No need to thank me for this............proven cancer cure

Scrooball said:
http://www.essiac-tea-herbal-remedies.com/benefits-of-essiac-tea.html

People have reported these benefits of essiac tea. :eek:

What are some of the reported benefits of essiac tea?

1. Prevents the buildup of excess fatty deposits in artery walls, heart, kidney and liver.

2. Regulates cholesterol levels by transforming sugar and fat into energy.

3. Destroys parasites in the digestive system and throughout the body.

4. Helps counteract the effects of aluminum, lead and mercury poisoning.

5. Strengthens and tightens muscles, organs and tissues.

6. Makes bones, joints, ligaments, lungs, and membranes strong and flexible, consequently less vulnerable to stress or stress injuries.

7. Nourishes and stimulates the brain and nervous system.

8. Promotes the absorption of fluids in the tissues.

9. Removes toxic accumulations in the fat, lymph, bone marrow, bladder, and alimentary canals.

10. Neutralizes acids, absorbs toxins in the bowel, and eliminates both.

More reported benefits of essiac tea:

11. Clears the respiratory channels by dissolving and expelling mucus.

12. Relieves the liver of its burden of detoxification by converting fatty toxins into water-soluble substances that can then be easily eliminated through the kidneys.

13. Assists the liver to produce lecithin, which forms part of the myelin sheath, a white fatty material that encloses nerve fibers.

14. Reduces, perhaps eliminates, heavy metal deposits in tissues (especially those surrounding the joints) to reduce inflammation and stiffness.

15. Improves the functions of the pancreas and spleen by increasing the effectiveness of insulin.

16. Purifies the blood.

17. Increases red cell production, and keeps the cells from rupturing.

18. Increases the body's ability to utilize oxygen by raising the oxygen level in the tissue cells.

19. Maintains the balance between potassium and sodium within the body so that the fluid inside and outside each cell is regulated: in this way, cells are nourished with nutrients and are also cleansed.

20. Converts calcium and potassium oxalates into a harmless form by making them solvent in the urine. Regulates the amount of oxalic acid delivered to the kidneys, reducing the risk of stone formation in the gall bladder, kidneys, and/or urinary tract.

And there are even more benefits of essiac tea, according to The Essiac Handbook:

21. Protects against toxins entering the brain.

22. Protects the body against radiation and X-rays.

23. Relieves pain, increases the appetite, and provides more energy along with a sense of well-being.

24. Speeds up wound healing by helping to regenerate the damaged area.

25. Increases the production of antibodies like lymphocytes and T-cells in the thymus gland, which is the defender of our immune system.

26. Inhibits (and possibly destroys) benign growths and tumors.

27. Protects the cells against free radicals.

28. Decreases sugar cravings due to better blood sugar control.

This list of reported health benefits of essiac tea is based on a list from "The Essiac Handbook: Canada's Amazing Ojibway Herbal Remedy That Has Cured Thousands of Cancer, Chronic Fatigue. Lupus, AIDS, and Other Illnesses" by James Percival, copyright 1994, reprinted 2001.
Click to expand...






waaaah..............so freaking awesome ah.................



no wonder the pharma-funded FDA suppress this herbal tea lah.............the drug companies can close shop liao........
 
Cancer can never be cured.
Cancer can only be controlled.
Cancer drug and maybe herb controls cancer cells and extend the patient's life. It doesn't really CURE.
Cases of surviving more than 20 years are rare, the possiblity of misdiagnosis cases are far more higher than cancer survival.
Quality time is what the patient's family should give to the cancer patient's balance days.
 
Kia0042 said:
Cancer can never be cured.
Cancer can only be controlled.
Cancer drug and maybe herb controls cancer cells and extend the patient's life. It doesn't really CURE.
Cases of surviving more than 20 years are rare, the possiblity of misdiagnosis cases are far more higher than cancer survival.
Quality time is what the patient's family should give to the cancer patient's balance days.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more ;)
 
johnny333 said:
Someone better remind the last leaf of this:)

I see natural herbs as a way to improve the quality of life, not to hang on to life & burdening the family with one's health problems. When it's time for me to go, I hope it's painless:o
Click to expand...
Dun u worry, u live long!
 
Kia0042 said:
Cancer can never be cured.
Cancer can only be controlled.
Cancer drug and maybe herb controls cancer cells and extend the patient's life. It doesn't really CURE.
Cases of surviving more than 20 years are rare, the possiblity of misdiagnosis cases are far more higher than cancer survival.
Quality time is what the patient's family should give to the cancer patient's balance days.
Click to expand...



one old Nobel Prize winner long ago curing cancer with mega dosage of vitamin C injected in cancer cells...........

other doctors using baking soda even.........

many things can cure cancer .................but drug companies can't make money so they suppress these cures........
 
