Page 1 of 1

Why Are We Afraid of the "Big C"...Cancer?

PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:50 pm
by saterraji
It's been an interesting ride for me over the last 25 years with regards to how the public in the U.S.A. deal medically with one of the most prevelent and profitable chronic diseases we have next to heart disease, obesity and diabetes....All of which I will discuss AT LENGTH as I move along to educate and open our perspectives.

First and foremost, it really must be acknowledged, the majority of the population in the U.S. "buy" what they are told through the marketing arm of the AMA and drug companies. Dr. Dietrich Klinghart, MD, PhD, a leading authority / researcher / neurologist on the relationship autism has with mercury toxicity and the death of nerve cells states: "The journal of the American Medical Association is 4,000th in-line as a peer review journal in it's objectivity, when compared to all the other medical journals worldwide."

With this kind of endorsement and long-standing, historically, convoluted relationship the AMA has with drug companies and the FDA, it is remarkable how this "conventional medical marketing organization" has manipulated the public-at-large, with the assistance of the FDA, into believing their linear and very narrow understanding of "dis-ease management", is the reason why we are 17th worldwide in longevity and have 700,000 citizens declare banruptcy every year due to healthcare costs. This not withstanding, also provides us with an important ingredient in the "warrior concept" belief structure, we maintain in our relationship with cancer.....>The fight against cancer>A cancer survivor>...These two statements epitomize the external ideology we maintain with our disease states which has EVERYTHING to do with how we, not only externalize a disease but also disassociate ourselves from the reasons behind it. This forum will describe and discuss expanded understandings of natural therapies to "cure" and place back into balance, all aspects of the individual, for "true healing".....Mind, Body, Soul and Spirit....

Dr. Simoncini MD, a 28 year veteran oncologist from Italy, wrote a book titled: "Cancer Is A Fungus" and throughout the book, proved how cancerous tumors can be dissolved by the injection of sodium bicarbonate "baking soda" with a 90%+ success rate....This is just a single, small dose of the enormous "alternative" information out there, we can utilize to keep us healthy...Knowledge Truly Is Power!!!

PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:36 am
by IJ

I have my issues with the AMA. It is not an unbiased organization. However, this post is not appropriate for a number of reasons.

1) JAMA is not just an ad from the AMA, but an independent, peer reviewed journal of the highest quality.

2) The fact that one physician doesn't like the AMA or JAMA is completely meaningless. Weigh that against the vast multitude who look to JAMA for top notch research.

3) That one researcher is an expert in the autism / mercury connection? The issues of thimersol (an hg containing preservation) in vaccines and autism has been thoroughly investigated and found to be without merit. Multiple extensive studies have confirmed this. Mercury is not the cause.

4) If you want to point out our failings compared to other countries, you might want to acknowledge that the others ahead of us in health are not widely embracing alternative medicine and baking soda for cancer. They're practicing western medicine!

5) I looked into Simoncini's astonishing claims and found that he suggests that cancers are just responses to candida (yeast) infections throughout the body. Problems with this theory are innumerable:

a) yeast is easily detectable with blood cultures and other methods and cancer patients do not grow it any more than others

b) patients with known disseminated yeast infections do not develop cancer from it

c) disseminated yeast infections are usually obvious from signs of serious infection and are often fatal unless treated with antibiotics; there is no time to get cancer

d) yeast is found throughout the world as a normal occasional colonizer of our skin, airway, vaginas, etc. Cancer is not vastly more common there than where it is almost never found (eg, breast, prostate). This includes people with yeast infections who never get skin cancer or vagina cancer from it.

e) the molecular biology and real causes of cancer is getting increasingly well known. Yeast's role is not shown.

f) if any pharma company wanted to capitalize on this and it were real, they could make millions or billions. Doctors and pharma are not in some huge conspiracy to give fake cancer meds to people while withholding effective simple therapy. With your claims you are accusing pharma, the AMA, physicians including myself, and many others of conspiracy to murder cancer patients for profit. Also, the FBI arranged 9/11 :roll:

g) many links praising this guy had extremely sketchy science, eg claiming bicarb could "chelate" ionizing radiation. Chelation means you bind a substance, often a metal, to a larger molecule thus keeping it from floating around and causing trouble. Chelation for copper poisoning, for example, means you infuse the chelate and it binds copper and is passed in the urine. Ionizing radiation is ... electromagnetic ... it can't be chelated... neither can any reactive oxygen radical it creates... you would need antioxidants etc for something like this. This makes so little sense it's like asking what purple tastes like.

