Is cancer chemotherapy useful?

[Janic]

sherkanner hello
Just a clarification after reading the article cited, but which does not provide this important clarification to understand the basic mechanism of cancer and which the general public ignores.
So unlike cell division which results in a reproductive cell and a "worker" cell therefore specialized in organ, cancers are divisions, non-specific, by only reproductive cells and therefore, unlike healthy cells which keep the number constant. of cells of the body, those of cancer divide with an exponential growth: 2,4,8,16,32,64 ....... 8.192,16.384 ... and therefore a few billion, then tens, hundreds, thousand billions and death. It is therefore easy to understand that even after surgery, radiotherapy or chemo, if only one cell escaped the massacre, the cycle would start again, it is just a matter of time, hence the recurrence at 1 years often. Gold no therapy currently practiced cannot eliminate all cancer cells and the few billion (a billion cells is about 1 gram of weight so a very small pea) that will survive will reinvest in other organs by metastasis and it is off again for a ride! Here too, oncologists have observed that the ablation, the destruction, of a localized cancerous focus resulted in its displacement towards other "healthy" organs in order to redevelop.

[sherkanner]

The main one being that the majority of cancers use blood glucose to feed and proliferate.

not quite! There is ignorance and confusion between sugar and sugar. Professor Warburg's work has shown that cancers are greedy for simple sugars (and therefore refined commercial sugars), but cannot use complex sugars such as unrefined cane, fruit sugars or honey.

First part:
I think there is confusion between simple and complex sugar (either from a food point of view, or from a metabolic point of view, I am in the second part).

Simple sugars: glucose, fructose, sucrose, lactose, maltose, galactose. Requires only one or even 2 transformation to be usable by the body
Fruits, and honey are mainly composed of fructose and glucose.
Glucose is directly assimilated by the body, as is fructose (however, their assimilation by the liver takes different paths)
Lactose requires the use of the enzyme lactase (missing in intolerants) to transform it into glucose and galactose.
Galactose is also broken down into glucose and other byproducts, but it is a little more complex already.
Maltose (mainly found in starchy foods) requires the use of amylases (enzymes) to be transformed into glucose and other by-products.

Complex sugars: polysaccharide (starch, carbohydrates), requires a significantly greater number of transformations, and the by-products of each transformation are the most problematic. To understand them, it is necessary to refer to the krebs cycle (not within everyone's reach, given the complexity)
Bread (carbohydrates), for example, makes it possible to obtain a rise in blood glucose higher than table sugar (sucrose). (and wholemeal bread is worse than white bread from this point of view, similarly with wholemeal / white rice, see the different tables on the glycemic indexes used heavily by diabetics)

In the end, only glucose and fructose are found in the body. The goal is to limit glucose to limit the food of cancer.

Second part:
When the glucose runs out, the body turns to another source of energy, the ketone bodies (which I would call ketones by abuse of languages, not wishing to use the abbreviation CC), which the body can produce from fatty acids (saturated, derived from animal fats, or unsaturated such as omega 3 for example).
Ketones are more effective than glucose, and certain organs, such as the heart, only work with fatty acids, or failing that ketones.
The brain also works optimally with carbohydrates, but ketones are the alternative fuel that keeps the brain working at the same level as glucose. As the brain is mainly composed of fatty acids, the body prefers to use glucose when it is available.
Glucose will be necessary for muscles, however the liver can synthesize the necessary glucose thanks to proteins (neoglucogenesis). Cancer cells cannot feed on ketones, only on glucose (except in special cases such as skin cancer a priori).
Except if we reduce food glucose sharply, blood glucose will be kept at a relatively low and constant level and after all optimal by the liver.

An important point here too, a constant glucose level helps to fight against the feeling of hunger (tested and approved by myself)

So in the end, food sugar is not necessary for the body to live, and to do without it during an anti-cancer treatment can be considered (the quality of life is reduced, I easily agree ).
Studies are underway to see if a light carbohydrate / sugar diet can help support chemotherapy better (some testimonies point in this direction).

