous to suggest almonds/ supplement /or any other kind of unsubstantiated belief presented as fact as a "cure" or treatment for cancer sufferers.

I am of the Angelina Jolie opinion!! relating to this!

No one is suggesting that to eat almonds and call it a day Sylvia and others. SHEESH! Please read through the lines here. Almonds are healthy if organic and non GMO... they have high magnesium content. The RDA for all supplements are way too low, iodine included. I wish your mother well; I hope she goes on to live a long and healthy life. BUT, seriously for the medical profession to even suggest that Angelina Jolie or anyone else with the BRCA gene have her cancer free breasts amputated, take tamoxifen (linked to uterine cancer) OR have her female organs removed is just medical malpractice. Sorry....not buying this baloney. I'm done.

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:33 am

We live in the UK where we have free healthcare, my mother has been a GP for over 30 years, I am sure if she or her practice had been "benefitting"
from her/their use of whatever medications they chose to prescribe then we would all know about it. I have never met a GP here who has! Ignorant perhaps , but maybe we just have a better more honest system!

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:50 am

Aprile - considering you have staunch anti-modern medicine views, why have you chosen to use the Neutrosis Stem Cell products?

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:58 am

10Sylvia5 wrote:

We live in the UK where we have free healthcare, my mother has been a GP for over 30 years, I am sure if she or her practice had been "benefitting"
from her/their use of whatever medications they chose to prescribe then we would all know about it. I have never met a GP here who has! Ignorant perhaps , but maybe we just have a better more honest system!

The day people are free of disease is the day radiation would be kept at minimum,gmo corpses burned up,chemtrailing non exist,ONLY organic foods in the store ,non bromide fluoride toxins in dentals mentals and so on.

That suggests you have no free health care cause it costs your own health.

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:07 am

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:33 am

aprile wrote:

angel06 wrote:

aprile wrote:

Deb Crowley wrote:

Hi Sis.S

Thanks so much for the heads-up about magnesium oil. Just ordered mine.

Hey everyone, follow this link: http://drsircus.com/medicine/magnesium/uses-of-magnesium-oil Some great info about magnesium. Scroll all the way down to the bottome of the page to see the brand Sis.S recommends

They also sell magnesium oil w/MSM ... SAME PRICE!

I just wanted to add to this conversation that I have been using Dr. Sircus entire Breast Cancer Protocol to erradicate my fibrocystic breast condition for about six months now. It's been an absolute miracle for me. I went to my breast center this past March for a checkup and they saw a shadow on the ultrasound and wanted to do a biopsy and titanium marker on my right breast, many the breast that has been over-biopsied for years. I thought about it *briefly* and then ran for the hills.

I happen to live in an area where there is high incidence of breast cancer (Long Island). I cannot tell you how many friends or acquaintances who have been touched by breast cancer. Seriously, it's reached epidemic proportions here where I live... I can literally think of ten women off the top of my head within my hometown and surrounding communities who have had the disease. I mean no disrespect to anyone reading this post, but I truly believe with my whole being that this disease *could* literally be wiped out without any medical intervention at all. That said, most people should probably work closely with a naturopath physician to go the natural route. Personally, I cannot even understand the reasoning for radiation, because radiation causes cancer. I certainly cannot agree with the chemotherapy either, as it destroys the immune system, among other things. Today there is even more evidence that it increases risk of recurrence.

So when I found Dr. Sircus site and read his explanation and reasoning for the iodine protocol, it made total sense to me. I read up on the "disease" of fibrocystic breast and honestly the medical professional had no answers for me, let alone the answer for breast cancer --specifically how to prevent or treat early stages of the disease. Btw, there are many in the alternative community and even some in the alopathic community who believe FBD is early stage of BC. I think they are onto something. Every woman I know who has had breast cancer, has also had fibrocystic breast disease (benign condition) and/or breast calcifications.

If the breast has an affinity for iodine, (which it most certainly does, as does the thryoid and prostate) then if we are insufficient, which most of us are, then the profiliferation of the disease can and will continue. Estrogen resides in the receptor sites of the breast, but that can't happen if sufficient iodine is already camping out there. Since *most* breast cancers are estrogen dependent, it just made common sense to me that reducing estrogen in the breast tissue will prevent and might even cure breast cancer. Dr. Sircus breast cancer protocol has been a life saver to me... My breasts were once so dense, with tons of cysts & nodules,that it would be pretty hard to differentiate the ones that moved from the ones that didn't. In fact, each of my breasts had become a large hardened that they felt like bricks and uncomfortable when not wearing a bra. Today, my breasts are *almost* as soft as they were when I was in my twenties when this disease first took foothold on me. I am forever grateful for Dr. Sircus, Dr. Brownstein and others who advocate for women and men's health in the current climate of unhealthy living, pollution, over medicating and worse yet, unhealthy medical protocols.

I hope this posts others dealing with FBD or worse, breast cancer. In good health, Aprile

Can you please tell me the protocol to eradicate fibrocystic condition? I just went for a mammogram and 2 ultrasound because I have lumps on my breast. My mammogram didn't really show anything because my breast was too dense. On one ultrasound I was told that it is fibrocystic and I am still waiting to the result on my other ultrasound (different facility). I know my progesterone is lower that normal so I must have a higher estrogen then. If you could let me know. I would really appreciate it.

Thanks in advance.

Hi Angel,
The protocol I am following is the same as the anti-cancer protocol on Dr. Sircus website. http://drsircus.com. The reason I believe this is so important is that FBD is thought to be the first stage of breast cancer by many natural health practioners.

