1 out of 2 Americans to have some form of cancer within fifty years.

[Jack Handy jr]

sad part is that the the medical industry and big pharma wants to keep us drugged, on prescriptions and sick.

I know this sounds like some kind of conspiracy thread. It it's not.

Subway recently was found to have over thirty chemicals in the dough of its bread.....why the hell do you need 30+chemicals in bread if they bake it fresh daily?

Cancer tumors feed off of sugar. There's so much sugar in Coca Cola, that if there wasn't a chemical in the soda your body's natural reaction would be to regurgitate it. because our bodies aren't supposed to get that much sugar at one time.

There's a lot of research concerning apricot seeds called B-17. apparently this vitamin is so toxic to cancer cells that people choosing this homeopathic treatment are getting cured from cancer. While the traditional chemo rout kills the cancer too but poisons the patient. The FDA bans it of course because big pharma can't make money off of something natural.

And if some how they could copyright, or patent or whatever apricot seeds...I know they'd hike the price to some thing like $10,000 per seed or some other absurdity. The process is slimey, obscene and IMO evil. If you get sick and can't afford the medicine big pharma seems to be like

"oh what??? You can't afford it??" "Uh ok Fuck you next"

Rant over . what do you guys think? Do they want to keep us sick?

 

[TeTe]

I know it's big business for sure. But, they could also make big money off of the cure too couldn't they?

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Well, at least we won't starve to death like the rest of the world.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

I know it's big business for sure. But, they could also make big money off of the cure too couldn't they?

Not as much. I mean, creating a cure, if at all possible, would take way more resources. And once you're cured, they can't make money off you anymore. If they treat the symptoms instead, you're a customer for life.

 

[Dogstarman]

Bro, you have any evidence backing this apricot nonsense?

 

[ShoelessRye]

There are countries with socialized medicine that have their own researchers and they don't have the profit incentive to keep cures buried.

 

[BisexualMMA]

Not as much. I mean, creating a cure, if at all possible, would take way more resources. And once you're cured, they can't make money off you anymore. If they treat the symptoms instead, you're a customer for life.

They also can't make money off you when you're dead.

 

[The Audience]

Subway recently was found to have over thirty chemicals in the dough of its bread.....why the hell do you need 30+chemicals in bread if they bake it fresh daily?

I watched a documentary called 'The Human Experiment' about our daily exposure to chemicals, and they highlighted a study that was done on a newborn baby, where they took a sample of blood from its umbilical cord straight after birth and tested it for presence of chemicals, and they found over 30 different chemicals in its blood and markers for over 400 more. I think we're way past the point of cancer prevention, and its more about future technologies like nano or targeted viruses/bacteria to cure it

 

[Torrid]

Most men develop some form of prostate cancer, but it's not going to kill us because it develops in old age. Just throwing out a statistic about cancer isn't helpful without more data, like the mortality rate from that specific cancer.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Not as much. I mean, creating a cure, if at all possible, would take way more resources. And once you're cured, they can't make money off you anymore. If they treat the symptoms instead, you're a customer for life.

You'd think they'd want to find a cure if one of them or their loved ones came down with it.


I respect the spirit of believing 'there's no money in the cure', but there are reasons I will never buy into it completely.

 

[SuperiorHands]

I know it's big business for sure. But, they could also make big money off of the cure too couldn't they?

Curing something doesn't mean you don't continue to treat it. I've had strep throat a few times in my life and was cured every time. Doesn't mean I can't get it again, or that others won't.

 

[Beechwood]

Something to keep in mind about the sugar and cancer hypothesis is that it is a theory. I suspect the idea of limiting sugar to avoid cancer might help some. It likely will not help most in my opinion.

There is a professor that has been active in testing the sugar/ cancer hypothesis. His name is Thomas Seyfried. He has found that while a ketogenic diet can help, often it is fasting/ avoiding food as much as possible that has helped fight cancer. There are a number of videos on YouTube where professor Seyfried discusses his findings.

