Sign in to follow this  
jts

they beat pancreatic cancer

Recommended Posts

Warning 1:

If you think nutrition is quackery and poison is legit health science, then don't waste your time on these videos.

Warning 2:

If you do go thru these videos, you need to filter out the religion.

Pancreatic cancer is probably the most deadly of all forms of cancer. Steve Jobs failed to beat pancreatic cancer and people called this genius an idiot but he lived longer with pancreatic cancer than most people who take the conventional treatment. It is a mistake to conclude from the example of Steve Jobs that pancreatic cancer can't be beaten.

The Gerson Institute says pancreatic cancer does not respond well to Gerson therapy after chemotherapy.

There are certain types of cancer that do not respond well or do not respond at all. These include acute leukemia, pancreatic cancer after treatment with chemotherapy, and brain cancers other than an early stage astrocytoma. We have little or no experience with uncommon conditions of a congenital or genetic origin and would not expect the Therapy to reverse these conditions although overall health may be enhanced. Parkinson’s disease, especially after the use of dopamine drugs, does not respond well to the therapy. Neither does ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease).

Probably the reason why pancreatic cancer is so hard to beat is you need the pancreas to beat cancer.

It is a tough cancer to beat. But it seems these people did it.

If these stories are above board and true and not made up, then they trump any contrary theory or opinion from any expert or multitude of experts. Facts trump everything else. There are many theories and advices about how to beat cancer and other diseases, probably most of them over-rated or outright hogwash. I look for cases where someone did it.

I'm not saying that what worked for them will work for everyone else and I'm not saying it won't. We don't know all the variables.

Some people will reason: "It might not work, therefore I should not try it."

This might be better reasoning: "It might work, therefore I should try it."

It is not necessary to prove with mathematical certainty like proving a theorem in geometry that it will work in order to justify trying it. It is more like a gamble where you have much to gain and little to lose. What do you risk losing by nutrition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again: Proof by youtube.

The boundary conditions of this "cure" were not carefully checked and measured.

No scientific conclusion can be drawn from this anecdote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again: Proof by youtube.

The boundary conditions of this "cure" were not carefully checked and measured.

No scientific conclusion can be drawn from this anecdote.

We don't know the details. We don't know what kinds of tumors this will work on. We don't know how many pounds of carrots per day to juice. We don't know completely what it is about the veggies that does it. We don't know with anything resembling precision the relative value of various veggies and in what contexts. We have incomplete knowledge of synergistic interactions between veggies. We don't have precise knowledge of the effects of non-diet factors. Genetics is a factor.

But we do know one thing. They beat pancreatic cancer. That is a fact. It is not an opinion or a theory or a guess or a hypothesis or a speculation or a feeling. They beat pancreatic cancer. That much is fact. We can speculate about how. The way science is done you start with facts and then you look for theories to explain the facts and then you test the theories.

Do you have a problem accepting that they beat pancreatic cancer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conventional medical science acknowledges that some tumours stop growing, some cancers inexplicably retreat, some individuals survive what kills the majority of others. Where no explanation is provable , reputable practitioners do not attempt to construct theories without any factual experimental basis.

I am as willing to believe that fasting, or Vitamin C overload are as effective in curing cancer as is prayer, or fervent belief in the paramount role of nutrition in all things medical. it is as you say, unprovable and all post hoc propter hoc anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No scientific conclusion can be drawn from this anecdote.

We don't know the details. We don't know what kinds of tumors this will work on.

Exactly!!!!!!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No scientific conclusion can be drawn from this anecdote.

We don't know the details. We don't know what kinds of tumors this will work on.

Exactly!!!!!!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Why must you always be so morbidly negative? Can you accept that they did beat pancreatic cancer? That is a big deal. And if you want to be scientific, that is a line of investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You, !Mr Doctors are Poisoners and modern medicine is a all a Fraud! Call Baal "morbidly negative".

Pot, meet Kettle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You, !Mr Doctors are Poisoners and modern medicine is a all a Fraud! Call Baal "morbidly negative".

Pot, meet Kettle.

Drugs are poisons. Drugs are supposed to be poisons. Any drug that is not a poison fails in its purpose as a drug. The whole idea of a drug is to be a poison. Side effects are poisonous effects. Target effects are poisonous effects. Drugs work by being poisons. I don't count nutrients as drugs. (Some years ago I had a session with a doctor. A while later I learned that she quit the profession. Because of me? I don't know.)