Most allopathic doctors do not feel this way, but then again they don't have any answers for us how to rid our breasts of the lumps, nodules, calcifications and overly fibrous condition. So what I take is iodine, magnesium chloride, selenium, zinc, B vitamin, Vitamin C, glutathione and Dixie Pharma dew drops and their salvation balm which I use on my breasts. I also just added Rejuvenate to the mix which is a medical grade whole food supplement. (Dr. Sircus recommendations are all VERY HIGH QUALITY products... I would not skimp) IMO, this protcol is attacking things from all angles and could very well save millions of women AND men from getting cancer. This coupled with a healthy diet, exercise, stress reduction are all so important.

If you feel your estrogen levels are too high and your progesterone too low, have your GYN check your levels. You don't say how old you are, but you could take natural progesterone to counteract that. Also, watch your personal care and cleaning products for xenoestrogens. They're everywhere in our enviornment! Go natural and non toxic!! Seventh Generation makes great non-toxic cleaning supplies and they can be found in Target now. Check all your personal care products for hormone disrupting chemicals too.. You can go to Environmental Working Group's site and connect there to Skin Deep website where you can check out all of the products you use and just HOW TOXIC or hormone disruptiong they are.

I will share with you that I have had FBD for 30 years and NOT ONCE has any doctor told me that iodine deficiency and FBD are linked. It's very interesting WHY they are. But, I'll let you read Dr. Sircus and others input there. If you look at the Japanese they have very little incidence of cancer in their population, let alone breast cancer. It's only when they come to the U.S. and eat like Americans that they become unhealthy and sick. Also, there are many other practioners who concur with Dr. Sircus about the importance of iodine in the fight and prevention of breast cancer... Dr. David Brownstein, Dr. Jonathan Wright and Dr. Derry and just a few who come to mind. BUT, for me the proof is in the pudding...once I started using iodine, selenium, magnesium, zinc, the B vitamin uspplmenet, my FBD decreased considerably and my breasts feel so much softer now, more like they did when I was in my 20's when this disease first took foothold. However, the breast that has been over biopsed for years is taking longer, which to me just proves the point Dr. Sircus and others have made about biopsying being a bad thing. Anyway, I believe that I'm on the road total health now....I'll never look back. Don't be a victim of our current medical model and protocol which is to radiate, overbiopsy and all the rest. Take control of your health now and you will be healthy! Wishing you all the best. Smile

HTH, Aprile

Awesome information for prevention .. Thanks Aprile.

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:40 am

Keliu wrote:

Aprile - considering you have staunch anti-modern medicine views, why have you chosen to use the Neutrosis Stem Cell products?

Keliu - I am not against ALL modern medicine practices. If not for anti-biotics, many would die from infection....that's for sure. Those who lived in the early 1900s were not so fortunate and died from simple infections that could easily be cured by their use. Many genetic diseases might be cured by gene therapy in the future and even stem cell therapy. Stem cells in therapuetic use or even in skincare products is not harmful, it's just controversial in many camps. What I oppose is what I consider to be medical malpractice in the form of "doing more harm" to the patient than good in the name of medicine when we know there are much safer protocols available to the patient. Stem cell products may be controversial, but they are not harmful.

Here's a great excerpt from Dr. Mercola's site who is speaking about Dr. Ralph Moss's book, Questioning Chemotherapy, which documents the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy in treating most cancers.

Quote:

Dr. Whitaker, a firm believer in Dr. Moss' work and alternative cancer therapy goes on to give some of his personal views:

Statistics Don't Tell the Real Story

What is lost in the unemotional statistic of 500,000 cancer deaths per year is how those people died. Dr. Whitaker goes on to say more about the treatment of cancer: In my opinion, conventional cancer therapy is so toxic and dehumanizing that I fear it far more than I fear death from cancer. We know that conventional therapy doesn't work -- if it did, you would not fear cancer any more than you fear pneumonia. It is the utter lack of certainty as to the outcome of conventional treatment that virtually screams for more freedom of choice in the area of cancer therapy. Yet most so-called alternative therapies regardless of potential or proven benefit, are outlawed, which forces patients to submit to the failures that we know don't work, because there's no other choice.

Personal Belief Systems Determine the Choices You Make

Because cancer treatment is such a sensitive issue, I need to set some ground rules before I tell you what I would do if I had cancer. What follows is what I personally would do. It is not a recommendation for you, and should not be considered as such. It is not even what my wife would do(that would be her decision), nor is it what my young son would do (that would be the joint decision of my wife and myself). The choices to be made in treating cancer are not easy ones, because there is so little certainty of cure in any of them. The course that someone chooses to take is very personal, and reflects not only that person's knowledge of the options, but also his/her beliefs.

Yet, because we are strongly influenced by our natural fear of death, we lineup for conventional cancer therapy, not so much believing that it will work, but hoping that it will not fail. If expensive, debilitating procedures to eliminate acne scars had the same failure rate as cancer treatment, they would be abandoned. It is only because cancer is so often fatal that conventional approaches were not abandoned long ago. We continue to use them not because they work, but because those who perform them have so vigorously eliminated any other choice.

My Imaginary Cancer Scenario

(by Dr. Whitaker)

Though I would approach my own dilemma with hopes of total cure, I would be the first to admit that, regardless of the course I took, the chances of that are small. Consequently, my choices of cancer therapy are a mix of science and philosophy. They are as much a reflection of how I would struggle for survival as of how I would wish to die if the struggle failed. For the purposes of this discussion, let us assume that I have just been diagnosed with cancer of the lung, and a particularly virulent one. (Please understand that I do not have cancer, nor do I smoke.) Before going into what I would do and why, let me say what I wouldn't do, and why.