Another alternative, and inexpensive cancer fighting idea that I have enjoyed reading about is Professor John Beard. He wrote about cancer cells being indistinguishable from placenta cells in the early stages. He and other doctors were successfully treating some cancers with pancreatic enzymes, as those enzymes were found to turn off placenta cell growth.

There are different ways to approach fighting cancer with Dr. Beards ideas. One possible method is discussed by Dr. Jerry Tennant in his book. The idea involved embryo stem cells receiving the wrong electrical signs, telling it to turn into a growing placenta, in females and males. The idea can be read here:

Healing is Voltage: Cancer's On/Off Switches: Polarity

Amazon product ASIN 1515055558
Theodor Heinrich Boveri was a German biologist. He also reasoned in 1902 that a cancerous tumor begins with a single cell in which the makeup of its chromosomes becomes scrambled, causing the cells to divide uncontrollably. This was the predominant theory until 2014 when Thomas Seyfried et al proved that genetic changes were secondary in cancer. Thus physicians have been searching for the cause of cancer since the time of Hippocrates in 400 BC. Most research has been focused on finding the causes of genetic changes. Perhaps the cause of cancer has been elusive because the evidence supports the theory that the cause is a reversal of polarity instead of biochemical. In addition, one must consider that each organ has its own battery pack: a stack of muscle batteries known as an acupuncture meridian. The reversal of polarity occurs in a battery in a circuit and the accompanying loss of oxygen with low voltage tells local stem cells to make a placenta (cancer) to attempt to correct the low voltage and oxygen via fermentation since there is inadequate oxygen to keep that organ functional. The On switch for cancer is an accumulation of electron stealers in an acupuncture circuit; the Off switch for cancer is removing the causes of low voltage and inserting enough electrons to reverse the polarity back to normal.

 

[ehtheist]

I don't know what all this talk about there not being a cure is...

http://www.collective-evolution.com...-studies-that-prove-cannabis-can-cure-cancer/

 

[Jack Reacheround]

You'd think they'd want to find a cure if one of them or their loved ones came down with it.


I respect the spirit of believing 'there's no money in the cure', but there are reasons I will never buy into it completely.

I'm not saying that they are against finding a cure. I'm just saying that when a decision is made by a board as to where to put their resources, research that could potentially yield results that could years later give them a clue about how to cure it, or research into a drug that treats symptoms and will likely yield quarterly gains in the near future, they of course choose the latter. Or they at least spend more resources on the latter.

Nobody is saying they actively try not to cure anything. People don't make choices like that. People make choices based on the trade off, of which the next best option is a part.

 

[BisexualMMA]

I'm not saying that they are against finding a cure. I'm just saying that when a decision is made by a board as to where to put their resources, research that could potentially yield results that could years later give them a clue about how to cure it, or research into a drug that treats symptoms and will likely yield quarterly gains in the near future, they of course choose the latter. Or they at least spend more resources on the latter.

Nobody is saying they actively try not to cure anything. People don't make choices like that. People make choices based on the trade off, of which the next best option is a part.

The existing courses of therapy for cancer aren't really geared toward "treating symptoms."

If you've ever seen chemotherapy in action, it makes people feel worse than having cancer and the goal is to kill the cancer cells.

 

[CerebralKnievel]

Bro, you have any evidence backing this apricot nonsense?

While there may be truth to it, reading on the subject will tell you that a chemical in apricot pits is turned into cyanide inside the body. All of the sites proclaiming that apricot pits are the heavenly cure to cancer tend to be of the extremist esoteric variety.

 

[Phlog]

sad part is that the the medical industry and big pharma wants to keep us drugged, on prescriptions and sick.

I know this sounds like some kind of conspiracy thread. It it's not.

Subway recently was found to have over thirty chemicals in the dough of its bread.....why the hell do you need 30+chemicals in bread if they bake it fresh daily?

