Soursop, Graviola fruit, powerful anti cancer?

How to stay healthy and prevent risks and consequences on your health and public health. occupational disease, industrial risks (asbestos, air pollution, electromagnetic waves ...), company risk (workplace stress, overuse of drugs ...) and individual (tobacco, alcohol ...).
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 26/01/14, 16:45

Some alternative methods:
- spirituality (for those who are open to this kind of approach)
- magnetism, energy transfer
- emotional therapies + caring and understanding entourage
- young
- lipoic acid + hydroxycitrate
- apricot or peach almonds
- lemon
- graviola (soursop)
- vanilla + honey
- aloe vera + honey + Swedish liqueur
- Pau Pereira
- grapefruit seed extract
- turmeric + piperine
- uncaria tomentosa (cat's claws)
- godjis
- young
I forget, thank you to those who will complete the list.
These methods can contribute greatly to healing by reducing the side effects of chemo, increasing its effectiveness, slowing tumor growth a little, but have not, to my knowledge, yet reversed the cancer process. Too bad, because to escape the chemo, we are ready for anything ...
0 x
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 26/01/14, 17:00

Janic wrote: When a person has cancer, death is almost guaranteed at the end of the tunnel
At least that's what medicine would often have her believe: “Outside of chemo, no salvation!” Unfortunately, she is often right.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 26/01/14, 18:29

Cuicui
I forget, thank you to those who will complete the list.

Vegetarianism / veganism / raw food.
hygienism
Clay
Organic food
Magnesium
Fast of medium and long duration.
Living environment
etc ... for those who do not come to my mind.

These methods can contribute greatly to healing by reducing the side effects of chemo, increasing its effectiveness, slowing tumor growth a little, but have not yet, to my knowledge, reversed the cancer process.

Here I am looking on the internet and here is an example:
http://jeune-et-sante.forumcanadien.ca/ ... ie-camille

So your knowledge is limited, the question remains why? So fortunately, for those who have reversed this process, that it is inaccurate!
Too bad, because to escape the chemo, we are ready for anything ...

Oh dear ! It is wishful thinking! From experience (including the family environment: 4 cancers, 2 leukemias), I could see the opposite and it is understandable because individuals are ready to take any substitute product, but rarely to change their mode of life. We cannot blame them since society has chosen this almost unique and compulsory route. This is also noted by the list you present: where is the change in lifestyle? He's the big absent! Again I do not blame you, it's like that and you have to deal with it!
Janic wrote:
When a person has cancer, death is almost guaranteed at the end of the tunnel

At least that's what medicine would often have her believe: “Outside of chemo, no salvation!” Unfortunately, she is often right.
She is right in his own logic and in relation to its means. But there again, I take this comparison between allopathy and homeopathy where the first affirms that apart from her: "no salvation" despite the evidence that she is wrong!
I was reading, not long ago, the testimony of a (angry) homeopath with a cancer patient and he had been forbidden to treat this patient for this disease (what he did elsewhere) but he continued to treat his patient for other pathologies and which, in turn, made disappear a cancer already well advanced. He wanted to communicate it to the competent authorities and was faced with a categorical refusal. Hence his question: which is more important: the patient or the corporate system?
0 x
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 26/01/14, 21:41

We can add: grape cure (which is also a form of fasting), fermented papaya ...
But when the cause of the cancer lies in emotional stress, there is little chance that a dietary change will be enough to solve the problem.
My knowledge is obviously limited since I only speak of facts experienced by my close entourage. But it is experience and not theory or testimony difficult to verify.
Do you know people who prefer chemo? Personally, I have not encountered one so far. You have to have experienced chemo yourself to know what it is.
I begin to meet young doctors who admit that cancer can be linked to a weakened immune system linked to stress (emotional or due to our living conditions). Like Louis Pasteur at the end of his life, they admit that Claude Bernard was right: the germ is nothing, the terrain is everything. Previously they claimed that cancer was genetic, therefore currently without a solution! Like what mentalities eventually evolve.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 27/01/14, 07:55

Sen no sen hello
We can add: grape cure (which is also a form of fasting), fermented papaya ...

No! a monodiet like a cure of ... whatever you want, is totally different from a fast. For the latter the organism functions in autarky (not always advised when the organism is overloaded and therefore releases poisons stored a few times for years) and a monodiet which targets a biological specificity as for Graviola which we are talking about here. These are two different approaches to adapt according to the individual and his pathology, but which can be complementary, always according to the pathology.
But when the cause of the cancer lies in emotional stress, there is little chance that a dietary change will be enough to solve the problem.