There is really too much more to say to debunk these claims than there is time in the day to write them. I leave you with this blurb: ... cini.shtml

And this caution: if you tell people that their doctors are FOS and they abandon scientifically based therapies for magical natural cures, you will hurt and or kill them, although I don't doubt you will save many of them money. Their blood would be on your hands. Seriously. You can't just spit this stuff out without justification or an understanding of the possible ramifications.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:05 am
by saterraji
And this caution: if you tell people that their doctors are FOS and they abandon scientifically based therapies for magical natural cures, you will hurt and or kill them, although I don't doubt you will save many of them money. Their blood would be on your hands. Seriously. You can't just spit this stuff out without justification or an understanding of the possible ramifications.

This is not what I am saying...What I do say relates to my own experiences and successes related to those who have benefited from a widened understanding and implementation of "whole medicine" which I believe will come to pass when the allopathic / biochemical model fully embraces the bio-electric / particle wave physics side of the medical equation...until this happens, the medical system as we know it will continue to be locked in and limited by the allopathic/pharma/biochemical model and all the individuals and corporationa who have invested enormous amounts of time, $$$ and energy into keeping this paradigm dominant...esp. in this country.

Saterraji. . .

PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:27 am
by gmattson
Perhaps this "thread" is not the best way to introduce your motives and goals.

Attempting to discredit the medical/drug profession is a battle you can't win and will waste lots of time and energy by all.

There is no way we can realistically validate your argument regarding cancer and to make any statement regarding unaccepted (by reputable Doctors like Ian) alternate treatments will be futile.

When you and I discussed the creation of this forum, it was to discuss alternative treatments for conditions that would not stir the argumentative juices of our readers and might stimulate a "what the hell, lets test it" reaction.

I could jump in and tell everyone how you helped me with a condition that conventional medical treatment failed to treat. . . but. . . this is what Dr Bill would call "anecdotal" and not worth consideration.

We are blessed with a number of really smart people (me not included) here on the forums and for the most part are quite open-minded. But they demand that any statement of fact be backed-up with acceptable documents and tests.

I don't expect that we will test cancer cures here, but I bet our good Doctors will be receptive to alternative methods for treating simple conditions like I mentioned in my first posts.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:32 pm
by Panther
Perhaps a better first choice for something that can be tested would come from the heart disease, obesity, diabetes group.

Given an "alternative" or homeopathic "remedy" for one of those conditions... or even some thoughts on how to improve one's health regarding one or more of those conditions, could be discussed openly. The stated "remedy" perhaps could be used by one or more volunteers under proper supervision, control, and observation and then the results could be posted after an agreed upon period of time.

Just a thought.

I know that "modern medicine" has its flaws and hopefully in a few hundred years people will look back and think of what is done now in the same manner that current MDs think of what surgeons of old did. However, I believe that "modern medicine" has helped me and my loved ones... and I also acknowledge (as do nearly all reasonable MDs that I know) that they make mistakes... for better or worse. For example, after seeing the doctor, my Daddy was sent home and told he would be ok in a few days... he passed away that night and the doctor's first words when he learned this the next morning were, "what happened?" OTOH, my mother was diagnosed with cancer and told she had 6 months... she lived for 16 more years (she deteriorated rapidly in the last year or two, but still... over 13 more years of active life than what was predicted). None of us is "God", we're humans and we can't always predict the future correctly. (Usually not in fact.) But in general, doctors (of many flavors) tend to do their best to help people and that's the most that can be asked of them...

"First, do no harm..." Works for me in a lot of aspects of life... and I'm not a doctor... my wife and sisters will tell you... I have no patience (patients)...

PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:22 am
by saterraji
Fine Idea...Works for me!

Now then, lets talk about a simple and profound natural herb which is vital in it's support for the heart...crataegus or hawthorn berry....both in it's herbal or homeopathic form, this simple and powerful herb supports cardiac function assists in helping those with angina and can be an important component in assisting anyone who needs to strengthen the's interesting that heart muscles have more mitochondria per cessl (the cell's nuclear reactor where it's energy production takes place) than any other cells in our body. What an incredible organ the heart is!!

PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 6:06 am
by IJ
Just to clarify a bit,

First, I always greatly appreciate the trust placed in me (and doctors in general) by many readers and writers on the forum. Thanks.

Second, I am NOT in any way motivated to defend "the status quo" or the medical-pharmaceutical industry in any way.