GOD IS MY DOG said:
one old Nobel Prize winner long ago curing cancer with mega dosage of vitamin C injected in cancer cells...........

other doctors using baking soda even.........

many things can cure cancer .................but drug companies can't make money so they suppress these
cures........
Click to expand...
it's will be a god-send if there's another Jonas Salk in this world!
 
Cruxx said:
He'll tell you it's all a Big Pharma conspiracy.
Click to expand...

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/c.html

The Bottom Line

Linus Pauling's claim that high-dose vitamin C prolonged the life of cancer patients was based on improper statistical analysis of data from a case series. Subsequent clinical trials found no benefit from what he recommended. Case reports indicate that high-dose vitamin C can produce kidney damage. And laboratory studies have shown that vitamin C might even accelerate cancer growth. Thus, even if supplementary vitamin C is eventually be found to have some use in fighting cancer, that role is not likely to be extensive. Despite these hard facts, many people still claim that high doses of vitamin C are useful as a cancer treatment. Responsible health professionals should clarify this issue so that patients neither forfeit scientific care nor put themselves at risk by using a product that has no demonstrated merit.
 
Cruxx said:
You mean Linus Pauling? The man who died of prostate cancer? :D
Click to expand...

Linus Pauling died when he was 93 years old. I doubt that even LKY with all the resources of Spore can reach that age :rolleyes:
 
johnny333 said:
Linus Pauling died when he was 93 years old. I doubt that even LKY with all the resources of Spore can reach that age :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter when he died. You guys claimed that Vitamin C has been proven to cure cancer. Linus Pauling's prostate cancer wasn't cured despite him strictly adhering to his vitamin C regimen. Conclusion: someone here is lying :)
 
Cruxx said:
Doesn't matter when he died. You guys claimed that Vitamin C has been proven to cure cancer. Linus Pauling's prostate cancer wasn't cured despite him strictly adhering to his vitamin C regimen. Conclusion: someone here is lying :)
Click to expand...

Even in the medical community there is a debate on the importance of Vitamin C against cancer, and here you have lay people thinking they have ALL the answers:rolleyes:
I don't claim to be an expert but I do include the various protocols in my diet e.g. Budwig protocol & Essiac tea as good insurance. I think taking some cottage cheese, flax seed, drinking tea, Vitamin C etc is a small price to pay for one's health.


http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/12154.php[/B]



Vitamin C, Linus Pauling was right all along. A doctor's opinion
Main Category: Cancer / Oncology
Article Date: 17 Aug 2004 - 0:00 PST


ICS - International Cancer Specialists Cancer treatment - www.icscancer.com


4.64 (324 votes)
Healthcare Prof: 4 and a half stars

4.38 (55 votes)
Article Opinions: 13 posts
Here is an article written by Dr Hilary Roberts about Linus Pauling and his views on vitamin C. Summary
It is the 10th anniversary of the death of Linus Pauling and his most controversial scientific conjectures about the health benefits of vitamin C are being confirmed. The weight of evidence may yet force the medical establishment to accept his ideas on nutrition and health.

Linus Pauling's claim, that he knew a cure for heart disease, cancer and infections, was greeted with ridicule. His remarkable health claims concerned the substance we know as vitamin C. Now, ten years after his death on 19th August 1994, his revolutionary ideas are finally on the way to vindication. Given his history, it should not surprise us if Pauling was right all along. He was, after all, the leading chemist of the last century and, arguably, the greatest ever American scientist. He remains the only person to have won two unshared Nobel Prizes, the first for Chemistry (1954) and the second for peace (1962). In addition to being one of the greatest scientists ever, he was a renowned humanitarian.

By the time of his death, the medical establishment had branded Pauling a quack, because he advocated the use of high doses of vitamin C to treat many diseases. Irwin Stone first introduced Pauling to vitamin C, and explained that it wasn't really a vitamin at all, but an essential substance we could no longer manufacture in our bodies. Most animals make their own vitamin C, in large amounts. In humans, the gene for this ability has mutated and no longer works properly.

When Pauling looked into Stone's claims, he found that conventional medicine had long ignored evidence from respected physicians and scientists. This research suggested that high doses of vitamin C might be a cure for many illnesses, including cancer and heart disease. However, when he explained these findings in his wonderfully constructed books "Vitamin C and the Common Cold" and "How to Live Longer and Feel Better", the medical profession was incensed, implying that a mere chemist could not possibly understand the intricacies of medical science.

If Pauling was correct, vitamin C could help overcome the major killers in the industrialised world. This sounded so unlikely that a lesser scientist making the claim would probably have been ignored; the medical world had already disregarded similar reports of vitamin C. Linus Pauling had a reputation for being 20 years ahead of other scientists.