You are right, in the sense that cancers are multi-causal and therefore it is necessary to determine the origin when possible. However a dietary change is however fundamental because it is the fuel which feeds the brain (like the rest) and therefore eases or worsens a situation which can be linked to a deficiency for example or chemical poisoning.
Go see Christophe's last intervention on stress!
My knowledge is obviously limited since I only speak of facts experienced by my close entourage. But it's lived and no theory or hard to verify testimony
.
I also speak, among other things, of my close entourage including one in progress.
For cases where it is impossible to verify, because too distant or naturally deceased, I agree; but there are cases in progress and therefore verifiable. You still have to want to check it!
Do you know people who prefer chemo? Personally, I have not encountered one so far. You have to have experienced chemo yourself to know what it is.

It is not a question of preferring or not. In the last century children were given cod liver oil, I doubt they would prefer it to grow in the sun! In this case (apart from some illegal naturopaths) the only solution proposed is chemo / ablation / irradiation and I would even say imposed by the proponents of these methods.
I begin to meet young doctors who admit that cancer can be linked to a weakened immune system linked to stress (emotional or due to our living conditions). Like Louis Pasteur at the end of his life, they admit that Claude Bernard was right: the germ is nothing, the terrain is everything. Previously they claimed that cancer was genetic, therefore currently without a solution! Like what mentalities eventually evolve.

You are right, there is a change of mentality among the young generations of doctors who no longer lock themselves in their certainties of jamming of university skulls. The development of the media, the internet, the death of the old "masters" imposing their concepts, the explosion of homeopathy despite the wall of sarcasm and smear campaigns, the danger of chemical poisons (including drugs), organic products , etc… have changed the game: so much the better! But there is still a way to go and it takes time while hundreds of thousands of people die of ignorance and submission.
For the genetic side: it was not devoid of common sense (even if we put everything on the back of it) because it was found that there are families with cancer so we assumed that it was hereditary. However, what is "hereditary" is the culture, the habits of life and therefore hygienism and food mode. This had been observed among Americans when “poor” populations gained access to the customs of better-off people and then the same pathologies appeared as these wealthy people. So heredity had nothing to do with it and the reverse showed that by ceasing to imitate these wealthy people these same pathologies diminished and disappeared.
For stress, it acts as an aggravating factor on an already existing situation. If stress were to blame, high-stress populations such as those in the midst of conflict, war, famine should see an explosion of cancer, but vice versa, cancer is more rare there. It had even been noted during the last war that these cancers were extremely rare and even nonexistent among prisoners with precarious and stressful living conditions.
But it's the same thing every time, we have to find an outside culprit, a Turkish head on which to transfer all our mistakes. It's the microbe, the virus, the DNA, stress, etc ... but never, oh never ever: " I live by doing bullshit that I pay today! »
But when we are closely affected, see yourself concerned, self-guilt, or guilt-free, does not change a difficult situation and as the emotional blurs reason, it is difficult to accept a change considered as a factor of stress and additional fear. Indeed why the people concerned do not change? By fear of the unknown, fear of death, fear of additional suffering, etc ... which are dissuasive motivations even if they are only subjective.
Hence your reaction (that of most people besides): add a different approach as if the two were going to be added mechanically while that only diminishes the possibilities of the latter. (Dissects the work of Schreiber , he is characteristic of it. He is moreover well aware of it and expresses it sometimes clearly, sometimes asking the question. But he too was trapped between fear and hope)
0 x
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 27/01/14, 09:39

Janic wrote:It is not a question of preferring or not.
The important thing is that the treatment is effective.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 27/01/14, 11:04

The important thing is that the treatment is effective.
of course, but between a heavy and traumatic treatment and a non-aggressive treatment, the choice should rather be in favor of the second: no?
Think of those who find themselves (what I forgot to mention) with a total laryngectomy or an artificial anus .... effective!
0 x
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 27/01/14, 17:37

Janic wrote:
The important thing is that the treatment is effective.
of course, but between a heavy and traumatic treatment and a non-aggressive treatment, the choice should rather be in favor of the second: no?
Think of those who find themselves (what I forgot to mention) with a total laryngectomy or an artificial anus .... effective!
Nobody says otherwise. The problem is precisely the case where only the aggressive treatments are effective.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 27/01/14, 18:48

Nobody says otherwise. The problem is precisely the case where only the aggressive treatments are effective.
There he would prove it by demonstrating the inefficiency of other methods and it is not a foregone conclusion! 8)
0 x
User avatar
delnoram
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 1322
Registration: 27/08/05, 22:14
Location: Mâcon-Tournus
x 2




by delnoram » 27/01/14, 19:10

Cuicui wrote:Some alternative methods:
I forget, thank you to those who will complete the list.


You can add the mustard from what I heard in the Xenius show.
0 x
"Thinking should not it be taught in school rather than to make learning by heart the facts that are not all proven?"
"It's not because they are likely to be wrong they are right!" (Coluche)

Back to "Health and Prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental risks "

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 244 guests