Cancer: habit and lifestyle to reduce the risk!

[Christophe]

I'll stick to it if I find a little time. In the meantime, on arte yesterday
http://videos.arte.tv/fr/videos/planete ... 67250.html
aluminum planet. a very interesting link between the aluminum of deodorants and the doubling of breast cancer in women (of course!). it goes even to the Alzheimer's and it concerns you too gentlemen. We must realize that our lifestyle habits are that we put about 500 products on the skin and hair, without anyone having been able to study the interactions between these products and more. To care is one thing, but if we can prevent it is even better.

Exact!

I had talked about it here in the subject dedicated to poisoning by aluminum: https://www.econologie.com/forums/l-empoison ... 12287.html

[Janic]

did 67
overall you are right! I said that the problem was taken upside down in relation to this statement and in relation to fasting

But I don't think I would cure myself "only" by these tips ...

No therapeutic amounts not fasting because ALL other therapies or solicit sursollicitent body when he needs all his faculties (remaining) and energy (remaining too) to deal with this aggressive system that is cancer (and therefore worse by adding various additional solicitations). To make a comparison no drugs, to sleep, will replace the natural sleep, and at most will be addictive. But the more an organism is degraded and the less it is necessary to use additional means of deterioration which only aggravate an already difficult situation.

[Obamot]

Like "prophylaxis", yes.
Alternative to chemo ??? I would be more careful. I have no known cancer ... But I don't think that I would cure myself "only" by this advice ...

It's taking the problem backwards!
In our hyper-medicalized society, the labs and the allopathic medical corps consider cancer as a preserve (like AIDS for that matter) and claim that only their techniques are effective and all the rest, lies, errors, dangerous and pathological attitude (forgetting that 'in this area they are responsible for 146.000 deaths per year).
So those who go through unconventional medicine usually only do itAPRES the repeated failures of school medicine. Clear, when everything else has failed !
Survey around you and you will find that it is the case in 99% of the cancers.
Now these alternative medicines (but which ones?) Are they effective? From when and how far?
If you go to the mechanic with a rotten body and ask the bodybuilder to put it back in its new condition, he will laugh in your face, but in terms of "health" those who have left their "car" rusty would like a discount to nine with a simple snap of the fingers. We must not dream!
The question is rather: if after doing chemo, radiation, operation, etc ... your cancer remains and even believes by its metastases: what would you do? would you be careful?
So fasting as prophylaxis: of course! As therapeutic against cancer: too! But not anything, no matter how!

hack hello

I misrepresented in the doc arte it is explained that in young 2 days before and during the chemotherapy because of the absence of sugar the chemo would be more effective. It is not a question of replacing chemo with a young person. Although for the test on mice the young is as effective as chemo if not more, there has been a scientific publication.

This is the path that Schreiber has taken and which has prolonged his life in amazing ways; but, because there is a but, he was stuck between two opposing mental pressures: his confidence in school medicine and his interest in unconventional medicine (whose logic and common sense told him that it was the right thing to do. direction to be followed and of which he recognizes the benefits) have led to this situation of internal conflict.
This is less characteristic for the consumeractor Lambda who is conditioned only by fear on one side and the hope of the other and not by his medical knowledge. So in desperation, he may consider, for example, a therapeutic fast, since he has nothing left to lose but his life is only suspended and the outcome will be fatal anyway
The problem is that after exhausting the body by aggressive and traumatic means, many believe to see in these techniques the miracle solution that should not have failure, fatal outcome (if not stand up the opponents for to cry out to illegal medicine, to sects and its dangers, forgetting a little too quickly that in their hands the outcome would have been fatal too, and perhaps even sooner.)

You can not deny it all, but you have to have a good heart to say that.
While cancer was still incurable there is 30 years, it is not the case today ... The situation has reversed! So such generalities are to throw in the fire.
You cannot take a particular example in one case and refute it when it suits you in the other either (and besides, statistically speaking, it has no value). You have to be reasonable, or else give credible and verifiable figures and / or studies that validate these assertions. This is on a case-by-case basis, but the statistics of "healthy life expectancy " keep improving, even though the "margin of progress", still remains 80%, the truth is halfway between this speech and statistics: there is room!;)

In short, to see more clearly, it would be necessary to get out of a speech, sometimes a little too ideological (even if the ideology is not bad in itself, according to which ...)