I Wouldn't Take A Passive Role

If I am going to fight for my life, I want to do just that. I am always perplexed by the news stories of some celebrity, doped to the gills with heinous poison, "courageously battling for his life." What does this mean? The celebrity, who simply accepts conventional cancer therapy, is no more "courageous" than a laboratory mouse. This is not to say that what the celebrity is doing is wrong, only that it is the very opposite of a willful act of courage.

Taking a passive role with today's conventional therapy is terribly dangerous. Recently Jackie Kennedy, after a "courageous fight," succumbed to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma - or did she? Her early demise, attributed to the cancer, was a shock to cancer specialists worldwide, and brought into question the real cause of her death. She had been given an unproved protocol of very high-dose chemotherapy. The drugs alone could easily have caused her death - and this would not be unusual. There are numerous cases of iatrogenic (doctor-induced) deaths from chemotherapy.

I'd Actively Fight For My Life

On the other hand, the cancer patient who says, "no, thanks" to chemotherapy recommended by large cancer treatment centers, and takes off to Grand Bahamas Island to receive Immuno-Augmentative Therapy (IAT); or to Houston, Texas, to receive antineoplastons from Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski; or who heads to the public library to make a battle plan, has begun fighting and is acting courageously.

Whether I win or lose, that is the course I would take. What have I got to lose? Conventional treatment is toxic and simply doesn't work, so I would throw my lot with something safe that might work, and folks, a lot of approaches fit that description. I also believe patients who seek alternative therapies are more optimistic. They have only one worry - the cancer- not the cancer and the therapy!

And Now. Here's What I Would Do

(by Dr. Whitaker)

I'd turn my back on 50 years of institutionalized expertise, because it follows the wrong paradigm. Everything that is done in medicine or in any other discipline fits some paradigm. The paradigm I use for cancer is that it is a systemic problem in which the normal control mechanisms of your body are altered. Your immune system likely bears the largest burden for this control; thus, all techniques that enhance it are promising. Those that damage it are not.

Also, cancer cells are different from normal cells in many ways, including their metabolic profile. At least one non-toxic therapy, hydrazine sulfate, takes advantage of this difference. It has been shown in double-blind trials published in respectable journals to significantly reduce the severe weight loss (cachexia) of advanced cancer, and markedly improve the patient's emotional state, almost to the point of euphoria. It is also inexpensive. Even though hydrazine sulfate has been shown to be effective and non-toxic, and it makes the patient feel better, it is ignored by every major cancer center. Yet I would take it immediately. (For more on hydrazine sulfate, see Ralph Moss' book, The Cancer Industry.)

First, I would Change My Diet

I would switch to a mostly vegetarian diet. I'd also take the Nutritional Supplements "Green foods," such as GREENS+ (800/643-1210) or Green Magma (from Healthy Directions; 800/722-8008, ext. 572). These supplements include the phyto-chemicals, antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals required for optimal health.. I would enhance that basic program with the following:

Vitamin C - 10,000 mg per day in divided doses. Ewan Cameron, a Scottish physician, did a study in which 100 cancer patients were given 10,000 mg of vitamin C for the rest of their lives, while control patients were not. The patients on vitamin C lived much longer than the age-matched controls. The Mayo Clinic did two studies on vitamin C, and in both studies found that vitamin C did not help. However, both studies were set up in a manner that almost guaranteed failure. Frankly, I think that this was done intentionally to generate negative publicity for this non-toxic approach.

Cartilage - A three- to four-month trial of bovine or shark cartilage. The mucopolysaccharides in cartilage stimulate the immune system and normalize malignant cells. Ninety percent of patients with a variety of cancers responded to a clinical trial of bovine cartilage; shark cartilage has demonstrated success rates of 25 to 50%. VitaCarte bovine cartilage is available from Phoenix BioLabs, 800/947-8482 (suggested dose is 9 g a day). Shark cartilage can be obtained from MHP 800-647-0074 (suggested dose is 1 g per 3 pounds of body weight).

Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) - Used as an effective therapy in congestive heart failure, CoQ10 has only recently been studied as a cancer treatment. Cancer patients have been found to have deficiencies of CoQ10. Clinical trials in breast cancer have resulted in no further metastases, improved quality of life (no weight loss and less pain), and partial remission in six of 32 patients. Vitaline makes a chewable CoQ10 with vitamin E (800/648-4755; 503/482-9231, in Canada).

Essiac Tea - 2 ounces 3 times a day. This blend of four herbs -burdock root, sheep's sorrel, slippery elm and Indian rhubarb root- has its genesis in Native American medicinal folklore. Since it was "discovered" by Canadian nurse Rene Caisse in the 1920s, thousands have claimed to have had their cancers cured by this tea. I'd keep on searching. We have the formula if you are interested in purchasing the individual herbs in bulk.

Finally, you should know that if I were battling cancer - or any serious disease, for that matter- I would be in a constant search for effective, non-toxic therapies. One place to begin that search is with Ralph Moss, Ph.D. He is probably the most knowledgeable writer in the world on alternative therapies for cancer, and has recently published a 530-page book, Cancer Therapy, The Independent Consumer's Guide to Nontoxic Treatment and Prevention. (Equinox Press, New York, NY, 1995). In addition, Dr. Moss offers a report service called Healing Choices, which ascertains, through a questionnaire, the type and severity of cancer, and suggests alternatives. This costs $250, and it is well worth it. If I had cancer, I would start here for more information. You can get more information by sending a large SASE to The Cancer Chronicles, 2 Lincoln Square, Suite 31A, New York, NY 10023, or by calling Melissa Wolf at 718/636-4433.

Another source of information is People Against Cancer, which provides a comprehensive counseling service called the Alternative Therapy Program. It includes a review of your medical records by a network of doctors using alternative therapies. It also costs $250. People Against Cancer can be reached at 515/972-4444. Their Internet address is: http://www.dodgenet.com/nocancer.

