BigCancer Industry Throws Women Under The Bus

[sparky]

Corporate America can never be trusted to do the right thing....but cancer is above them.

What if I told you that you're citing an imaginary character regarding a 'cure' that there is no evidence even exists?

What's next, citing Optimus Prime about the Rothchilds or Captian America regarding the Federal Reserve?

How's about a Nobel laureate then.....




~S~

 

[Silhouette]

~S~

I've always wondered about that. How does one make the body alkaline and not affect normal functions?

 

[Skylar]

Corporate America can never be trusted to do the right thing....but cancer is above them.

What if I told you that you're citing an imaginary character regarding a 'cure' that there is no evidence even exists?

What's next, citing Optimus Prime about the Rothchilds or Captian America regarding the Federal Reserve?

How's about a Nobel laureate then.....




~S~

Cancer cells burn too. They also melt in concentrated acid. They are also killed by cyanide or arsenic.

The problem with all of these solutions (including making cancer cells alkaline) is that cancer is made of the exact same stuff you are. It has your DNA. Thus, anything that will kill cancer will also harm you. Its why Chemotherapy, though effective, makes a person violently ill.

So how do you make only the cancer alkaline (or douced with acid, or ignited on fire, or suffused with cyanide or arsenic) without also doing the same thing to the rest of your body?

....

..

.

Yeah, that's the rub, isn't it? And that's also why treating cancer in actual people is far more complicated than a youtube video.

 

[sparky]

I've always wondered about that. How does one make the body alkaline and not affect normal functions?

So how do you make only the cancer alkaline (or douced with acid, or ignited on fire, or suffused with cyanide or arsenic) without also doing the same thing to the rest of your body?

My reading lends me to believe a fundamental medical pilosophy came to loogerheads somwhere in our past. One can look up the AMA ousting holistic practice here.

Yeah, that's the rub, isn't it? And that's also why treating cancer in actual people is far more complicated than a youtube video.

It's a nobel prize winner posted on Utube Sky

seriously, do i have to post here with constant non sequitors ?

~S~

 

[Skylar]

I've always wondered about that. How does one make the body alkaline and not affect normal functions?

So how do you make only the cancer alkaline (or douced with acid, or ignited on fire, or suffused with cyanide or arsenic) without also doing the same thing to the rest of your body?

My reading lends me to believe a fundamental medical pilosophy came to loogerheads somwhere in our past. One can look up the AMA ousting holistic practice here.

Yeah, that's the rub, isn't it? And that's also why treating cancer in actual people is far more complicated than a youtube video.

It's a nobel prize winner posted on Utube Sky

seriously, do i have to post here with constant non sequitors ?

~S~

Nah, I just don't have much use for conspiracy theories. Especially poorly thought through ones.

And when the Nobel Prize winner explains how we increase the alkaline levels of cancer to lethal levels in a patient's body with it having no lethal effects on the patient's body....feel free to link to that youtube video.

Alas, killing cancer cells has never been the problem. Killing them without killing the person they grow in is.

And neither you nor the Nobel Lauret from 1931 have an explanation around this fundamental problem.

 

[Silhouette]

The problem with all of these solutions (including making cancer cells alkaline) is that cancer is made of the exact same stuff you are. It has your DNA. Thus, anything that will kill cancer will also harm you.

Actually, it has mutated DNA which if the body could recognize it, it would kill it. So it isn't "just like you". What protects cancer is this weird gel coating they surround themselves with that masks their BS from the body's immune system.

I've always thought about this in the sense of a foreign invader. What are the odds that random mutations would have already encoded a defense system to mask themselves from the body? It seems a bit peculiar to me.

Of course there is the German study with rats using whole tumor samples to create a vaccine. It had a 96% full remission success rate. The remaining 4% of the rats were found to have deficient immune systems. So they just gave them a couple more booster shots and all of them got full remission too. So they got 100% full remission of cancer tumors. Not bad.

Side effects: mild injection sight tenderness and in some folks, a low fever for a day or two. You know, instead of destroying the immune system or conversely, teaching it to attack everything, including vital organs...

But the whole-tumor vaccine is comparatively cheap and easy to do with numbers of success that would end the "give to cancer research!" multi-billion dollar gravy train...so yeah....not happenin'

 

[Skylar]

The problem with all of these solutions (including making cancer cells alkaline) is that cancer is made of the exact same stuff you are. It has your DNA. Thus, anything that will kill cancer will also harm you.

Actually, it has mutated DNA which if the body could recognize it, it would kill it. So it isn't "just like you". What protects cancer is this weird gel coating they surround themselves with that masks their BS from the body's immune system.

I've always thought about this in the sense of a foreign invader. What are the odds that random mutations would have already encoded a defense system to mask themselves from the body? It seems a bit peculiar to me.

When you show us those studies with the 96% effective treatment in rats, we can start talking.

Until then, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Its an excuse for it. You're the same soul that told us that the Skene's gland was right next to the uterus, and that uterine cancer was the most common cancer in the world.

Both of your claims are factually false. You'll need outside sources to establish anything else you have to offer us.

 

[Silhouette]

Both of your claims are factually false. You'll need outside sources to establish anything else you have to offer us.

Skylar, if you're able, an intellectually-honest answer to these questions...?

Do you think it is conceivable, with the amount of money flowing into BigCancer research funding, current chemo/radiation infrastructure, college careers and doctors getting cash incentives to sign up patients for chemo (as opposed to other therapies they know would work better for them), that BigCancer might resist the sudden appearance of a relatively cheap and easy to produce cure for cancer with a 96% success rate?

Check out this variation on the immunotherapy theme while you're pondering the answer to that question.: Cancer ‘vaccine’ eliminates tumors in mice

So, a cheap easy vaccine or cure for cancer comes along, like merely selecting one or two tumors ^^ to inject with a T-cell stimulator (outpatient procedure in a one-stop setting with just one syringe) for whole-body and distant metastatic remission & the multi-$billion dollar industry just lays down and says "sure, no problem"...college careers, residencies...etc. etc. down the tube?

Or, might the Industry be tempted to reserve one of the largest subsections of cancer (women-endometrial) to say "we're not doing clinical trials on endometrial" so they can legally say "this 96% cure has not been tested for use on women with endometrial cancer" so they can phase out the doctors, infrastructure and industry...and tease along a few more years of public-donations "for this incurable plague on women!"? Worse if they know it works on kids and they keep it away from their cancers too, so they can show those ghastly commercials on TV with bald children going through their 5th course of unnecessary chemo (obviously, if you need it 5 times, it ISN'T working...)...

Or do you think that 100% of the decision-makers in BigCancer Industry would immediately be on board for a cheap/easy cure and just hang up their white coats and go stand in the unemployment line?

Remember, I asked for your intellectually-honest answer.

NEW YORK — It is a unique situation in medicine: Unlike other kinds of doctors, cancer doctors are allowed to profit from the sale of chemotherapy drugs......Doctors in other specialties simply write prescriptions. But oncologists make most of their income by buying drugs wholesale and selling them to patients at a marked up prices........"So the pressure is frankly on to make money by selling medications," says Eisenberg. Cancer docs profit from chemotherapy drugs