Cancer tumors feed off of sugar. There's so much sugar in Coca Cola, that if there wasn't a chemical in the soda your body's natural reaction would be to regurgitate it. because our bodies aren't supposed to get that much sugar at one time.

There's a lot of research concerning apricot seeds called B-17. apparently this vitamin is so toxic to cancer cells that people choosing this homeopathic treatment are getting cured from cancer. While the traditional chemo rout kills the cancer too but poisons the patient. The FDA bans it of course because big pharma can't make money off of something natural.

And if some how they could copyright, or patent or whatever apricot seeds...I know they'd hike the price to some thing like $10,000 per seed or some other absurdity. The process is slimey, obscene and IMO evil. If you get sick and can't afford the medicine big pharma seems to be like

"oh what??? You can't afford it??" "Uh ok Fuck you next"

Rant over . what do you guys think? Do they want to keep us sick?

No.

What you suggest is conspiratorial nonsense which would need doctors and research scientists in different organisations and nations to all be working in concert with not a single one of them deciding to go to the papers for the good of humanity. None of them by your scheme would blab to their loved ones to save em.

It's not only an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory but it's also an entirely implausible one.

If you're not trolling I'm sorry to inform you that you have severely goofed. What am I saying-! Good effort

 

[Phlog]

My dad had aggressive prostate cancer, a year of concentrated radio therapy and hormone treatment later and he's all better.

The radiotherapy device was three stories tall and he got tattoos to make sure it was calibrated right each session.

It was fucking cool.

 

[Phlog]

Something to keep in mind about the sugar and cancer hypothesis is that it is a theory. I suspect the idea of limiting sugar to avoid cancer might help some. It likely will not help most in my opinion.

There is a professor that has been active in testing the sugar/ cancer hypothesis. His name is Thomas Seyfried. He has found that while a ketogenic diet can help, often it is fasting/ avoiding food as much as possible that has helped fight cancer. There are a number of videos on YouTube where professor Seyfried discusses his findings.

Another alternative, and inexpensive cancer fighting idea that I have enjoyed reading about is Professor John Beard. He wrote about cancer cells being indistinguishable from placenta cells in the early stages. He and other doctors were successfully treating some cancers with pancreatic enzymes, as those enzymes were found to turn off placenta cell growth.

There are different ways to approach fighting cancer with Dr. Beards ideas. One possible method is discussed by Dr. Jerry Tennant in his book. The idea involved embryo stem cells receiving the wrong electrical signs, telling it to turn into a growing placenta, in females and males. The idea can be read here:

Healing is Voltage: Cancer's On/Off Switches: Polarity

Amazon product ASIN 1515055558
Theodor Heinrich Boveri was a German biologist. He also reasoned in 1902 that a cancerous tumor begins with a single cell in which the makeup of its chromosomes becomes scrambled, causing the cells to divide uncontrollably. This was the predominant theory until 2014 when Thomas Seyfried et al proved that genetic changes were secondary in cancer. Thus physicians have been searching for the cause of cancer since the time of Hippocrates in 400 BC. Most research has been focused on finding the causes of genetic changes. Perhaps the cause of cancer has been elusive because the evidence supports the theory that the cause is a reversal of polarity instead of biochemical. In addition, one must consider that each organ has its own battery pack: a stack of muscle batteries known as an acupuncture meridian. The reversal of polarity occurs in a battery in a circuit and the accompanying loss of oxygen with low voltage tells local stem cells to make a placenta (cancer) to attempt to correct the low voltage and oxygen via fermentation since there is inadequate oxygen to keep that organ functional. The On switch for cancer is an accumulation of electron stealers in an acupuncture circuit; the Off switch for cancer is removing the causes of low voltage and inserting enough electrons to reverse the polarity back to normal.

Was really enjoying your post and then stopped at 'acupuncture'. Damn.

 

[odog]

Is it weird that in my entire life I have only known one person personally that had cancer? And it wasn't even someone close. It was the mother of a girl I had dated years before.