Ayurveda offers cures for all types of cancers and their medications comparatively have no or minuscule side effects. One can even try nature cures like Graviola fruit or extracts. My father, 75, sufferring from lung cancer has benefited. My experiences reaffirm my faith in Ayurveda, Nature cure and Chinese/ Tibetan therapies which are closest to nature.
Curing cancer
- Thread starter sangwan
- Start date
This is a science forum. Alternative medicines of various types are not totally without merit and efficacy in some applications, so if you had been more reasonable and cautious with your claims then perhaps it would be worth discussing. But your absolute all-encompassing claim is demonstrably a load of rubbish. It may indeed offer cures for all cancers, but we can be 100% sure that it cannot cure all cancers, if any.
You mean besides the ~ 20% of Ayurvedic treatments containing toxic levels of heavy metals such as lead, mercury and arsenic? You mean besides the concerns regarding the use of herbs containing toxic compounds and the lack of quality control in Ayurvedic facilities?
Saper, R. B.; Phillips, R. S. et al (2008). "Lead, Mercury, and Arsenic in US- and Indian-manufactured ayurvedic Medicines Sold via the Internet". Journal of the American Medical Association 300 (8): 915–923. doi:10.1001/jama.300.8.915. PMC 2755247. PMID 18728265. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2755247
An anecdotal story is meaningless as scientific evidence.
Again, anecdotal.
Given all the above, your post has been moved out of the B&G sub-forum.
All cancers are made up of viruses that are made up of atoms. Those atoms vibrate at certain frequencies which can be determined and therefore have a way to destroy them using those frequencies, could be sound or light, but at higher levels oscillating them to destroy the viruses only. By using this type of method every other living thing in your body remains unharmed because everything else relies on other frequencies to live.
No. Only a small minority of cancers have a viral origin. The majority of cancers are the result of the accumulation of mutations in endogenous cells. No viruses involved.
No. Only a small minority of cancers have a viral origin. The majority of cancers are the result of the accumulation of mutations in endogenous cells. No viruses involved.
Those cells are also alive and can be destroyed the same way without harming the beneficial cells. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.
That is demonstrably wrong; people are cured of cancer all the time. And whilst chemo- and radiotherapies are vital approaches, surgery remains the most common method of treating cancer, either on its own or in combination with the above therapies.
Hyperthermia or heat therapy using Far infrared, has proven to help cancer tumors and metastases. This includes sarcomas, skin tumors and carcinomas of the lung, stomach, pancreas, gallbladder and kidneys. The temperature of the tissue is elevated artificially by far infrared energy with the aim of receiving therapeutic benefits. Radiant healing devices, such as HTE's Far Infrared Hothouse, produce far infrared energy which is applied directly to the body. Far Infrared heat penetrates the body to a depth of two to three inches and is an absolutely safe therapy with no side effects whatsoever.
It has been known for many centuries that heat helps the body against cancer. Unfortunately, the enthusiasm of modern cancer research for this modality has been sporadic until recently. It has been the alternative health community that has kept the access open for patients, particularly in other countries.
In the 1960's, some researchers confirmed that cancer cells are more vulnerable to heat than their normal counterparts. In the U.S. the hegemony of the three official modalities - surgery, radiation and chemo - lasted until the 70's, when hyperthermia was taken off the ACS blacklist (Unproven Therapies List). In the late 70's and early 80's several trials had shown that hyperthermia combined with radiation produced superior results over radiation alone.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...wInYAw&usg=AFQjCNG2ADS1KxGcFiwPczDk4Rrbb7VkyQ
It has been known for many centuries that heat helps the body against cancer. Unfortunately, the enthusiasm of modern cancer research for this modality has been sporadic until recently. It has been the alternative health community that has kept the access open for patients, particularly in other countries.
In the 1960's, some researchers confirmed that cancer cells are more vulnerable to heat than their normal counterparts. In the U.S. the hegemony of the three official modalities - surgery, radiation and chemo - lasted until the 70's, when hyperthermia was taken off the ACS blacklist (Unproven Therapies List). In the late 70's and early 80's several trials had shown that hyperthermia combined with radiation produced superior results over radiation alone.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...wInYAw&usg=AFQjCNG2ADS1KxGcFiwPczDk4Rrbb7VkyQ
Yes if you can expose viruses, bacteria and microbes of all kinds to the correct frequencies, they will be destroyed. Frequency generators have recently been approved by the FDA, after many long years of court battles. But they have restricted what they can claim in there sales pitches. They have established frequencies for just about every condition and a protocol to best treat it. In theory it sounds very good, and the testimonials sound fantastic, but I have no first hand knowledge that it really works as claimed in actual practice.
I don't wish to harp on the use of high dose vitamin C treatment. But it has a very good documented track record. Most doctors don't know about it, because information is just not made available in the schools they earned their degrees at. Second, the FDA only sanctions certain treatments for cancer and if doctors provide any other treatment they open up a whole can of legal worms they really don't want in their lives.
I'm only going to say if you or any loved ones have cancer or any other life threatening illness, you owe it to yourself to read the following book.
Primal Panacea by Thomas E. Levy, MD, JD
www.primalpanacea.com
I just finished reading it completely and found it very convincing.
I'm only going to say if you or any loved ones have cancer or any other life threatening illness, you owe it to yourself to read the following book.
Primal Panacea by Thomas E. Levy, MD, JD
www.primalpanacea.com
I just finished reading it completely and found it very convincing.
