Cancer Treatments, Alternative vs Conventional
71
Though humans appear to be the most fragile creatures on earth because of the chronic diseases weakening our species more and more each year, we do have the superior ability to adapt and evolve but science doesn't promote it or even whisper this natural phenomenon behind closed doors.
Let’s compare us to a wild fox or coyote. If an oncologist a.k.a. cancer doctor looked one of these recently captured critters right in the eye and told it, "you have early stages of cancer" and you are in severe trouble without proper treatment and then they releases it back in the wild, chances are the critter would go back out and live a perfectly healthy life with a full and natural life span. This is because the critter does not have the mental capacity to understand its supposed medical predicament. It could care less what the doctor believes or what medical science has taught the doctor to believe.
Now take a human, when a doctor tells a human, "you have early stages of cancer and you are in severe trouble without proper treatment" the fear propaganda of cancer sets in and the stress which is far more deadly than cancer starts to destroy the human with rapid efficiency.
When a person elects to use "alternatives" a.k.a "natural" treatments it ALWAYS comes from an uber optimistic "alternative" practitioner and it creates less of the DEADLY stress that always kills people with cancer.
Like the fox, humans have an immune system that can prevent or cure cancer and like the fox that system requires NO products or technology. It only requires peace of mind something not found in conventional medicine and often found in “alternative” medicine.
Though the media often expressing how conventional cancer therapies are getting better, people are still dyeing at roughly the same rate because of the fear propaganda attached to the diagnoses. With conventional medicine, the treatment itself is still very harsh, so harsh that a healthy person would not DARE receive it because no matter what the medical industry says about the treatment, they are still very very harmful. So conventional medicine treatments still cause DEADLY stress on top of very HARMFUL treatments and the outcome is the OUTCOME people FEAR the most.
The most effective treatment BAR NONE for any human with cancer would be for a doctor who understood human evolution or in our case the lack of it and looked their patient directly in the eye and told them, "shoot, Mr. John Doe you are as healthy as a horse, you're just over stressed, I prescribe a long relaxing vacation of three months and suggest you start living your life" and Mr. John Doe would have his absolute best chance at a full recovery, and that is a scientific FACT. John Doe doesn’t need the “alternative” treatments what is better known as “placebo”. Peace of mind is the power behind all “alternative” and “natural” medicine.
No "alternative" or "natural" treatment cures cancer, they simply do not harm the patient and there is a fraction of the stress that comes from using conventional medicine and the fear of conventional medicine.
If conventional medicine is to become more effective at treating what is known as cancer they are going to have to adopt a much more positive outlook and recreate the propaganda associated with what is known as cancer so people do not view it as a death sentence.
It isn't the cancer that is deadly; it is the fear that kills. Humans and domestic animals are the only creatures tormented by cancer. Wild creatures simply do not care and as such they remain immune to cancer. Humans can also remain immune if we were allowed to evolve.
True Cures
- True Cures Research Foundation
Where human's find immunity from all diseases. - True Cures Healing Underground • Index page
The only science forum concerned with curing Cancer.
Understand Politics Before You Can Understand Disease- Like politics, today's medicine is in it for the profit not the people.
CommentsLoading...
Article says: "But we now understand that cancer can kill wild animals at similar rates."
McAloose and her colleagues compiled information on cancer in wildlife and concluded that cancer poses a conservation threat to certain species.
True Cures Says: Note Certain species. Specifically speaking of the Tasmanian devil. An animal very hard to study and impossible for you or I to study to verify such studies.
Article Says: the Tasmanian devil, the world's largest carnivorous marsupial, faces extinction from a cancer known as devil facial tumor disease. This contagious cancer spreads among devils usually through fighting and biting.
True Cures says: This is a breath of fresh air. They are suggesting that the cancer is spread from one animal to another suggesting it is contagious which is very true. In humans they don't refer to cancer as being contagious.
The reason the disease threatening the Devils is contagious because it is a pathogen not some mutant rogue cell created by the Devils themselves as humans are often lead to believe.