He may well have been years ahead in other fields but, in medicine, the insiders considered such a thing to be impossible. Pauling battled with the medical authorities and convinced a lot of the public of the benefits of high dose vitamin C. He took on the medical establishment because the implication for health was enormous: an end to premature death and unnecessary suffering from heart disease, infection and many cancers.


Since Pauling's death, the medical establishment has reclaimed the scientific position with a series of experiments on vitamin C. In particular, the NIH measured the distribution of vitamin C in the body and claimed that Pauling was wrong about the need for high doses, as the blood could be saturated at low doses [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 93, 3704-9.]. They added that doses higher than one gram were potentially dangerous. From this point on, the high dose vitamin C lobby were on the defensive.

If the body could be saturated at low doses, the argument went, higher doses were simply a waste or even potentially dangerous. However, clinical reports of the utility of high dose vitamin C had been repeated in the literature for over 50 years. These reports continued, particularly in the fields of heart disease, infections and cancer, contradicting the NIH conclusions. Either the clinical reports of the efficacy of high doses were incorrect, or the NIH experimental work was flawed.

Taking note of this inconsistency, Drs Steve Hickey and Hilary Roberts decided to investigate the data for a book ("Ascorbate, the science of vitamin C", www.lulu.com/ascorbate). They began by looking at the apparently ludicrous claims for the medical effects of vitamin C. Pauling had stated that the substance could cure cancer and that shortage was the major cause of heart disease. Among his many scientific advances, Pauling had made occasional errors: perhaps he had done the same with vitamin C. If he was wrong, his hypotheses should be easy to refute.

When they examined the evidence, Hickey and Roberts found background evidence for Pauling's ideas from independent scientific and medical reports, covering half a century. The findings in these papers could neither be dismissed as placebo effects nor easily explained. The reports included remission of AIDS, cures for cancer, and the immediate recovery of children at the point of death from septic shock. The claims seemed so out of the ordinary that they were hard to believe. However, Hickey and Roberts could find no counter examples in the scientific or medical literature.

If these positive reports were indeed wrong, no-one had shown this to be true. The scientific evidence was consistent with Pauling's ideas, with a few notable exceptions. The primary exception was the NIH data on blood and tissue saturation. The medical establishment accepted the NIH conclusions and held them in the highest regard. The US Institute of Medicine had based their official recommended dietary allowance (RDA) on these results. If the NIH was correct, then Pauling was wrong and the positive reports of high doses must be invalid.

The NIH conclusions were not correct, however. Hickey and Roberts examined their experiments and found them to be full of errors. For example, the researchers had given a dose of vitamin C, waited until it had been excreted and then measured blood levels. Using this procedure, they found that increasing the dose did not greatly increase the blood levels. Instead of realising that this was because the dose had been excreted, the NIH claimed it was because the body was saturated, so higher doses were redundant. They then used white blood cells as a model for normal cells, to see how they absorbed vitamin C from their surroundings. These white blood cells are specialised to absorb vitamin C, even when supplies are low. If other body cells were similar to white blood cells, we would normally have a reserve of 40 grams in our bodies. In this case, given the proposed RDA of 200mg, it would take 2-3 years to fill a depleted body. This is demonstrably incorrect: the classic example is that James Lind's sailors recovered from scurvy in a matter of days when they were given citrus fruits containing small amounts of vitamin C.

These mistakes were gross and unsupportable. In order to check their re-interpretation of the data, Hickey sent emails to the NIH, the Institute of Medicine and every scientist he could contact who was associated with the RDA, asking them to provide a reasonable scientific response to these errors. No-one was able to provide such a response. Since it is normal scientific practice to explain and defend your ideas, the hypothesis that people only need small amounts of vitamin C looks increasingly shaky.

Even the NIH's subsequent data contradicts their earlier work. The NIH vitamin C group published a series of papers on vitamin C and cancer [Ann Intern Med, 140(7), 533-7.]. In these papers, they suggested that repeated doses of oral vitamin C would produce blood levels of at least 220 microM (a measure of the concentration) , which is three times greater than the 70 microM maximum "saturated" value they claimed in their RDA papers. While their own papers clearly showed that their low-dose claims were wrong, the NIH appeared not to notice. Instead, they suggested that intravenous doses could produce higher blood levels, which might be effective against cancer. Even though their data were coming closer to Pauling's findings on the use of vitamin C in cancer, the NIH took the opportunity to mount another attack on Linus Pauling, suggesting he did not know the difference between oral and intravenous (IV) vitamin C.