I'm studying med. We are certainly taught of the existence of ascorbic acid megadosing and other "alternative" therapies.
We're also taught that *all* therapies have to be approached with scepticism.
Can we be sure that a particular treatment does what it is supposed to?
Has it been fairly tested? (This can be a very difficult question.)
What other effects does it have?
Were the people it was tested on similar to the person we're considering treating?
The information used to answer those questions can come from anywhere. We're not limited to information that the med school chooses to make available. A good rule of thumb is that a book promoting a product sold by the author might not be the most reliable source of information.
As for Vitamin C's effect on cancer, the Wikipedia page (Vitamin C megadosage) is an obvious starting place:
QuackWatch.com is also very useful resource when figuring out whether a promoted health remedy has value or not.
We're also taught that *all* therapies have to be approached with scepticism.
Can we be sure that a particular treatment does what it is supposed to?
Has it been fairly tested? (This can be a very difficult question.)
What other effects does it have?
Were the people it was tested on similar to the person we're considering treating?
The information used to answer those questions can come from anywhere. We're not limited to information that the med school chooses to make available. A good rule of thumb is that a book promoting a product sold by the author might not be the most reliable source of information.
As for Vitamin C's effect on cancer, the Wikipedia page (Vitamin C megadosage) is an obvious starting place:
In 1976 Linus Pauling and Ewan Cameron published a trial of 100 cancer patients which suggested that treatment with intravenous vitamin C significantly increased lifespans.[11] Three large, placebo-controlled trials of only oral (not intravenous absorbic acid, as with Paulings' study) vitamin C in 1979, 1983 and 1985[12][13][14] did not find a positive effect of vitamin C in cancer patients and a re-analysis of Pauling and Cameron's initial data found that the comparison groups were not adequately controlled or randomized, with the vitamin C group being less sick than controls when entering the study.[15][16] More recent Phase I clinical trial studies, which were limited in scope to a "dose-finding phase," have confirmed that while vitamin C is not necessarily toxic to cancer patients,[17] it is not useful as a treatment for cancer in humans when doses do not exceed 1.5 grams ascorbic acid/kg body weight.[18] In vitro tests on cell lines indicate that dehydroascorbic acid (DHA), an oxidized form of ascorbic acid may interfere with the effectiveness of chemotherapy.[19] A systematic review of the use of vitamin C and other antioxidants as part of a chemotherapeutic regimen found no significant difference between groups.[20] A 2010 review of 33 years of research on vitamin C to treat cancer stated "we have to conclude that we still do not know whether Vitamin C has any clinically significant antitumor activity. Nor do we know which histological types of cancers, if any, are susceptible to this agent. Finally, we don't know what the recommended dose of Vitamin C is, if there is indeed such a dose, that can produce an anti-tumor response."[21]
QuackWatch.com is also very useful resource when figuring out whether a promoted health remedy has value or not.
Pete
The book explained why the test results did not show positive results as shown in your quackwatch.com link. Basically the dosages were way to low. To most people 10,000 mg per day sounds real high. But it is to low to be useful, dosage needed to be intravenous and as high or higher than 100 g per day in a lot of the worst cases. He cites many cases where doctors gave people less than a month to live and after very high dose intravenous vitamin C was administered those people recovered.
I don't want to keep trying to find entries in the book to post hear. I currently don't have any first hand knowledge that this therapy really works. I can only say the book was very convincing and it did go into a lot of detail about why the high dose vitamin C is not an accepted medical practice. It does say that when used with conventional therapy it helps mitigate the bad effects of radiation and Chemo. Remember every thing that causes your body to suffer oxidative stress is what vitamin C is very good at fixing.
For anybody that is searching for something that can help, it's a very cheap therapy, but you may have to go to some trouble finding a clinic that will supply the treatment intravenously and still be able to apply the recommended conventional therapy.
For what it's worth read the book and make up your own mind.
The book explained why the test results did not show positive results as shown in your quackwatch.com link. Basically the dosages were way to low. To most people 10,000 mg per day sounds real high. But it is to low to be useful, dosage needed to be intravenous and as high or higher than 100 g per day in a lot of the worst cases. He cites many cases where doctors gave people less than a month to live and after very high dose intravenous vitamin C was administered those people recovered.
I don't want to keep trying to find entries in the book to post hear. I currently don't have any first hand knowledge that this therapy really works. I can only say the book was very convincing and it did go into a lot of detail about why the high dose vitamin C is not an accepted medical practice. It does say that when used with conventional therapy it helps mitigate the bad effects of radiation and Chemo. Remember every thing that causes your body to suffer oxidative stress is what vitamin C is very good at fixing.
For anybody that is searching for something that can help, it's a very cheap therapy, but you may have to go to some trouble finding a clinic that will supply the treatment intravenously and still be able to apply the recommended conventional therapy.
For what it's worth read the book and make up your own mind.
The book has 60 pages of cited references in smaller print at the back of the book. No claims are made without many cited references.
Yes I agree with you, cancer is almost non curable disease. So prevention is better then cure is the best policy. Maintain a healthy lifestyle, eat healthy food, do regular exercises and refrain from addiction. You will surely be able to stay away from cancer. Also popularity of natural treatment growing rapidly for side-effect less and most of renowned pharmaceuticals companies are now try to produce herbal medicine.
Curing cancer is very difficult..You can get some fertility treatment and gastroscopy....I think it is very helpful for you ....Do you know it??My dear friend...Haha ...You must do more exercise and keep fit....Having medical is very importmant.......