[Janic]

Good morning hello

You can not deny it all, but you have to have a good heart to say that.
While cancer was still incurable there is 30 years, it is not the case today ... The situation has reversed! So such generalities are to throw in the fire.

This statement must be qualified! Cancer was not "curable" according to the indications of the school medicine, since denying any other possibility.

One must be reasonable, or else give credible and verifiable figures and / or studies that validate those assertions.

This is the crux of the problem: who, where, when, how these statistics or studies could and can still be done? When there is a pure and simple negation considering precisely that these are extremely rare case by case. Statistics and studies are being done on a number of significant cases, but where to look for them? Among the dissidents who do not even keep their doctor informed of their approach? In those who have cancer but don't want to risk failure? etc… It goes without saying that the "outside the system" are in tiny quantity and therefore not significant for official statistics, but vital for the people concerned who do not care about statistics and studies which will perhaps prove them right in 10 years or more. century. Their problem is: today!

This is on a case-by-case basis, but the statistics for "healthy life expectancy" keep improving.

Hope and reality do two different things, I hope to be a millionaire and it's not about to happen either. Reality is the lived experience! If a person who is left behind most of the time (there are also cancers that are incurable by official methods) chooses a different path, he does not shout at the rooftops and therefore will never enter any statistics.

[Obamot]

No no. These statistics are verifiable and verified. And they take EVERYONE into account. You might want a statistic to prove the validity of the VG approach, so it's up to you to prove it. Otherwise, it is what applies to EVERYONE that prevails. Because the goal is that "overall health" improves, not that of a "class apart". Well, it's true, why the VG themselves, they did not agree to launch such studies! There are however doctors among them;)

And as I said. There is no point arguing around the merits of a more adequate diet (VG or other) than the one swallowed without too much discernment, since I have already said dozens of times that there is 80% of diseases which is said of civilization (and this figure that I launched on FS, was not contested nor met with veto there ...)

As for reproach me for not nuance my words, even though the meaning of my sentence was to say that you did not do it, this one it is very good!

Playing with words by taking "hope" as an uncertainty is of the same order! Nothing to see, since it translates from English as follows:
— Healthy Life Years
Which literally means:
- Years of life in good health!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_Life_Years

Source WHO, in French: "Promoting a healthy life"
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/pr84/fr/
The same in English: "Promoting Healthy Life»
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/pr84/en/

The phrase "life expectancyIs only a figure of speech (in fact life is uncertain, one can only hope, it is not wrong), but interpretation that nobody will understand as you would like, to try to invalidate the work of the WHO or something, which in this case does not need to be (on the contrary, given the model of surveys that existed before ... You should even be very favorable , since if a statistic emerges to prove the validity of a healthy diet, only this statistic could allow to highlight its unambiguous advantage! From then your position is relatively shady!).

[Janic]

No no. These statistics are verifiable and verified. And they take EVERYONE into account. You might want a statistic to prove the validity of the VG approach, so it's up to you to prove it.

It was not VG in my speech, but the choice of anticancer treatments, off the beaten track, and the results obtained.

Well, that's right, why did the VGs themselves not agree to launch such studies! There are however some doctors among them;)

That's the question I asked them too. But a study to be credible must be done on targeted and representative subjects, but this is the most difficult to do because of the great diversity of VG. Moreover, such a study is expensive (since it can not be done by judge and party) and no one has the financial means to do so.
So there remains the individual testimonies with their diversity or American studies like the one I quoted in the devoted topics.

You should even be very favorable, since if a statistic emerges to prove the merits of a healthy diet, only this statistic could allow to highlight its unambiguous advantage! Since then your position is relatively shady!

those who turn to a healthier diet, VG or not, do not do it in relation to favorable statistics or not, but in relation to an awareness or following lived testimonies and thus to experiment oneself, without seeking to be the subject of studies or statistics.