But there is a better way. Baal seems to see nothing positive about beating pancreatic cancer by nutrition. That's morbidly negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why must you always be so morbidly negative? Can you accept that they did beat pancreatic cancer? That is a big deal. And if you want to be scientific, that is a line of investigation.

the only way to generalize this into a treatment or a cure is to study it scientifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: High Fat & Heart Disease

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why must you always be so morbidly negative? Can you accept that they did beat pancreatic cancer? That is a big deal. And if you want to be scientific, that is a line of investigation.

the only way to generalize this into a treatment or a cure is to study it scientifically.

By experiment perhaps? The only experimentation morally permissible on humans is self experimentation. The "experience" of an individual doctor is such a small sample to be statistically invalid. To mock people who try things at their own risk is counter productive to the long run of accumulation of knowledge. Of course, I know you're not going to be around for the "long run" so I guess you can amuse yourself. I'm in the same boat, but I find Jerry's posts on these subjects interesting and I do investigate and think about them. The "profession" up to now has been too busy pursuing the expensive (patented) drug solution for every ill. The only person who cares about you, is you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drugs are poisons. Drugs are supposed to be poisons.

You have it almost half right, Jerry. What you consider a drug legal or illegal (alcohol, marijuana, aspirin, penicillin, L-DOPA, digitalis ...) can overlap with what the rest of the world considers a drug in the broadest terms1 : a chemical substance with known biological effects. It almost overlaps with the more precise meaning in pharmacology2 -- "a chemical substance used in the treatment, cure, prevention, or diagnosis of disease or used to otherwise enhance physical or mental well-being."

The so-called recreational drugs are also so designated because of psychotropic effects (nicotine, caffeine, alcohol).

Now, given your generalization, Jerry -- does it apply in every instance? Does a therapeutic dose of say, aspirin, act as a poison? Similarly, does digitalis 'poison' a person at the dosage recommended for treatment?

You will see that your generalization must give way to reality once you try to apply it across the board. Thinking about the effect of dosage will bring your thinking more in line with the essential distinction between a substance being poisonous (to humans/animals) and a substance being an efficacious drug. Moreover, knowing that distinction will lead you to understand that otherwise benign or necessary materials like water, sun, vitamins, food, oxygen can also 'poison' or kill when taken in quantity. One can die from drinking too much water. One can die from inhaling a pure oxygen gas.

Consider too some foods and the chemicals/vitamins they contain. Consider just carrots. Consuming too many carrots (or other carotene-containing plants) can lead to liver damage and death.

So, Jerry, think of dose. Think of actual measurable chemical action. Don't be pushed into a cul-de-sac of crankery by using such a defective generalization.

Any drug that is not a poison fails in its purpose as a drug. The whole idea of a drug is to be a poison. Side effects are poisonous effects. Target effects are poisonous effects. Drugs work by being poisons.

Any drug? Okay, take L-DOPA. What is the poisonous dosage, and what is killed/poisoned by its ingestion? If your theory of druggery is correct, you should be able to clearly state the relation.

Take any other drug, aspirin for example. What is killed/poisoned by a therapeutic dose? How does an overdose of aspirin kill? What about, oh, anti-nausea drugs -- what is their poison? Again, what about anti-cholinergic drugs, or topical anti-infectant agents, or morphias or emetics or anti-fungals ...

There are of course more modern drugs and drug-delivery systems that tend to call your theory into question. For example, the antiparasitic drug, Ivermectin. What does this agent poison and how, and how might it poison or kill a human or dog? What is the difference between therapeutic dose and 'poison' in this instance? What does Nalaxone kill?

As you plug in examples into your theory, you could likely reinvent the wheel (the importance of dosage) and a drug classification system. I look forward to you meeting objections to your notions with cool, calm, thoughtful and engaged reasoning.

Bon Appétit!

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By experiment perhaps? The only experimentation morally permissible on humans is self experimentation. The "experience" of an individual doctor is such a small sample to be statistically invalid. To mock people who try things at their own risk is counter productive to the long run of accumulation of knowledge. Of course, I know you're not going to be around for the "long run" so I guess you can amuse yourself. I'm in the same boat, but I find Jerry's posts on these subjects interesting and I do investigate and think about them. The "profession" up to now has been too busy pursuing the expensive (patented) drug solution for every ill. The only person who cares about you, is you.

Not so. People can volunteer to take test drugs experimentally as long as they are informed of the dangers and as long as they legally enabled to make contracts or undertake risks.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps definitions will help.

The conventional definition of 'drug' is so general that it would include water, which has known biological effects. I don't take that definition seriously and it is not what people commonly mean by 'drug'.

First define 'poison'.