This is certainly not my final say on cancer treatment, because it changes as new research is done. I want to say again that what I would do is not a recommendation for you. However, it is not a reasonable belief to think that conventional cancer experts offer the best approaches for most cancers. There is just too much evidence to the contrary. One of these days there may not be a need for ''alternative' approaches to cancer. Until then, look for the answers to the cancer riddle in the growing field of alternatives, because they are obviously not present in our armamentarium of conventional therapies.

http://www.mercola.com/article/cancer/cancer_options.htm

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:47 am

Keliu wrote:

panoslydios wrote:

Are you crazy ?
Did anyone suggest almonds as a formal treatment for someone?

Once again: I have been told that bitter almonds are powerfull anti cancer stuff.

To suggest the above statement is telling someone to throw away his/her formal medications and just eat bitter almonds is 100% retarded.

These were your exact "words of wisdom" posted on the last page:

Quote:

I suggest doctors who fight diseases are idiots and nothing more.

AGAIN taking things completely out of context. WHAT she IS saying is that doctors need to approach disease from where it comes from rather than "treating" the symptoms of disease with medication. They need to begin to search for the possible cause of the disease, i.e., deficiencies. Any idiot can go with the standard protocol and take out their prescription pad!! Cancer cannot flourish in a healthy body... there's ALWAYS an underlying cause. Eh?

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:13 am

aprile wrote:

WHY on earth would they want to find an alternative or natural cure?

I totally understand your distrust and I think I understand where you're coming from, but remember - the people practicing conventional medicine are still people. Cancer is a very widespread problem. Just about everyone has been touched by it some way - we all have a friend, family member, some loved one who has had, or has succumbed to it.

Pharmamceutical reps, oncologists, medical doctors, etc -- they have family and loved ones too! They want a cure just like everyone else.

aprile wrote:

Cancer and chemo are big business to the tune of $18,000 a "vile"..

And the homeopaths (etc) are also raking in the cash selling books, giving lectures, webinars, and often selling supplements, so...

Quote:

But more importantly, after all these years, WHY on earth would they not preach more about prevention?

They ARE preaching prevention, but there are many different types of cancer with different causes.

Personally, I think the conventional suggestions (and some, perhaps much, of conventional wisdom) is misguided or flat out wrong. But they ARE preaching prevention -- avoid the sun (which many are seeing now isn't entirely accurate), eat a certain diet (which again, is being questioned and many conventional doctors are starting to encourage more natural foods and sugar avoidance, for instance, rather than promoting a diet heavy in grains and avoiding all fat, etc).

No one diet can "cure" cancer because there are so many forms and we don't know yet exactly what causes them.

I think Kassy might be on to something that these discussions are best avoided on forums like this, but of course, here *I* am jumping in... Laughing

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:26 am

The radiation from a nuclear explosion is far different than that administered during chemo – even stage 3.

Likewise I have no doubt deficiencies exist, but to suggest that chemo is killing when its saving lives – I’m sorry is nothing more than scare mongering.

aprile wrote:

TheresaMary wrote:

There’s very little proof in some of these things Aprile that you are saying (i.e. radiation causes cancer) and so its just your personal opinion not factually based. My dear hubby if he hadn’t had a biopsy would never have found that he had cancer, and it would have no doubt spread without doubt in my mind if it hadn’t been addressed. Whilst the body is a wonderful thing, it needs help at times of crisis. I’m all for prevention, but when things like cancer show up I think its definitely something people need to be educated about and research but the side effects that you mention are not common place. I’m UK based, so our medical protocol is for sure a bit different but they don’t do things unnecessarily (and there would be court cases all over if they did and it was provable).

aprile wrote:

Keliu wrote:

aprile wrote:

Don't be a victim of our current medical model and protocol which is to radiate, overbiopsy and all the rest. Take control of your health now and you will be healthy! Wishing you all the best. Smile

HTH, Aprile

The only way to find out if a breast lump is cancerous or benign is to have a biopsy. Five of my friends have been diagnosed with breast cancer and they have all gone through radiation, chemo and two had a mastectomy. As traumatic as all that was, they have all come out the other side cancer free and healthy. Without treatment there is every chance that they would not have survived.

I would hate to think that a women who finds a lump in their breast would not seek treatment. I think to advise women not to have a breast lump checked is irresponsible.

Read up on the side effects of chemotherapy and biopsies before you post here Keliu. Chemo is causing more re-occurence of breast and other cancers because the cancer cells become resistant. But more importantly biopsies are spreading any existing cancers in the breast via needle track marks. Radiation is a cause of cancer...why use it to treat it? The medical profession has bamboozled all of us into believing their B.S. rhetoric. There's a perfectly viable alternative to mammograms for detection and that's thermograms...the "do no harm" method. Cancer and chemo are big business to the tune of $18,000 a "vile"...WHY on earth would they want to find an alternative or natural cure? But more importantly, after all these years, WHY on earth would they not preach more about prevention? I think you know why.

T~ While I certainly sympathize with all that you and your husband have gone through, I am sorry....there is ABSOLUTE PROOF that radiation causes cancer. Fallout from nuclear explosions causes cancer from inhalation of radioactive iodine. Yet in the U.S., they give thryoid cancer patients radioactive iodine to destroy their thyroid and put them on medication for the rest of their lives...for whatever that's worth.

Yesterday a patient's husband came into our practice to tell us that his wife had passed away from colon cancer. She had the surgery but had not yet begun chemo treatments. She was too sick to start them. Her new oncologist at Sloan Kettering revealed to them that she another cancer called MDS which apparently is being seen in more and more patients who have had previous radioactive iodine therapy for thyroid cancer, which she did. HOW SAD when she could have taken large doses of potasium iodide/iodine and cured her thyroid cancer!!