Because there is no real definition for cancer, just pages of hypotheses anything can be called cancer if science so chooses. Remember the scienctist doing the research are simply inadequate or refusing to solve the problem of the disease known as cancer so all cancer studies should be taken with a grain of salt. Cancer is very easily cured and there is NO chance a pathogen will destroy the Tasmanian devil. Pollution and human encroachment maybe but not a pathogen or what is known as cancer.
It is nice to see the studies on wildlife cancer at least being linked to pathogens. They link it to viruses which further prevent any real breakthrough in understanding or curing what is known as cancer. This is because like "cancer" viruses are as fictional or more fictional. There simply is no solid scientific evidence that there is such a pathogenic organism known as a virus.
Science builds fiction because it derails any chance of cure or control.
If the study for the article was actually scientific they would be blaming fungus for the health issues in the species listed in the article but to list the actual cause for what is known is a serious threat to the industry of cancer. That and the fact the scientist responsible for researching the threatened species run the risk of losing their funding if they solve a problem or make an actual scientific breakthrough of substance.
It's a good article but the important aspect is what the article doesn't share. The article is for promoting research, not for the betterment of mankind or wildlife but for the betterment of the research and industry of medicine.
There simply is no one in the scientific world interested in cutting out the profit of fear.
What the whales are going through is horrible but with today's pollution they are lucky to be alive after swimming in our polluted rivers.
In the cases mentioned in the article, it is human encroachment threatening the species. Nonetheless, the wild animals listed in the article are likely already immune to what the scientist observed, after all the article is almost three years old and the research is probably much older.
I live in Idaho and I am a sportsmen. I don't buy meat I eat wild game and a lot of it. I hunt it, harvest it, butcher it and eat it medium rare no matter what kind it is. I even eat wild bore medium rare.
Here in Idaho we have had our scares too. We were all made afraid of Chronic Wasting disease in our deer herds. It killed a few deer, the weaker ones and the rest became immune to it. Same thing with our trout fishing. Whirling Disease was a serious threat but the trough became immune and it is no longer a threat.
Chances are there is no "cancer" threat to Tasmanian devils these days and the whales are probably healthy as ever.
Fungus is still the MOST deadly pathogen to all life on earth. White Nose is threatening the world's bat population or at least was but again chances are it is no longer a threat either because of the ability for wildlife to adapt and evolve.
Fungus can wipe out farm crops and orchards and is probably the pathogen threatening all the animals in the article. You all should be suspicious of human medical science because it virtually ignores fungus in humans.
You would have a bite to eat if it were not for commercial fungicides for all livestock and all plant crops. Without fungicides you wouldn't have steak or potatoes yet you have never been given a fungicide to keep you immune to the most deadly pathogen known to exist.
By the way, cancer if fungus. I knew this long before the corrupt Italian oncologist wrote the book about cancer and fungus. Common sense and real science leaves no question as to the connection between fungus and cancer. Nothing grows and spreads as rapid as fungus and nothing cause growths and tumors like fungus. Cancer is fungus.
Just About It, thank you for the comment. It isn't what you can read on Google that makes a positive change, it's what you can't read. There are only tiny bits of truth in the article you shared but when applying common sense and wisdom one can learn a lot. Thank you.
David
Look, this hub has a chance to reveal extremely powerful information if we keep the discussion going. Just About It gave us a good start.
I'm certain it is up to us to reveal the truth about any and all diseases, not the medical industry.
http://healingunderground.com/index.php
It's time for an Evolution Revolution
I don't foresee a lot of activity here because people will always struggle with their loyalty to alternative and western medicine when the fact is both are failures for healing yet extremely profitable.
My neighbor has been diagnosed with prostate cancer, he had it best relief using a prescribed penicillin. His doctor gave him a controlled amount, just enough to give him exceptional relief but just enough to be sure to avoid curing him.
