Cuicui hello
Cancer cases are increasing,
Hence the question: why? At the beginning of the last century, children were exceptionally affected by these cancers, now they are no longer excluded: why?
Our materialist society is more obsessed with the how than with the why when it is on this side that the real answer is found. This is the consequence of the pasteurization of medical thought (and not only).
Two currents were developing at the time of our national "hero" where he saw the microbes responsible for diseases (it was partly true! Today the obsession turned to the virus) and in the same time, hygienism, held the discourse of the priority of the ground (as in homeopathy) on the microbe. It is therefore pasteurism which currently prevails!
word of mouth or computer to computer is working more and more.
Word of mouth is not a science, at most the "Arab phone" with its own distortions and ignorance just as complete as on chemo. When the Internet is a big catch-all where everything and its opposite is there united and which cannot be a determining factor in "choosing" one therapy over another.
If you find an effective anti-cancer remedy (supporting evidence) it would be known very quickly, official medicine or not.
What touching naivety! It's amazing how many times this maxim has gone out to self-justify! We find, in parallel, the discourse allopathy / homeopathy:
if homeopathy was effective it would be known And despite the wall established by the system at the orders of the labs, the use of homeopathy is increasingly demanded by patients who are fed up with direct and indirect damage from chemistry, but homeopathy still has over 200 years of age and opposition.
Maybe in 200 years it will be the same for the recognition and the practice of alternative methods! In the meantime, at the current rate, this will cause an additional 30 million deaths… a tinker!
Besides, not all doctors are closed to alternative approaches.
See my previous comment. There is a difference between prescribing an herbal tea, a few fruits, a little vegetable essences and using a complete and unique therapy prohibited by the current system.
However, all the anti-cancer remedies published on the Net and tried by my close circle have been very disappointing.
On what criteria always? Internet is not a benchmark
complete and reliable on this subject, it is only a source of information limited to the systems in place and in a manner limited to what can claim to replace it. No doctor will write loud and clear that he did not apply the protocol only recognized in this pathology and therefore the internet is like the tip of the iceberg, the biggest does not appear there.
Then, and this is where the rub is due to lack of knowledge and because the system is thus made: The patients seek treatment as they have been used to it for decades, not a change of life system (except rare exceptions!)
It was not for pleasure that we had to fall back on chemo, a horse remedy but the only one that had a directly visible effectiveness, while waiting to find better.
According to the article quoted, chemo is almost never effective, it is affirmed by shoe sizes recognized in oncology, not by bricolos of district.
But to use a certain speech, it may be due to this placebo effect which works in 30% of cases !?
As well as by John Cairns, Professor of microbiology at Harvard University, who published in 1985, a review in the Scientific American: " Apart from a few rare cancers, it is impossible to detect any improvement by chemotherapy in the mortality of the most important cancers. It has never been established that any cancer can be cured by chemotherapy. "New confirmation from Dr. Albert Braverman, New York hematologist and oncologist, in the Lancet:" Many cancerologists recommend chemotherapy for almost all tumors, with optimism not discouraged by an almost inevitable failure [...] no disseminated neoplasm, incurable in 1975, is not curable today. "(Cf. Cancerology in the 1990s, vol. 337, 1991, p.901). As for Dr. Charles Moertal, cancer specialist at the Mayo Clinic, he admits that: “Our most effective protocols are full of risks and side effects; and after all the patients we have treated have paid this price, only a small fraction is rewarded by a transitional period of incomplete regression of the tumor »
No glop, no glop!
Sen no sen hello
Indeed, there is currently no miracle cure to fight cancer.
You put your finger right where it hurts. Indeed, there is no MIRACLE remedy as we would like to believe for vaccines.
The miracle is an awareness of your lifestyle mistakes and the modification of them. Then, and only then, the cancer goes away on its own. So no miracle cure, nor of chemical or pseudo natural grigri coming from the labs which live generously of fear and this superstition. (It reminds of the Inquisition!)
On the other hand, certain methods are apparently very effective in preventing the development of cancer (example of the method of the late Doctor Gernez) and strangely not much noise in medical and political circles!
Effectively, the maximum efficiency is found in prevention (even if I do not share all of the means recommended by Gernez like Beljanski which remain in the system), but the entire population and the medical profession are not not prepared for a radical change in these lifestyles predisposing to cancer (review the experience of DSS for example!)
It is indeed to try, even if one criticized Dr Gernez for not citing the cases where his treatment failed.
Gernez, no more than others, was not a miracle worker, it is as if we reproached the current system for all its failures and there is what and in abundance.
I read on the Net the fascinating diary of a patient who followed the Breuss diet based on vegetable juice, in particular red beets.
It is the typical example of these partial methods which believe in the miracle. This is not enough in itself, it is a whole that needs to be revised
in depth, point by point. And particularly all those which are factors favorable to the maintenance, even the aggravation of carcinogenic factors. This "diet" has its consistency in that it recommends products rich in antioxidants which are indeed "anticancer" elements, but which are not enough on their own! It's good to open the drain of the bathtub to empty it, but you also have to close the tap that fills it!
I was sorry to read the last message written by ... his widow.
France has 150.000 widowers, widows, orphans and others. It would be interesting to make a ratio between alternative methods like the one cited and the current system (If you have numbers, I'm a taker!) Otherwise, could you point me to this site to study it?
I know of the case of terminally ill patients who have been terminated by chemo. What doesn't work for one can work for others. Like you, I think we should try everything and not pillorize certain approaches on the pretext that they clash with our convictions or that they did not work for everyone.
This is the typical example of:
you must spare the goat and the cabbage But putting them together ... the problem is that it doesn't work and never worked. I understand, however, that faced with this "disease", the individual wants to find a non-lethal solution considering that it is better to have a pierced buoy than no buoy at all, even if the purpose will be the same: drowning!
The main thing is that everyone can access as much information as possible and make informed decisions.
Tell that to the current medical profession and you will see if this knowledge is taken into account. It is a deep illusion to believe that it is enough that another therapeutic or preventive path exists for the system to adhere to it. So, as I said earlier: either you join the system by non-choice and there you take advantage of all the medical arsenal in place, in individuals as in equipment; or you walk outside the nails and there you find yourself alone without any support, neither professional (anyway they are ignorant of what to do!) nor human because more than the patient, it is the family who is afraid and clings to the system in place and is therefore extremely dissuasive and destabilizing for the patient. Hence the rarity, which I mentioned, of those who walk outside the nails and therefore this rarity is necessarily little incentive for the greatest number.
Elementary my dear Watson!