[Janic]

sherkanner hello

First part:
I think there is confusion between simple and complex sugar (either from a food point of view, or from a metabolic point of view, I am in the second part).

Only, we cannot dissociate the two since the metabolism will depend on what is introduced into the organism.
Otherwise the analysis that you do next is correct, but too "chemical", that is to say that the complexity of functioning of the living cannot be as reducing. Thus according to the acid / basic balance (Obamot would be happy with this mention) the metabolism will change. For those who are not familiar with this aspect, this can be compared to farming or growing flowers, even in pots, for example. Some plants are only pleasant in an acid environment and their metabolism works well only in this condition, on the other hand, others will only be pleasant in a basic environment with the whole range of intermediates and with another equally complex metabolism. .
However, most of the measurements are made either on laboratory animals (with different metabolisms) or on an "average" population (supplied by supermarkets distributing industrial agricultural products), the latter being for the most part "omnivorous". sedentary part, with an overconsumption of sugars, fats, proteins, refined and unbalanced foods. The measurements made are therefore based on well-targeted criteria, but distorted by their natural abnormality.
(It is also this lack of distinction that creates this difference in approach between Cuicui and me. He in the general context generating these cancers; me in the exception of a few rare cases outside (in large part, no one is perfect) of this natural abnormality.)

Except if we reduce food glucose sharply, blood glucose will be kept at a relatively low and constant level and after all optimal by the liver.
So in the end, food sugar is not necessary for the body to live, and to do without it during an anti-cancer treatment can be considered (the quality of life is reduced, I easily agree ).

Always specifying that these are industrial sugars and therefore, effectively to be avoided like the plague ... sorry like cancer!

Studies are underway to see if a light carbohydrate / sugar diet can help support chemotherapy better (some testimonies point in this direction).

Avoid this confusion between carbohydrate which is a generic term covering a whole chemically targeted range and sugar which is an agricultural and industrial product. This therefore remains true because when we consult the statistics of the explosion in consumption of industrial sugars

In France, sugar sales have been stable for over 40 years now, but we actually went from 5 kg / year / inhabitant in 1850 to 30-35 kg in the 1970s.

(my teeth remember!)
http://www.lesucre.com/fr/article/alime ... somme-t-on
Advertisers are also happy to maintain this confusion in the minds of consumers by presenting bees (which induce a positive mental reaction given the emotional or taste consideration for this product) and then attaching this beautiful white sugar (but chemically pure, devitalized and devitalizing, demineralizing, etc ...) providing all this beautiful energy in cancer needs.

[sherkanner]

Janic hello,

sherkanner hello

First part:
I think there is confusion between simple and complex sugar (either from a food point of view, or from a metabolic point of view, I am in the second part).

Only, we cannot dissociate the two since the metabolism will depend on what is introduced into the organism.
Otherwise the analysis that you do next is correct, but too "chemical", that is to say that the complexity of functioning of the living cannot be as reducing. Thus according to the acid / basic balance (Obamot would be happy with this mention) the metabolism will change. For those who are not familiar with this aspect, this can be compared to farming or growing flowers, even in pots, for example. Some plants are only pleasant in an acid environment and their metabolism works well only in this condition, on the other hand, others will only be pleasant in a basic environment with the whole range of intermediates and with another equally complex metabolism. .
However, most of the measurements are made either on laboratory animals (with different metabolisms) or on an "average" population (supplied by supermarkets distributing industrial agricultural products), the latter being for the most part "omnivorous". sedentary part, with an overconsumption of sugars, fats, proteins, refined and unbalanced foods. The measurements made are therefore based on well-targeted criteria, but distorted by their natural abnormality.

It is the way in which sugars are metabolized in the human body.
The goal is to show that in the end, whatever the nature of the sugar ingested, it will serve as energy for cancer potential, because all the sugars are, more or less easily, metabolized into glucose.
Secondly, that sharply reducing the consumption of sugar is not a problem because the body is able to make up for this lack without worries.