The penicillin dose he was allotted killed all the adult stages of the pathogen that was causing his pain and discomfort and the prescription ran out. Had the doctor prescribed the same prescription long term, which they will not do, it would have killed the up and coming stages of the pathogen he needs to kill to be actually be cured of the cancer.
Naturally I would rather see my neighbor use his immune system to cure his cancer but he too remains too loyal to the industry of medicine. He told me he knows they are in it for his money but he just isn't willing to accept that medicine is in it for the profit not the cures.
When my neighbor dies from cancer all his offspring and grand kids will fear prostate cancer and they will support cancer research with a vengeance in hopes that they will provide a cure before they have prostate problems.
Make no mistake, any oncologist could cure cancer in their patients if they were allowed to prescribe medications the way they feel they should be prescribed. However they can't. They can only prescribe under medical protocol and that is what will prevent my neighbor from being cured.
He will have to take his life into his own hands and buy the drugs he needs from other sources if he wants to be cured through drugs.
Your links were not quite what I was interested in.
They were not directed at you personally, sorry for the appearance. I'm usually left to carry on my own discussion because there isn't anyone else aware or informed enough to discuss it other than agreeing with me and giving me a pat on the back.
I posted the links for the general public who might want to be more informed.
Most people who comment do so to try to get their point of view across. I leave little to be questioned which creates even less room for discussion.
Your comments are very welcome but in the end reason and logic will dictate that cancer is only a chronic threat to humans and pets. Not livestock or wildlife.
Wild animals will quickly develop immunity to any disease, especially cancer. Livestock will be medicated against cancer. Humans have the same capacity as wildlife but humans have a flaw that wild animals do not which prevents humans from advancing the way all wild life does.
Humans destroy their own subconscious/involuntary immune capacity with their conscious/voluntary beliefs. Humans focus and hold to pseudo science otherwise known as medical science and as they accept the popular mainstream science fiction from Harvard, Berkley and all other mainstream science fiction producer it destroys any capacity to adapt and evolve which causes them to weaken and become diseased. We allow our beliefs to destroy us because our beliefs are completely wrong.
In short we have traded our prefect capacity for immunity for ineffective popular science fiction. Science fiction is highly profitable where real science and immunity is devastating to profit and that is why people are not interested in my links. People would rather be diseased and potentially wealthy than healthy and poor.
It's a sorry world and times we live in.
Looks like you were wrong again True Cures. Don't see mention of no fungus nowhere.
Lisa, you if you want to be argumentative that's fine for you. I'm not trying to reach those loyal to their disease, I'm reaching out to people who are not loyal to their disease.
A person who is not loyal to the industry of cancer would have paid attention to what wrote and what I continue to write. I made it clear that the article mentioned bacteria and viruses. I also made it clear that the use of "virus" is as much science fiction as the use of "cancer".
Because your loyalties are to the industry behind "cancer" you would naturally disapprove of my efforts and because cancer will always remain "incurable" as long as you do not know the real cause it is only natural they do not mention fungus in any medical or science fiction medical article or journal.
The characteristic in the article you posted could only be fungus which is why they would never ever mention it. There is no other pathogen that can cause that kind of reaction or tumor. To call the tumors fungus would end the industry of cancer and the economy.
I may be wrong to a degree but I am right enough to know that "cancer" is fiction and that fungus is the cause of most if not all, but most of all I am right about cancer being easily cured.
Loyalty to mainstream science is the killer not the disease known as "cancer". I live in Idaho, we have devils here and they do not have cancer. I would like to say "cancer" isn't contagious because by definition it isn't but because "cancer is a fungus could be spread from one devil to the other".
The only fact the article is good for is that fact that there is something killing the devils in Tasmania. Devils are almost impossible to study on a large scale because they are very elusive.
It would appear that the devils in Tasmania are more common and suffer more from human encroachment. However the glum and doom they are speculating is only speculation. We heard the same thing here in Idaho with our deer population.