As for lawsuits, I'm sure they exist... Yet in most cases, the surviving spouse and family are too shaken to press charges. Incompetent medicine exists when doctors can't stand up and say "I don't know why happened or don't think outside their standard protocols." The reason SLoan Kettering in NY has a better survival rate is they administer chemo differently than other institutions. They give patients magnesium and potasium infusions and other things too...which btw, is probably what's helping them ,, NOT the chemo and radiation.

Wise up people!! Most of the U.S. is iodine deficient, and I'm sure many other countries as well. http://www.nleducation.co.uk/seminars/david-brownstein-md-thyroid-health-and-iodine/

Also, whoever posted that this is NOT a skincare thread is correct. The entire thread should be moved to the Lounge area of the forum for discussion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions...BUT, make no mistake about it... even in areas where medical care is FREE, the doctors and institutions providing care are following standard protcols involving the use of toxic pharmaceutical drugs and they too are benefiting from this.
I'll take my chances using organic whole supplements and foods in the "A ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" protocol.

~ Aprile

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:31 am

Are you familiar with the other suggestions in threads Panoslydios has made?

"I suggest doctors who fight diseases are idiots and nothing more" are his words exactly - and I'm sorry but that's not my experience and if that is his - all well and good for him, but to try to taint anyone elses experience or views is just plain wrong. My hubby had the best care possible as a result of the great doctors we had access to. Sure it wasn't all plain sailing but if it weren't for them we'd have definitely lost hope.

aprile wrote:

Keliu wrote:

panoslydios wrote:

Are you crazy ?
Did anyone suggest almonds as a formal treatment for someone?

Once again: I have been told that bitter almonds are powerfull anti cancer stuff.

To suggest the above statement is telling someone to throw away his/her formal medications and just eat bitter almonds is 100% retarded.

These were your exact "words of wisdom" posted on the last page:

Quote:

I suggest doctors who fight diseases are idiots and nothing more.

AGAIN taking things completely out of context. WHAT she IS saying is that doctors need to approach disease from where it comes from rather than "treating" the symptoms of disease with medication. They need to begin to search for the possible cause of the disease, i.e., deficiencies. Any idiot can go with the standard protocol and take out their prescription pad!! Cancer cannot flourish in a healthy body... there's ALWAYS an underlying cause. Eh?

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:33 am

Its retarded – you mean like telling someone to live on only air or just fruit.

panoslydios wrote:

TheresaMary wrote:

Well I hate to say it but someone said something to me recently that mirrors what you are saying here. That the internet is great for information, but just because there is information doesn’t mean it equals knowledge and at first I was irritated but then realised it is so true for sure.

What I’m really concerned with is that people are stating personal opinions as facts here and that’s definitely something that needs to be addressed.

If someone has cancer, than no amount of almonds are going to reverse that and they need medical treatment for sure. To suggest otherwise is just crazy in my mind.

Are you crazy ?
Did anyone suggest almonds as a formal treatment for someone?

Once again: I have been told that bitter almonds are powerfull anti cancer stuff.

To suggest the above statement is telling someone to throw away his/her formal medications and just eat bitter almonds is 100% retarded.

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:09 am

From the website of Thyroid Cancer survivors associations-"Cancer of the thyroid is more common in women than in men. Most patients are between 25 and 65 years old. People who have been exposed to large amounts of radiation, or who have had radiation treatment for medical problems in the head and neck have a higher chance of getting thyroid cancer. The cancer may not occur until 20 years or longer after radiation treatment."
Both radiation and chemotherapy increase the risk of secondary cancer, which comes as a side effect of the treatment. Oncologists do know it and make treatment decisions based on how aggressive the cancer is, how local or spread around (here chemotherapy comes high on the list).
In many cases it is a question of being treated with chemotherapy and may be after 10-15 years another cancer may occur, or, avoiding aggressive treatment and dying in few years. Those are really tough decisions.
Today they are so many new approved and experimental therapies, that when combined with the genetic profiling of the cancer oncologists are able to design an optimal therapy for each patient. It does not happen everywhere and not every doctor is doing it, but it is available.
Light

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 9:05 am

light123 wrote:

From the website of Thyroid Cancer survivors associations-"Cancer of the thyroid is more common in women than in men. Most patients are between 25 and 65 years old. People who have been exposed to large amounts of radiation, or who have had radiation treatment for medical problems in the head and neck have a higher chance of getting thyroid cancer. The cancer may not occur until 20 years or longer after radiation treatment."
Both radiation and chemotherapy increase the risk of secondary cancer, which comes as a side effect of the treatment. Oncologists do know it and make treatment decisions based on how aggressive the cancer is, how local or spread around (here chemotherapy comes high on the list).
In many cases it is a question of being treated with chemotherapy and may be after 10-15 years another cancer may occur, or, avoiding aggressive treatment and dying in few years. Those are really tough decisions.
Today they are so many new approved and experimental therapies, that when combined with the genetic profiling of the cancer oncologists are able to design an optimal therapy for each patient. It does not happen everywhere and not every doctor is doing it, but it is available.
Light

Exactly right... there are also doctors like Dr. Burzinski who offers antineoplastons therapy, which was FINALLY FDA sanctioned. And then there's Dr. Nick Gonzalez who combines a diet based on metabolic type with personalized supplements, including omega-3 fats and pancreatic enzymes, and a detoxification protocol; he also requires patients optimize their vitamin D levels, in addition to other treatment modalities...

Trust me, I'm not saying all stage 4 cancer can be "treated" with just organic fruits and veggies and supplements. It takes a whole body approach, including many implementing many other treatment protcols, which most patients cannot commit to doing for one reason or another to cure cancer. BUT, to say that chemotherapy and radiation are the only treatments available... sorry, well ummm that's just an outright lie.