Pauling had performed a series of trials with Dr Ewan Cameron, a Scottish cancer specialist, showing that intravenous vitamin C allowed cancer patients to live much longer than expected. Numerous other studies confirmed this effect, particularly the work of Dr Abram Hoffer and Dr Hugh Riordan. The Mayo Clinic tried to refute this research but failed, as they used low, oral doses, making their results invalid. In their own cancer paper, the NIH researchers claimed that Pauling and Cameron's use of the IV route was "serendipitous", implying that Pauling did not know the difference between injected and oral doses. In fact, Pauling had written explicitly about this difference, so the NIH criticism was misplaced.

A new scientific theory, called the dynamic flow model, explains all the observed responses to vitamin C in the literature. This model is described in the book "Ascorbate", mentioned above. According to the model, people should ideally be in a state of dynamic flow, which means they should ingest more vitamin C than they need, in the form of divided dose supplements. The extra ascorbate flows through the body and is excreted in the urine. It is not wasted, however, as the excess acts as a reservoir when extra vitamin C is required. Dynamic flow is the closest we humans can get to restoring our physiology to how it was before we lost the ability to make vitamin C in our bodies, as most other animals still do.

It is difficult to imagine what Linus Pauling would have made of all this had he lived. Hickey and Roberts like to think that he would have pointed out the NIH errors earlier. He might have had fun explaining that the NIH could not perform a simple experiment, yet tried to blame him for the deficiencies in the Mayo Clinic's research. It is now 10 years since Pauling's death. Biologist Ren� Dubos suggested that the mainstream converges with Pauling twenty years later. If so, we only have another decade to wait until the medical establishment can admit that Pauling was right all along.

Dr. Hilary Roberts
Email: [email protected]
 
Dear Frens,

this is my take on cancer.

a) Cancer rates are increasing due to the increase pollution in the environment
b) food we eat is not safe due to these pollutants, chemicals etc
c) Sooner or later, most people will get Cancer.
d) No matter how careful we are with our diet + exercise etc, chances of getting cancer is increasing day by day due to the pollutants. These pollutants can be in our furniture etc like the fire retardant chemicals. Just an example.

If I get cancer, I would just make my peace and move on with life. Sure I will take inexpensive vitamins and health supplements but I wont go for chemotherapy or all those expensive drugs and treatments. I will not put myself under such torture and make these drug companies richer. I will not want to burden my family any further as death is part of life. My family can move on after I am gone. I will ask for pain killers so that I can live each day easier.

There is no cure for cancer and even if 'cured' with these treatments, there are relapses. Cancer treatments are not viable, they give patients a false sense of hope and pro long life with more agony. Its a fate worse than death.

Just my 2 cents...
 
The_Hypocrite said:
Dear Frens,

this is my take on cancer.

a) Cancer rates are increasing due to the increase pollution in the environment
b) food we eat is not safe due to these pollutants, chemicals etc
c) Sooner or later, most people will get Cancer.
d) No matter how careful we are with our diet + exercise etc, chances of getting cancer is increasing day by day due to the pollutants. These pollutants can be in our furniture etc like the fire retardant chemicals. Just an example.

If I get cancer, I would just make my peace and move on with life. Sure I will take inexpensive vitamins and health supplements but I wont go for chemotherapy or all those expensive drugs and treatments. I will not put myself under such torture and make these drug companies richer. I will not want to burden my family any further as death is part of life. My family can move on after I am gone. I will ask for pain killers so that I can live each day easier.

There is no cure for cancer and even if 'cured' with these treatments, there are relapses. Cancer treatments are not viable, they give patients a false sense of hope and pro long life with more agony. Its a fate worse than death.

Just my 2 cents...
Click to expand...

this thinking is sinkified and without hope.. poor sinkies.
 
johnny333 said:
Linus Pauling died when he was 93 years old. I doubt that even LKY with all the resources of Spore can reach that age :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
KY will live till 930 by breathing in dollars and breathing out cents. Trust me. This cure all terminal diseases.
 
palden said:
KY will live till 930 by breathing in dollars and breathing out cents. Trust me. This cure all terminal diseases.
Click to expand...



LOL............some more the old fark drink blood and eat human bones...........and shit out gold bricks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Leongsam
Let's stop trying to cure cancer, says cancer professor
2 3
Replies
42
Views
2K
WangChuk
W
k1976
Good sinki doctors cancer treatment work to save life publish big big on Nature
Replies
3
Views
611
k1976
k1976
Sialoquent
Fasting Boosts Natural Immune Cells, Helps Body Fight Off Cancer: Study
Replies
2
Views
742
syed putra
syed putra
ginfreely
NAD+ Pathway linked to slower aging also fuels brain cancer
Replies
3
Views
987
ginfreely
ginfreely
Sialoquent
A new type of bacteria was found in 50% of colon cancers. Many were aggressive cases.
Replies
2
Views
893
metalrover
metalrover
Back
Top