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 ...).
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 29/01/14, 08:07

cuicui hello
Janic wrote:
the next I should do if I see it, is as old as the world: God, aliens, black holes, etc ...

Sorry, I do not see the connection.

I was referring to skepticism in principle. Like the apostle Thomas whose phrase has become famous and a reference: " if I don't put my finger in the nail mark and if I don't put my hand on its side, I would not believe »John 20-25
Same thing for extraterrestrials or black holes, etc ... how many of us would believe it only if we saw or traveled in these black holes?
My conclusion from all of this is that any verifiable information is welcome.

It's logic! So give yourself a chance to search and find this information
When it comes to my health, I only believe what I can experience for myself.

I understood that, the question is: are you waiting for cancer to check it ... unless this is already the case and this relentlessness in defending chemo and the rest becomes more understandable? In this case, it comes out of this subject if it is too personal!
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 29/01/14, 16:56

for those interested an article on chemo
http://www.sylviesimonrevelations.com/a ... 07562.html
including this edifying passage: " Patients who refused any treatment lived, on average, 12 years and a half. Those who underwent surgery and other traditional treatments lived on average 3 years only"
and further "And also, from 1990 to 2004 out of 72964 patients in Australia and 154.971 in the United States, all treated with chemotherapy .... this publication proves that chemotherapy contributes only a little more than 2% to the survival of patients after 5 years , i.e. 2.3 in Australia and 2.1% in the United States"who could still believe it after that if not desperate people clinging to any hope;
0 x
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 29/01/14, 17:43

Another alternative method that I had not mentioned: the ketogenic method (diet low in carbohydrates)
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 29/01/14, 18:53

cuicui hello
Another alternative method that I had not mentioned: the ketogenic method (diet low in carbohydrates)
and as Obamot would have said: refined sugars as shown by the work of Pr Otto Heinrich Warburg.
PS: I hope that the article quoted above will bring you answers to the question of those who refuse chemo.
0 x
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 13/02/14, 10:58

Janic wrote: PS: I hope that the article quoted above will bring you answers to the question of those who refuse chemo.
I am for all alternative or conventional approaches, as long as they have maximum efficiency with minimal nuisance. For those who have tried everything to no avail, I recommend putting their beliefs in their pocket and also trying life-saving chemo.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 13/02/14, 16:34

cuicui hello
Janic wrote:
PS: I hope that the article quoted above will bring you answers to the question of those who refuse chemo.

I am for all alternative or conventional approaches, as long as they have maximum efficiency with minimal nuisance.

If to have the uterus, anus, breasts removed, etc ... it is a minimum of nuisance: what would it be with a maximum !? :|
Hence the QUESTION: On what criteria will this nuisance be measured? To those who have tried everything without result? those whose life force is sufficient (and therefore would have faced it anyway)?
To my knowledge, there are no studies on the subject, including in a reduced framework like Johanna Brandt!
I recommend putting their beliefs in their pocket and also trying life-saving chemo.

Precisely it is, in general (it suffices to read most of the testimonies with alternative approaches), after having tried everything of allopathic school medicine that, in desperation, a few rare individuals try non-aggressive methods. But it is there too, in general and despite the damage caused by this "conventional" medicine, that the rare experimenters get out of it.
So do not get the wrong idea: 99,999999 etc ...% of the cancer population pass and will pass almost necessarily (so except in a few rare cases: 10? More? Less?) By the conventional approach box. So your recommendation goes without saying: elementary said Scherlock!
And this is not to say that people are wrong to go through this channel since there are no others in their eyes like those of the conventional medical profession! The opinions of the doctors cited are therefore only warnings which everyone will take into account or not!
For the record, but very symptomatic, a member very close to our families had formulated this situation thus: "it's good for you, but not for me"waiting with fatalism (after rays, chemo, operations) this death which she saw inevitable as for some of her relatives whom she had also seen die. What happened shortly after!
0 x
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 14/02/14, 12:57

Janic wrote:cuicui hello
Janic wrote:
PS: I hope that the article quoted above will bring you answers to the question of those who refuse chemo.

I am for all alternative or conventional approaches, as long as they have maximum efficiency with minimal nuisance.

If to have the uterus, anus, breasts removed, etc ... it is a minimum of nuisance: what would it be with a maximum !? :|
I recommend putting their beliefs in their pocket and also trying life-saving chemo.

Precisely it is, in general (it suffices to read most of the testimonies with alternative approaches), after having tried everything of allopathic school medicine that, in desperation, a few rare individuals try non-aggressive methods. But it is there too, in general and despite the damage caused by this "conventional" medicine, that the rare experimenters get out of it.
So do not get the wrong idea: 99,999999 etc ...% of the cancer population pass and will pass almost necessarily (so except in rare cases: 10? More? Less?) By the conventional approach box.
And this is not to say that people are wrong to go through this channel since there are no others in their eyes like those of the conventional medical profession! The opinions of the doctors cited are therefore only warnings which everyone will take into account or not!

You are confusing chemo and surgery.
The goal of chemo and all other approaches is precisely to avoid mutilating surgical procedures. As for the tendency to go through conventional medicine rather than alternative treatments, it is a matter of information but also of experimentation. The best way to know if it works is to try. There are more patients than you think who try alternative treatments, some with success, others who end up having no other choice than between chemo (very unpleasant) and death. In my opinion, it is advisable to try everything and not to reject anything, without being influenced by beliefs.
0 x
Mike12721
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 12
Registration: 10/10/13, 14:35

Alternative treatments for cancer




by Mike12721 » 14/02/14, 16:34

Dear,


I think that on this subject the following link could be interesting:

http://uawinfo.weebly.com/the-only-canc ... nkind.html

Then for more info you can always go to https://www.gerson.org

Greetings,


Michel
0 x
Mike12721
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 12
Registration: 10/10/13, 14:35

Another alternative




by Mike12721 » 17/02/14, 08:01

Hello,


Apparently the treatment with "Kefir" would also be effective against certain cancers. See the word "Kefir" in Wikipedia
Quote from Wikipedia:
"This effect remains debated, but it appears, in laboratory mice, to have anti-tumor effects, or to help the body fight against certain tumors."
Source: A. de Moreno de LeBlanc, C. Matar, E. Farnworth and G. Perdigón; "Study of Immune Cells Involved in the Antitumor Effect of Kefir in a Murine Breast Cancer Model"; J. Dairy Sci. 90: 1920-1928. doi: 10.3168 / jds.2006-079; American Dairy Science Association, 2007

Greetings,


Michel
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 17/02/14, 09:29

Mike hello
effectively fermented products (non-alcoholic) can regulate digestive functions and modify the terrain by a better acid / basic balance unfavorable to the development of cancer cells. But it is always the same thing, it is generally not enough in itself, it requires a general reform of the life system and that few people realize it.
0 x

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

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 315 guests