It may be the only thing the insurance company will cover or the doctors are willing to use.

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 9:25 am

Trust me, I'm not saying all stage 4 cancer can be "treated" with just organic fruits and veggies and supplements. It takes a whole body approach, including many implementing many other treatment protcols, which most patients cannot commit to doing for one reason or another to cure cancer. BUT, to say that chemotherapy and radiation are the only treatments available... sorry, well ummm that's just an outright lie.

Aprile,radiotherapy and chemotherapy are not the only treatments, but for some patients they the only left options, that should not be ignored.
When I talk about new therapies I mean the ones that are clinically proven, either through proper clinical trials or evidence-based data. All other stuff is very questionable and ultimately dangerous, if something has worked for one patient (or even 100) miraculously it does not make it yet a cure for everyone.
The best is to seek a medical advice from more than one doctor, just in case if the doctor has treatment "preferences".
Light

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 9:52 am

light123 wrote:

Trust me, I'm not saying all stage 4 cancer can be "treated" with just organic fruits and veggies and supplements. It takes a whole body approach, including many implementing many other treatment protcols, which most patients cannot commit to doing for one reason or another to cure cancer. BUT, to say that chemotherapy and radiation are the only treatments available... sorry, well ummm that's just an outright lie.

Aprile,radiotherapy and chemotherapy are not the only treatments, but for some patients they the only left options, that should not be ignored.
When I talk about new therapies I mean the ones that are clinically proven, either through proper clinical trials or evidence-based data. All other stuff is very questionable and ultimately dangerous, if something has worked for one patient (or even 100) miraculously it does not make it yet a cure for everyone.
The best is to seek a medical advice from more than one doctor, just in case if the doctor has treatment "preferences".
Light

I understand what you are saying about proper clinical trials... BUT, there are many therapies that never get the support to make it to clinical trials because the same establishment won't allow it. That doesn't mean that the therapies aren't viable alternatives. Also, some protocols, which reach clinical trials and are successful, never get published in medical journals. Add to the mix that many studies end up being skewed for agenda reasons. See this article on Dr. Gonzalez who is currently practicing and offering alternative cancer therapy in New york.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/23/dr-nicholas-gonzalez-on-alternative-cancer-treatments.aspx

Dr. Burzinski fought the tough fight with the FDA for many years and it wasn't until recently that he received their sanction. Further, he HAD 27 years worth of clinical trials which proved his protcol worked.

I also understand and sympathize with the dilemma many people are faced with when they receive the diagnosis of cancer. I get that.. I also understand that insurance companies are part of the problem in because they won't cover therapies other than the traditional chemo/radiation even if clinical trials support that those treatments work. It's a sad, sad state of affairs. ~ Aprile

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:58 am

Aprile, interesting link, went through it and can only repeat that clinical trials should be "proper". Nothing in the article points towards sabotage, simply a badly designed trial.
I think it is responsible way to say that diet should be a part of pancreatic cancer treatment, but should/can not be the only treatment. That probably goes for many other cancers as well.

Just to show that the world is not white and black; Dr. Gonzales preaches about juicing the vegetables and fruits. Juicing of vegetables leaves a lot of vitamins and minerals that are in the skin, as well as fiber is eliminated. A very recent study in Europe showed that juice from fruits induces insulin release, while eating them reduces the insulin.
I tend to take any advice with a pinch of salt, and apply some common sense.

Light

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:10 pm

aprile wrote:

Stem cells in therapuetic use or even in skincare products is not harmful, it's just controversial in many camps.

But the controversy is that because the growth factors in stem cell topicals are supposed to stimulate cell growth, scientists are still undecided on whether dormant cancer cells are also spurred into action to mutate and multiply.
http://www.livescience.com/2547-stem-cells-cancer.html

Of course, there aren't any actual stemcells in these topicals, however, they do contain growth factors which are purported to stimulate cell growth. All of these concerns were raised on the other stemcell threads here.

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:09 pm

aprile wrote:

light123 wrote:

Trust me, I'm not saying all stage 4 cancer can be "treated" with just organic fruits and veggies and supplements. It takes a whole body approach, including many implementing many other treatment protcols, which most patients cannot commit to doing for one reason or another to cure cancer. BUT, to say that chemotherapy and radiation are the only treatments available... sorry, well ummm that's just an outright lie.

Aprile,radiotherapy and chemotherapy are not the only treatments, but for some patients they the only left options, that should not be ignored.
When I talk about new therapies I mean the ones that are clinically proven, either through proper clinical trials or evidence-based data. All other stuff is very questionable and ultimately dangerous, if something has worked for one patient (or even 100) miraculously it does not make it yet a cure for everyone.
The best is to seek a medical advice from more than one doctor, just in case if the doctor has treatment "preferences".
Light

I understand what you are saying about proper clinical trials... BUT, there are many therapies that never get the support to make it to clinical trials because the same establishment won't allow it. That doesn't mean that the therapies aren't viable alternatives. Also, some protocols, which reach clinical trials and are successful, never get published in medical journals. Add to the mix that many studies end up being skewed for agenda reasons. See this article on Dr. Gonzalez who is currently practicing and offering alternative cancer therapy in New york.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/23/dr-nicholas-gonzalez-on-alternative-cancer-treatments.aspx

Dr. Burzinski fought the tough fight with the FDA for many years and it wasn't until recently that he received their sanction. Further, he HAD 27 years worth of clinical trials which proved his protcol worked.