[Obamot]

A little bit of the contradiction about the fact that, above, you attribute the death of DS Schreiber to internal conflicts (it was the same in innumerable cases, in view of the latest breakthroughs in the understanding of the effects placebo / nocébo!) And on the other hand, you persist in believing in a form of ideology that is itself a carrier of internal conflicts (thus eminently iatrogenic in the case of a medic).

It does not detain you to refer to treatments "off the beaten track », while we know what catastrophic effects can have a focus of some kind in and by a sick person! (It must be remembered that in these precursors of orthomolecular medicine, none claimed tooff the beaten track », and none renounced anything in the entire arsenal of therapy, and for good reason! They were aware before the hour of these cognitive-behavioral implications related to the state of health).

Nor did you seem to understand that one should not do studies on specific population groups, for the same reasons!

I am looking forward to the day when you will finally have hit the reasoning behind this "stupidly didactic" understanding, not to say psychoeducational. And that the simple, humble, relevant observation of the facts, can make us understand without prejudice! And which absolutely does not depend on your alleged "alibi-approach", since everyone can freely choose what they want to put on their plate, without being subordinated to any doctrine, ideology dictated by advertising, 'WHO, VGs of all kinds or whatever.

Without of course that there is nothing to say about individual choices of any kind, necessarily ... Since only individuals on a case by case basis, can know what suits them or not (without internal conflict of whatever it may be, a hypothesis totally rejected since no ideology comes to disturb the minds ...).

In your defense, I would say that even conventional medicine, does not fully apply the principles that she herself was able to highlight! Simply because many doctors do not see it (but that obviously can not be taken into account, since not making any difference, it would be the same thing in any particular case).

From there, it is obvious that it would NOT be a focus cohort study on VG, since it would be nonsense! It would be a little like warning people in advance of a clinical illness that they would ALL receive a placebo. It just does not make sense!

[Janic]

obamot hello

A little bit of the contradiction about the fact that, above, you attribute the death of DS Schreiber to internal conflicts (it was the same in innumerable cases, in view of the latest breakthroughs in the understanding of the effects placebo / nocébo!) And on the other hand, you persist in believing in a form of ideology that is itself a carrier of internal conflicts (thus eminently iatrogenic in the case of a medic).

I do not attribute death to internal conflict, only that it was not until the end of its step of which it perceived and described the benefits. The result of his medical conditioning? The fear of death? The judgment of those around him? All he says is that thanks to a parallel approach, he has survived 20 years more.

This is the difficulty. Doctors, for the most part, are not trained in alternative medicine and no more in dietetics and even less on the VG in its various forms, so bad judges on the effectiveness or not of such a technique, except medical school.
Then you constantly come back to inner conflicts. Except that it is rare and especially momentary, it does not generate internal conflicts, but external with a company that does not conceive to cross beyond the nails. Although it concerns only the new ones, the old ones like me do not talk about it any more except interested solicitation.
Same thing you bring everything to orthomolecular medicine that is not universal, but practiced by a small slice of therapists; which medicine represents only a small part of hygienism.

Nor did you seem to understand that one should not do studies on specific population groups, for the same reasons!

It is not the individuals concerned who claim specific studies, it is you who invokes these. "We" do not care! The goal is not to be on tablets for posterity, but to solve an immediate and often pathological problem. The rest is blah blah as some would say.
When death knocks at your door, the ideologies you sit on. You try something other than what did not work with the possibility that it does not work either or that it can get out of it. Read the many testimonies experienced rather than a detached literature of experience.

From there, it is obvious that it would NOT be a focus cohort study on VG, since it would be nonsense! It would be a little like warning people in advance of a clinical illness that they would ALL receive a placebo. It just does not make sense!

Not only is it not necessary, but it is not likely to arrive anytime soon. On the other hand you continue to reverse things, it is not a question to warn but to note the testimonies already lived which make a cohort sufficient in itself, without being influenced by medical solicitations.