Except if we reduce food glucose sharply, blood glucose will be kept at a relatively low and constant level and after all optimal by the liver.
So in the end, food sugar is not necessary for the body to live, and to do without it during an anti-cancer treatment can be considered (the quality of life is reduced, I easily agree ).

Always specifying that these are industrial sugars and therefore, effectively to be avoided like the plague ... sorry like cancer!

No, any type of sugar, including fruit and vegetables.
Vegetables without sugars are legion, fruits much less.
Only a small amount of fruit is needed, and will mostly be used to maximize the supply of vitamins, most of which can also be obtained from vegetables.

Studies are underway to see if a light carbohydrate / sugar diet can help support chemotherapy better (some testimonies point in this direction).

Avoid this confusion between carbohydrate which is a generic term covering a whole chemically targeted range and sugar which is an agricultural and industrial product. This therefore remains true because when we consult the statistics of the explosion in consumption of industrial sugars

Sugars, natural or from industrial processes, are to be placed in the same basket. Too much sugar consumption is potentially lethal.

In France, sugar sales have been stable for over 40 years now, but we actually went from 5 kg / year / inhabitant in 1850 to 30-35 kg in the 1970s.

(my teeth remember!)
http://www.lesucre.com/fr/article/alime ... somme-t-on
Advertisers are also happy to maintain this confusion in the minds of consumers by presenting bees (which induce a positive mental reaction given the emotional or taste consideration for this product) and then attaching this beautiful white sugar (but chemically pure, devitalized and devitalizing, demineralizing, etc ...) providing all this beautiful energy in cancer needs.

They only take into account table sugar, and we are already at 100gr / d (35kg / year), which we can easily avoid.
Then there are the other sources of sugars that are not counted in this report, they are all carbohydrates, breads, pasta, potatoes.
The bread contains more than 50g of glucose per 100g:
Potato, 20gr / 100gr
Raw rice, around 85gr / 100g
Raw pasta: 72g / 100
cf http://www.pharmaciedes4vents.fr/030_no ... produit=81

French consumption of potatoes is around 68 kg / year, or 13.6 kg of glucose / year = 37 g / d.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secteur_de ... nsommation
For pasta we are at 8.5kg / year -> 20g / d
For raw rice: 7kg -> 14g / d
For bread, 58kg / year, at 50% -> 160g / d O___O
http://www.infocereales.fr/search/theme-list/id/35

Either a total of not far from 330 gr of glucose / year, or 1/4 to 1/3 of sugar packet per day, it is the dentists who are happy.
Fruits and other tubers (beets) are not yet included in it ...
The USA is 600gr / year ...
Personally, I find such consumption of sugar alarming, and we are not worse off reducing this consumption to less than 100gr / d (or even 50gr if we want to lose weight).

This is the little cancer cell that will be happy, it will be able to run at full speed with all the sugar available ^^

[Aumicron]

For sugar and cancer, I created:

https://www.econologie.com/forums/cancer-et- ... 13099.html

[Cuicui]

[I do not disparage people, it is not in my philosophy, (find a single passage where I disparage a person.]

Did I say the opposite? I am not talking about people but about chemo, which, despite its very significant side effects, can be very useful if it is used wisely, like all drugs for that matter. It is obviously essential to know the side effects of any treatment, but that does not prevent us from using these treatments if necessary.
For the other speakers: I would remind you that every normal living organism produces thousands of cancer cells every day which are gradually eliminated by the immune system. Destroying tumors is necessary, especially when it begins to have an independent life, but is only a temporary solution until the immune system can take over. In my opinion, the important question is what are the factors that depress the immune system.

[Janic]

cuicui hello

Did I say the opposite?

it was not clear so it's good to specify it!

I am not talking about people but about chemo, which, despite its very significant side effects, can be very helpful.