I also understand and sympathize with the dilemma many people are faced with when they receive the diagnosis of cancer. I get that.. I also understand that insurance companies are part of the problem in because they won't cover therapies other than the traditional chemo/radiation even if clinical trials support that those treatments work. It's a sad, sad state of affairs. ~ Aprile

Aprile We in America realize that the almighty dollar/pharmaceutical industry lobby's are at work and are a part of what is highly sanctioned. Sadly.
Dr. Andrew Weil - A well-known, international speaker and Harvard trained physician who chose a different medical path states in a video I have that "Chemotherapy is going to be considered barbaric one day when we recognize it for what it is". He completely is against many of the treatments we do. I have a friend - breast cancer... made the decision 10 years ago to NOT follow the standard protocal. She put her head down and did the nutritional approach etc and it alive and cancer free. Who's to say all those who are "cancer free from chemo and radiation wouldn't have been had they revised their diet and supplementation. Do we know it was the chemo and the radiation? I don't know the answer to that but I do know what I would do. (One question: Who is making money on the chemo drugs (answer: The Pharmaceutical industry with powerful lobbiests)... and radiation tx: the machines for radiation have to be paid for). In my graduate work one statement stands out for me and that is in medicine everything is an experiment for a very long time.... Well think about leaches... and they used to bleed people due to "humors" thought to cause problems. Today we do chemo and radiation - 25 years from now it could be considered barbaric as Andrew Weil believes...and we could see something so much different. Do we know EVERYTHING today? 20 years ago we probably thought we were tremendously advanced but today we might laugh at the same treatments. We know much more about some things but unfortunately in the US our Physicians are NOT trained in nutritional modalities as a matter of course. They are not taught to be PREVENTIVE in nature- they are designed to be curative in nature so iodine, K2, D3 is not a part of the thought process unless they take a path to be there and make a choice to be there like Dr. Andrew Weil did.

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:32 pm

sister sweets wrote:

aprile wrote:

light123 wrote:

Trust me, I'm not saying all stage 4 cancer can be "treated" with just organic fruits and veggies and supplements. It takes a whole body approach, including many implementing many other treatment protcols, which most patients cannot commit to doing for one reason or another to cure cancer. BUT, to say that chemotherapy and radiation are the only treatments available... sorry, well ummm that's just an outright lie.

Aprile,radiotherapy and chemotherapy are not the only treatments, but for some patients they the only left options, that should not be ignored.
When I talk about new therapies I mean the ones that are clinically proven, either through proper clinical trials or evidence-based data. All other stuff is very questionable and ultimately dangerous, if something has worked for one patient (or even 100) miraculously it does not make it yet a cure for everyone.
The best is to seek a medical advice from more than one doctor, just in case if the doctor has treatment "preferences".
Light

I understand what you are saying about proper clinical trials... BUT, there are many therapies that never get the support to make it to clinical trials because the same establishment won't allow it. That doesn't mean that the therapies aren't viable alternatives. Also, some protocols, which reach clinical trials and are successful, never get published in medical journals. Add to the mix that many studies end up being skewed for agenda reasons. See this article on Dr. Gonzalez who is currently practicing and offering alternative cancer therapy in New york.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/23/dr-nicholas-gonzalez-on-alternative-cancer-treatments.aspx

Dr. Burzinski fought the tough fight with the FDA for many years and it wasn't until recently that he received their sanction. Further, he HAD 27 years worth of clinical trials which proved his protcol worked.

I also understand and sympathize with the dilemma many people are faced with when they receive the diagnosis of cancer. I get that.. I also understand that insurance companies are part of the problem in because they won't cover therapies other than the traditional chemo/radiation even if clinical trials support that those treatments work. It's a sad, sad state of affairs. ~ Aprile

Aprile We in America realize that the almighty dollar/pharmaceutical industry lobby's are at work and are a part of what is highly sanctioned. Sadly.
Dr. Andrew Weil - A well-known, international speaker and Harvard trained physician who chose a different medical path states in a video I have that "Chemotherapy is going to be considered barbaric one day when we recognize it for what it is". He completely is against many of the treatments we do. I have a friend - breast cancer... made the decision 10 years ago to NOT follow the standard protocal. She put her head down and did the nutritional approach etc and it alive and cancer free. Who's to say all those who are "cancer free from chemo and radiation wouldn't have been had they revised their diet and supplementation. Do we know it was the chemo and the radiation? I don't know the answer to that but I do know what I would do. (One question: Who is making money on the chemo drugs (answer: The Pharmaceutical industry with powerful lobbiests)... and radiation tx: the machines for radiation have to be paid for). In my graduate work one statement stands out for me and that is in medicine everything is an experiment for a very long time.... Well think about leaches... and they used to bleed people due to "humors" thought to cause problems. Today we do chemo and radiation - 25 years from now it could be considered barbaric as Andrew Weil believes...and we could see something so much different. Do we know EVERYTHING today? 20 years ago we probably thought we were tremendously advanced but today we might laugh at the same treatments. We know much more about some things but unfortunately in the US our Physicians are NOT trained in nutritional modalities as a matter of course. They are not taught to be PREVENTIVE in nature- they are designed to be curative in nature so iodine, K2, D3 is not a part of the thought process unless they take a path to be there and make a choice to be there like Dr. Andrew Weil did.