[Obamot]

A little bit of the contradiction about the fact that, above, you attribute the death of DS Schreiber to internal conflicts (it was the same in innumerable cases, in view of the latest breakthroughs in the understanding of the effects placebo / nocébo!) And on the other hand, you persist in believing in a form of ideology that is itself a carrier of internal conflicts (thus eminently iatrogenic in the case of a medic).

[...] I do not attribute death to internal conflicts [...]

If, if, at first, de facto he is no longer, and then you put his case in highlight by using twice the term of"fatal outcome"and this of course on purpose because he was a medicinal TEB. QED

The fact that "other doctors are not trained" to this or that has absolutely nothing to do in this context of "inner conflict". I therefore absolutely note that there is a kind of denial there. And finally, the fact that you rebel this way without finding a relevant argument doesn't bother me, since it makes it kind of a slip

Basically, you are relatively in agreement with that but you do not dare to admit it!

Nor did you seem to understand that one should not do studies on specific population groups, for the same reasons!

[...] It is not the individuals concerned who are calling for studies [...]

Once again, you are moving away from the background so as not to answer. The point here is that you do not have the means to contradict it (do it in orthomolecular medicine and we talk about it again). Hence the dodge.

When death strikes your door, the ideologies you sit on [...]

It has nothing to do with my comments, since when you get there, it's already good (too much?) Late. And as we will agree on this point ... ° _O

On the other hand you continue to reverse things, it is not a question to warn but to note the testimonies already lived which make a cohort sufficient in itself, without being influenced by medical solicitations.

But I do not confuse, for the good and simple reason that I do not dispute that! That is not "my" point here.

* [EDIT]: Besides, it's embarrassing because it prevents relatively speaking of the link that exists between a healthy body in a healthy mind.

[Janic]

Yes, yes, first de facto he is no more, and then you highlight his case by using the term "fatal outcome" twice, and of course on purpose because he was a doctor AND a vegetarian . CQFD

I use the term fatal outcome when a person after being treated in a "classic" way is at the end of the possibility of these therapies and therefore turns to a possible escape route. For others or they got away or they died.
For Schreiber the case is peculiar given his medical training actually and can not be used as a reference, given the final failure of his approach. (He does not say he is vegetarian either, he simply advises the reduction of meat consumption that he calls optional)
Moreover, the formulation of his book is symptomatic: "ANTICANCING Prevent and fight thanks to our natural defenses". He immediately places his speech on prevention and struggle. Not a clue to a real and definitive healing, which was normal given his physiological or mental state. (he frequently highlights this inner conflict)

The fact that "other doctors are not trained" in this or that has absolutely nothing to do in this context of "inner conflict". I therefore absolutely note that there is a kind of denial there. And finally, the fact that you rebel this way without finding a relevant argument doesn't bother me, since it makes it kind of a slip

Because you are obsessed with inner conflicts as if those were mandatory and systematic. I do not deny that this can happen to some in research, but more to people who practice for a long time, and do not even ask the question.

Basically, you are relatively in agreement with that but you do not dare to admit it!

When I share an opinion I express it clearly, but it is a point that differentiates us because you automatically suspect the other to be in bad faith or ignorant of your own thinking.

Janic wrote:
[...] It is not the individuals concerned who are calling for studies [...]

Once again, you are moving away from the background so as not to answer. The point here is that you do not have the means to contradict it (do it in orthomolecular medicine and we talk about it again). Hence the dodge.

No ! ask the question differently: who wants studies? The people concerned or those who have questions about the validity of their approach?
I do not dodge, but I can not be told what my listener wants to hear and as he wants let it be said.

Janic wrote:

When death strikes your door, the ideologies you sit on [...]

It has nothing to do with my comments, since when you get there, it's already good (too much?) Late. And as we will agree on this point ...

That's what I've been talking about since the beginning, of those who have come to the end of the roll, not of those who are treated officially and who are satisfied (except the 146.000 dead each year). So I repeat, those who have been left behind by official medicine and who are turning to other less aggressive methods with hope (and for families the requirement) that what the system missed, a gentle method catch up all the mistakes made, and often without investing so much, individuals are accustomed to passive participation, that is to say, to undergo.