There is no doubt we as humans are destroying habitat as fast as we can, but it still does not change the fact that animals adapt and evolve rapidly. There are other species that are suffering as the devils in Tasmania but there is no species as weak as the human race, nothing anywhere as close to as weak.
Do not expect mainstream science to cure you of cancer, it will never happen. They will never utter cancer and fungus in the same sentence. Your loyalty will destroy you because the only thing that will save you from cancer is a heart attack or accident or some other disease.
For those who are loyal to truth, you stand a chance of being disease free.
By the way, we can all google. 50% of what you google about cancer means death and the other 49.99999% is a scam.
I'm the only google information available that provides the truth.
I know why some alternative therapies 'appear' to work and why everything else does not work. That is why I am able to prevent and cure what is known as "cancer".
Here is an exercise for anyone more loyal to actual cure than medicine.
Tell me what "cancer" is in 50 words or less.
Your oncologist couldn't do that. The medical explanation is so vague that it will indeed incorporate fungus as a cause though they do not dare utter the word "fungus" because would make "cancer" defined in 50 words or less which would make "cancer" as manageable as it is in livestock.
There are other pathogens that make up "cancer" but none so deadly as fungus.
I know you are correct David! But is hard to change whole life over internet, i understand both side
I would say it is impossible to change anyone over the internet. I keep telling myself, "your planting seeds" and someday people may become processors instead of simple receivers.
Today people accept any information from a credentialed source as gospel forever remaining loyal to such credentials. They will pay dearly for their misplaced loyalties, after all "the love of money is the root of all evil" and disease is money.
It's not wrong being loyal to what is right or what is true. The problem is right and true are poor business tools and they are not very exiting. When people see a movie that want special effects they don't want the bland truth.
What is right and what is true will never be popular until people can learn to forgive themselves for being duped. Pride will prevent people from being cured as much as the medical industry greed.
There will be people who will attack me here because they are loyal to the profits of disease because of their career choice but most will do nothing because they are too embarrassed or prideful to question their loyalties.
If you question your loyalty to today's science and medicine you will find cures for diseases you were lead to believe are incurable. It's that simply and there is NO CHANCE of a cure being profitable if that is going through you head. Go ahead and try to outline a scenario where a cure for ANY disease would be profitable and post it here. I will be gentle with you.
I want to summarize where this topic drifted. Someone tried to use the Tasmanian Devil in Tasmania as evidence that animals are just as sick and diseased as humans.
One isolated incident in ONE species means ABSOLUTELY nothing. Tasmanian Devil are one of the most difficult animals to study or view. They are very nocturnal and the cover thousands of miles and never stay put. The article mentioned here by a poster is designed to secure funding for their project. The more glum they can paint the article the more funding they will secure.
You have animals all over in your back yard or your balcony and those animals are evolving and remaining disease free while you are devolving and rotting.
There is no species weaker than the human species. This is because humans are the ONLY animals that rely on "BELIEF". "Belief" is destroying you.
Let me tell you just how superior wild animals are that receive no medical attention or prevention.
They drink water from creeks, ponds, puddles, ditches, rivers, lakes and many other sources, sources teaming with pathogens and parasites that would KILL you. I drink out of the same water sources because I choose to evolve. I eat ALL my meat medium rare to rare because I choose to evolve.
There are zillions of wild animals and links posted by the idiots here picked out one or two animals that were temporarily afflicted by FUNGUS A.K.A cancer.
Without a doubt the Tasmanian devil will survive and become immune to the fungus. One little animal out of zillions is not evidence that man can drink out of streams, creeks, ponds, rivers and ditches LIKE every form of wild life does.
People die from what is known as "cancer" because they are ignorant and misinformed. The American Cancer Society had NEVER published ONE single fact about what is known as "cancer". It is all PURE fiction and that is why you cannot drink from a river or stream. You cannot base your existence on fiction and expect to evolve.
Just About It 3 months ago
Check out this article from Live Science that gives references that wild animals die from cancer at the same rate as humans. http://www.livescience.com/9680-cancer-kills-wild-