Except that it is renowned cancerologists who say the opposite. So everyone believes what he wants to believe, regardless of its reality.

if used properly, like all medicines for that matter

Same thing for drugs! Most of them could be replaced by more “natural” means without their disadvantages; still it is necessary that they are known to the medical profession and especially prescribed to replace dangerous products. (I remember the case of Dr. Lagarde put on trial and removed from the order of doctors because using a drug not recognized in France but only in other neighboring countries or others based on mistletoe that the patient had to bring from Switzerland where this medoc was authorized there or even Dr Mashi, Solomides, Pr Delbet, Beljanski, etc ... same fate ) It is not good to question the system in place!
Or: or the doctors do not know them; or they do not want to take the risk of being accused of a possible death as is the case with other official techniques.

It is obviously essential to know the side effects of any treatment, but that does not prevent us from using these treatments if necessary.

It is a matter of choice, again! But which is also a non choice since no patient has the competence to judge the value of what is offered, and the doctor has no choice out of usual protocols.
So you reason by considering (always by comparison) that it is better to amputate a hand than an arm, I reason by considering that it is necessary to save hand and arm at the same time, but not by the same means.

For the other speakers: I would remind you that every normal living organism produces thousands of cancer cells every day which are gradually eliminated by the immune system.

Theoretically: yes! It is the role of the immune system provided that it is in favorable conditions (therefore the notion of terrain) to be able to do so. Gold if it is held in check by 2 or 4 cells malignant, he will not be able to face a few billion. Elementary my dear Wats… cuicui!

Destroying tumors is necessary, especially when it begins to have an independent life, but is only a temporary solution until the immune system can take over.

It is very theoretical and joins the point of view of Gernez. Take control of a tumor at its very beginning, a few cells, before they explode exponentially (hence the preventive use of antimitotic drugs and fasts to move the field). However, they are autonomous from their first division, not when they are a few thousand or billions since they multiply into solely reproductive cells (as shown by the work, rejected in his time, of Dr Gernez who had to expatriate to the USA so that these are recognized and put into practice.) and not in renewal cells.

In my opinion, the important question is what are the factors that depress the immune system.

That's the right question! Answered by unofficial channels to those who are willing to hear them et especially put them into practice : example, among others, this cited osteopath.
Now, as I said and said again; it is easier (even if it is painful and painful) to take refuge in the lack of responsibility towards oneself (since we are surrounded by systems which do it for us) than to take care of ourselves with all the uncertainties and anxieties that accompany it, which requires significant research work that few can or want to assume.
This is the whole story of the earthen pot against the iron pot!

[Cuicui]

It is not a question of belief, but of judging by results.
Chemo is perfectly fine for destroying isolated cancer cells (and quite a few healthy cells with them) at some point, but not for preventing the body from producing new ones.
What do your famous "renowned oncologists" offer? Why not post a short summary of their treatment and results?
Isn't it better to use all the treatments available to us, including those of the scorned labs and judging the best results, obviously consisting in saving the hand and the arm, as you certainly understood. As for the lack of information from patients and doctors, this is a field where we can act, each modestly, including through this forum.
As for our responsibility, it consists in publishing verifiable testimonies of people who have been healed, including and even if the chemo (horror!) Contributed to it when it was initially contrary to our convictions and our beliefs. As for the factors depressing the immune system, I was led to conclude that emotional causes (current stress reviving repressed suffering) play an important role.

[Janic]

It is not a question of belief, but of judging by results.

On the contrary, the results are only consecutive to the fact of believing that this or that process can be effective, otherwise nobody does anything more. If Pasteur had not believed that his vaccine could fight rabies (he was not a doctor but a chemist) no one would have heard of it. But despite the resounding failure of his vaccine, it spread like wildfire across much of Europe because of fear that this disease generated. Ditto for smallpox or HIV. These are typical examples of beliefs that are confused with scientific research, even when it is ineffective or dangerous.

Chemo is perfectly fine for destroying isolated cancer cells (and quite a few healthy cells with them) at some point, but not for preventing the body from producing new ones.