Absolutely Sis ~ Dr. Mercola is also a "real" medical Doctor of Osteopathy who had the courage to stand up to the medical community and spoke out about the dangers chemo and radioation to treat cancer. Yet when I mention him on this forum people act as though he is some sort of charlatan or something. He has been featured in many segements on Dr. Oz's show, as Oz is becoming increasingly interested in alternative treatments. In my heart of hearts I do believe we can treat cancer ourselves through proper diet, supplements and with proper guidance. BUT, most people really and truly aren't ready or willing to change the way they live their lives, which is very sad. People who accept chemo and radiation as their "sentence" for getting cancer still continue with their bad habits ... I know a friends mother who continued to eat junk food and drink diet cokes... talk about fueling the fire. Changing the way we live is difficult, but not impossible, especially when one's life depends upon it.

free skin care · Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:18 pm

sister sweets wrote:

In my graduate work one statement stands out for me and that is in medicine everything is an experiment for a very long time.... Well think about leaches... and they used to bleed people due to "humors" thought to cause problems. Today we do chemo and radiation - 25 years from now it could be considered barbaric as Andrew Weil believes...and we could see something so much different. Do we know EVERYTHING today? 20 years ago we probably thought we were tremendously advanced but today we might laugh at the same treatments. We know much more about some things but unfortunately in the US our Physicians are NOT trained in nutritional modalities as a matter of course. They are not taught to be PREVENTIVE in nature- they are designed to be curative in nature so iodine, K2, D3 is not a part of the thought process unless they take a path to be there and make a choice to be there like Dr. Andrew Weil did.

Of course medical science is constantly evolving and advancing. As for chemo being considered barbaric in the future - it is considered to be a very unpleasant treatment now - going through chemo is an ordeal, that is why the scientific community is trying so hard to find a better cure - and I'm sure they will one day and we will look back with pity at those that had to endure it.

But we never know what the future will bring - taking supplements has only been around for 50 years or so. How do you know that in the future it will be found that people did a great deal of harm to themselves from taking too many. Today on the news they announced that there have been 69 deaths world wide from a herbal diet supplement that's been available for 30 years - there are now calls for it to be banned.

There is also cause for concern regarding cancer patients taking supplements:

http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/cid/documents/webcontent/002385-pdf.pdf

free skin care · Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:36 am

I just think there is scaremongering going on here. The medical community aren't all out to do chemo on everyone. They are there to help heal and a lot of them do that job perfecty and with honorability. The idea that this whole establish is corrupt is nothing but a scare tactic. When my dh went through his cancer, the doctors were incredibly supportive, and couldn't have done more for us and well above what their job description asked of them, so the idea that there is an evil bad corrupt medical community out there I'm sorry just doesn't work for me, its not my experience.

Sure there are many different forms of treatment out there, but medical treatment is needed sometimes and I don't think people should feel rubbished for opting to have it or judged because they do.

Sure its developing all the time, what doesn't in this world, but the idea that all medical means is causing cancer or that treatment protocols are wrong is misleading and could cause more harm than good. Biosopy's are a tool for detecting cancer, and do not make it spread every single time - because if so then everyone who had one would be dead and that's clearly not the case!

free skin care · Thu Sep 19, 2013 6:09 am

Keliu wrote:

sister sweets wrote:

In my graduate work one statement stands out for me and that is in medicine everything is an experiment for a very long time.... Well think about leaches... and they used to bleed people due to "humors" thought to cause problems. Today we do chemo and radiation - 25 years from now it could be considered barbaric as Andrew Weil believes...and we could see something so much different. Do we know EVERYTHING today? 20 years ago we probably thought we were tremendously advanced but today we might laugh at the same treatments. We know much more about some things but unfortunately in the US our Physicians are NOT trained in nutritional modalities as a matter of course. They are not taught to be PREVENTIVE in nature- they are designed to be curative in nature so iodine, K2, D3 is not a part of the thought process unless they take a path to be there and make a choice to be there like Dr. Andrew Weil did.

Of course medical science is constantly evolving and advancing. As for chemo being considered barbaric in the future - it is considered to be a very unpleasant treatment now - going through chemo is an ordeal, that is why the scientific community is trying so hard to find a better cure - and I'm sure they will one day and we will look back with pity at those that had to endure it.

But we never know what the future will bring - taking supplements has only been around for 50 years or so. How do you know that in the future it will be found that people did a great deal of harm to themselves from taking too many. Today on the news they announced that there have been 69 deaths world wide from a herbal diet supplement that's been available for 30 years - there are now calls for it to be banned.

There is also cause for concern regarding cancer patients taking supplements:

http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/cid/documents/webcontent/002385-pdf.pdf

The American Cancer Society is trying to scare people about using supplements ... what a surprise! Keliu and TM - you don't live in the U.S. so you can't really comment about our system here. The corruption that exists in medicine is confounding at best. Quite frankly, its a domino effect between the doctors who although might be doing what medical protcol considers to be *correct* treatment, the insurance companies control *what prescriptions* will be covered, hence telling the medical doctors what to do, and the pharmaceutical reps who bribe the docs with trips and such to use their preferred medications and on and on... Then of course, as Sis mentioned, there are the lobbyists who rush to market pharmaceuticals without the appropriate trials. The FDA is supposed to be here to protect us yet they really don't do a very good job.

You have FREE medical care, but what does that really do for you? It doesn't really put you in a better position than us because those doctors are going to follow strict medical protocols and not *think outside the box*. When the insurance companies are telling the doctors which pharmaceuticals or treatements they can use, by not covering it, that's a crime. Why do you think there are so many people fighting with insurance companies to have certain treatments or drugs covered? Right now in the U.S., medical marijuana is becoming a hot bed discussion for the treatment of cancer. Mediccal marijuana is a viable treatment and one that does no harm to the patient. Further, it spares the patient having to endure the barbaric treatments of chemo and radiation. However, its still not going to be the *preferrred protocol* because it doesn't cost nearly as much as chemo... In fact, not even close. However, there are more doctors who agree that it could save their patients lives, yet they still have to acquiesce to the system.

Seriously, this is not a witch hunt, this is just telling it like it is, and more importantly, a lively discussion like this should serve as a wake up call to those who are uninformed about how the system *really* works. Yes indeed, the cancer machine. Knowledge is power.

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.