Third, as an extension of that, there ARE huge, HUGE issues with medical care in the USA and elsewhere. We DO use drugs when we should be using diet and exercise and prevention; we DO do the wrong surgery and treatments at higher cost and risk much of the time; we DO fail to provide proper preventive therapies often; we DO let people make decisions driven by financial and other types of bias; we DO overreach and overinterpret literature and find ourselves making retractions within years (making progress overall, but not error free), we do spread dangerous infections by failing to even wash our hands, and we DO make countless errors with medications and so on that kill and harm many patients. Someone called me TODAY concerned his wife died because of unsafe med practices by physicians he met and he called me because while these issues arose months after I briefly met her, the doctor involved wouldn't talk to him. I looked up the case and found that some of the medication choices were very suspect, indeed, and initiated an investigation.

We also fail to understand our patients, speak with them honestly, or adequately earn their trust. Oftentimes in their greatest moment of need. So there are MANY critiques of western medicine you can make, and you won't have to win an argument with me, I am terrified of the subpar quality and the exploding costs, which may hamstring our nation just as other challenges lurk, from China to energy to environmental concerns.

Fourth, this isn't primarily about cancer, or bicarbonate, it's about evidence. I'm always delighted to have my assumptions shaken and I really expected to pubmed search "hawthorn angina" and similar queries and find nothing. Instead, I located the following:

There does appear to be some possible benefit there and certainly worth further discussion and research. This, in part, is where standard allopathic drugs come from. I hope, of course, that if the major chemical(s) responsible for activity are purified, studied, and sold by pharma, that prior enthusiasts won't lose interest. The principle lessons I would take from the thread so far is that information that attempts to be positive or alternative but ends up being groundless can be seriously harmful, and that claims can be investigated, for free, by anyone with internet access by doing searches on pubmed.

For hawthorn, you can scan most of the available literature in one search. For other issues, you have to chose your search terms properly. For example, if I want to know if pentoxifylline reduces the risk of death in patients with alcoholic hepatitis, I would want to search "pentoxifylline placebo alcoholic hepatitis mortality" and the result is a single appropriate hit rather than 5400 hits for alcoholic hepatitis. (Limiting the search to randomized controlled trials in adults in english journals with articles available online helps too). Then you play around with seeing who's cited that research, what guidelines state, and what review articles may suggest. ANYONE can do this with some practice and judgment, and find they're no longer at the mercy of the physician--or herbalist.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:33 pm
by Panther
(Side Note... I think we need one of those little "thumbs up" emoticons sometimes...)

Thanks Ian. Couldn't agree more. There are some things to point out tho...

First, Hawthorn works. It's worked (to a certain degree) for me. But you have to be careful with the what, where, how stuff. All "nutriceuticals" are not alike. Also, when dealing with many of these things people need to understand the dosages that are needed in order to get results. Usually, taking the supplement that you can get OTC in the dosages given on the bottle, are basically useless. Also (and this has been a pet peeve of mine regarding vitamins, minerals, supplements, pharmaceuticals, etc for a very long time), you have to look at the dosage compared to the size of the patient! I really hate the "this is how much you take PERIOD" attitude. I'm over twice the size of my wife and nearly 10X my kid, so to think that we'd need the same dosages of anything is simply crazy. For example, the studies of hawthorn and it's effectiveness mean that I take 3-5 times the dosage on most bottles... and the studies often look at people who've eaten the stuff for their entire lives and have built up a lot in them over time. (I don't take that much now, so don't get upset... but thanks for the thought Ian... :wink: )

This goes for lots of other things as well. I have seen infants given adult doses worth of shots without compensation for size, average dose, etc. Even when the package insert specifically said that the dosage was based on an adult of X weight and should be modified accordingly for other individuals! Everyone is different.

On a different, but related note... I've been taking cinnamon. (Much cheaper to buy gel-caps and fill them yourself than buy the OTC supplements, BTW.) It has been shown that this helps to control blood sugar levels. All of my numbers (which were "whack" a couple of years ago) are coming back normal... Only thing my MD wants different is for me to raise my HDL value, but my ratio (LDL:HDL) isn't too bad. I know what I need to do. It's just taking a little time to get it to happen.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:30 pm
by IJ
Hi Panther! I think my take for now is that Hawthorn MAY work. And deserves more study. I agree with getting a reliable dose and matching what was done in trials. However, there are drugs that we generally do give without regard to mass (at least within the usual adult range world). Some antibiotics fall into this category, eg, ceftriaxone 1 gram daily IV for pneumonia.

Now I have to look up cinammon!