Read the chapter "What is a Poison?".

Here is an excerpt from that chapter.

We may now answer our question: what is a poison? Everything is poison that cannot be assimilated by the living organism and used by it to sustain life. Every substance that can have no place in the normal metabolic processes of the body wastes the body's energies in resisting and expelling it, thus inevitably inducing debility and premature death. In other words, poisons are those substances which the living organism cannot use, but must resist and expel.

Poisons in doses mild enough to not be recognized as poisons can be very effective in masking symptoms, thereby creating the illusion of health, fooling both doctor and patient. This seems to work well short term but the long term result is bad.

True, some things that are normally good (foods and nutrients) can become poisons when they are taken in amounts beyond the body's ability to use. See the quoted definition. Even normal amounts of food can be poison for a person who is too sick to eat. If the body does not want food and literally throws the food back in the patient's face, why does this happen? It is the body's reaction to a poison, expelling the poison.

About carrot juice causing liver damage and death:

I think this is unlikely. True, excess vitamin A can cause death but you can't get excess vitamin A from the carotene in carrot juice. The body converts carotene to vitamin A only up to as much vitamin A as it wants. Ann Cameron juiced 5 pounds of carrots nearly every day for at least 8 months with benefit (beat stage 4 cancer). Dr. Norman Walker beat liver cancer largely by carrot juice, enough carrot juice to turn his skin orange. I doubt you can provide an example of death from carrot juice. Vitamin A yes.

Back to drugs.

Here is something you can do.

1. Find a list of drugs. There are so many drugs that you might want to limit the list to the most popular drugs.

2. For each drug in the list, get info about it. What does wiki say about? What does the manufacturer say about it? Look for the following categories of info.

a. Positives. This means health benefits, what it is used for.

This is usually short and vague.

b. Negatives. This includes side effects (which strangely are nearly always negative), adverse reactions, contraindications, warnings, interactions with other drugs (usually bad).

This is usually long and specific.

c. How it works.

They often say how it works is unknown. When they do say how it works, ask yourself, does it work by supporting the biochemical machinery of the body like a nutrient? Or by disrupting it like a poison?

d. Long term user experience. Short term does not count.

The usual pattern is short term feels good but is a trap.

3. After all the above (a to d), ask yourself if this meets or does not meet the quoted definition of poison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About "therapeutic" dose of a drug. Ain't no such thing. It is not in the nature of a drug to improve health. What is called a "therapeutic" dose of a drug is stopping or masking symptoms. For example metformin does not reverse diabetes. An anti nausea drug stops nausea by poison. Nausea is a defense. Drugs (poisons) can stop a healing process. That is what you call a therapeutic dose.

Does nature cure vomiting, or does she use vomiting as a means of ejecting unwanted materials from the stomach? Does the body cure coughing, or is coughing a vital act by which irritants and obstructions are expelled from the respiratory tract? Does diarrhea need to be cured, or is diarrhea a process by which obnoxious materials are rushed out of the digestive tract? Does nature cure inflammation, or is inflammation a repairative and defensive process by which broken bones are knit, lacerated flesh is healed and foreign bodies are removed from the flesh? Is there a need to cure fever, or is fever part of the body's own healing activities? Does not coughing automatically and spontaneously cease when there is no longer any need for it? Does not diarrhea cease when it has freed the digestive tract of all offensive materials? Does not inflammation subside when the bone has knit or the wound healed? What is there to cure about the various processes of the body that are collectively labeled disease?

Check your premises. Question your paradigm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I It is easy to see, jts, why you feel comfortable on Rand based site, as your passion for redefining common words and rationalizing the most ignorant and untenable conclusions appear to be impregnable swords and bucklers. for you against a smartass world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hardly call insulin used to treat type 1 diabetes a poison. Fail In your broad generalization Jerry.

Short term to a diabetic without it? Dead in a day..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hardly call insulin used to treat type 1 diabetes a poison. Fail In your broad generalization Jerry.

Short term to a diabetic without it? Dead in a day..

Re-read the quoted definition of poison.

We may now answer our question: what is a poison? Everything is poison that cannot be assimilated by the living organism and used by it to sustain life. Every substance that can have no place in the normal metabolic processes of the body wastes the body's energies in resisting and expelling it, thus inevitably inducing debility and premature death. In other words, poisons are those substances which the living organism cannot use, but must resist and expel.

Then ask yourself whether insulin qualifies as a poison by this definition. It is more like a hormone, which has a place in the body.

Is insulin a drug? Is a vitamin a drug? Is water a drug?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this