A bomb is also effective! But even assuming any effectiveness, to prove it too. The question is to know at what price of suffering and recurrence this efficiency can be compared. The non-violent solution has the advantage of having no price of this kind to pay, if not having the courage, the temerity to try it.

What do your famous "renowned oncologists" offer? Why not post a short summary of their treatment and results?

It's still a confusion! When asbestos was questioned for its dangerousness, that did not imply offering a replacement product. When AZT demonstrated its ineffectiveness and dangerousness, that did not mean that there was a substitute product. These are two different approaches. However, in this case, these oncologists dispute not only for its dangerousness but also and above all for its ineffectiveness and do not actually offer a substitute in this article.

Isn't it better to use all the treatments available to us, including those of the scorned labs and to judge the best results obviously consisting in saving the hand and the arm, as you certainly understood.

No, a pathology does not justify the use of anything, for lack of something better. Only this pathology scares everyone (like the rage above) and anything is estimated better than nothing because medically a doctor can hide behind a " we did everything possible "(As part of recognized and enforced protocols of course) rather than saying to the patient and family," we have nothing for you " Remember the antibiotic therapy used massively for everything and anything even where it was useless, but none could and should say to families: " we can do nothing for you »And anti biotherapy has done and still does a lot of damage!

As for the lack of information from patients and doctors, this is a field where we can act, each modestly, including through this forum.

You can always try: good luck!

As for our responsibility, it consists in publishing verifiable testimonies of people who have been healed,

As you say verifiable! How would you go about doing it? Contact the people concerned? The major part does not communicate it, this testimony is an exception, but, as you underlined by this a priori: It is not possible ! So what good is it to bear witness to what will not be believed. Suppose that tomorrow you meet an ET and talk about it to people who don't believe it a priori: who will believe you then? So you will be quiet if you have a little wisdom and these unbelievers will come out reinforced in their conviction of this impossible! It is the snake that bites its tail!

including and even if chemo (horror!) contributed to it when it was initially contrary to our convictions and our beliefs.

As one Internet user rightly or wrongly pointed out: was it linked to the treatment or the desire to see it work: this placebo effect which works in 30% of the cases which have been widely discussed there too? But even outside of that, when we don't know what else to do, we fall back on any hope. It's human!

As for the factors depressing the immune system, I was led to conclude that emotional causes (current stress reviving repressed suffering) play an important role.

There I agree! The emotional plays a role as important as the physiological causes (but can we separate the two as it has been done for so many years?) It is probably these cancers which appear suddenly and disappear just as suddenly without treatment, not even natural. I have a typical case around me, but who, out of fear, has gone through the system. However, he also did not fall into the opposite direction by attributing everything to this emotional.

[Cuicui]

Sorry to contradict you. Have you ever tried something without knowing in advance if it will work or not? Many scientific discoveries are due to chance and to the observation capacities of researchers who, however, did not expect it.
It takes a lot more courage to try chemo than a less painful alternative method (unless you are maso).
As far as I am concerned, I was very disappointed with the lack of effectiveness of the alternative treatments tried. Going back to chemo is difficult, but what if you haven't found better? I have already cited the case of a lady from my locality who suffered from colon cancer with metastases to the liver, who found herself, after chemo, cleaned of any tumor. I call this a nice result. We would also like this lady to change her lifestyle enough to avoid any recurrence. But the first step (ending the tumor invasion) has been largely won. It is true that colon cancer is the least difficult to eradicate by chemo, this will not necessarily be the case for other cancers.
It would be interesting to pool the work of all the researchers to see if there emerges something more effective than current chemos.
If I do not want to die, I claim the right to use everything for which I have seen the effectiveness, even if it is, horror! of chemo.
Unlike you, I believe that what is written in this forum can bring info to those looking for it. If only one person finds a lead there, it's already worth it.
Emotional and physical are one and the same reality. Psycho-bodily therapies often use physical sensations to make repressed emotions aware.
I'm not trying to be believed. I just describe what I found. The reader will do what he wants with it. I would like others to bring their lived testimonies rather than pour into philosophical or theoretical considerations.