Posted on 01/04/2016 12:40:51 AM PST by LibWhacker
but I have nice feathers!
The cure for some cancers is already here.
Apoptosis occurs in all cells. How do you direct it to occur only in cancer cells?
For all intents and purposes, there are cures. There are both targeted treatments and immune-oncology treatments for some types of cancers today. These types of treatments cause tumors and cancers to shrink and disappear. To me, that's as good as a cure.
Cancerous cells have an enzyme that releases the cyanide in B17 which kills the cancer cell. Healthy cells do not contain this enzyme and are thus not harmed by B17.
Treatments to me are not cures when it comes to he more tenacious cancer problems. Treatments That is what the whole cancer field seems to be into because of a lack of any real cures.
You can shrink cancers with radiation and some treatments like poisoning people with chemotherapy will work, but to me a cure means making something go away without working a hardship on the person.
If you have cancer in your leg below your knee, or below your elbow I can eliminate that for you .(with an axe or saw)
But I would not consider it a cure. Although you would be cancer free.
Until they can get the immune system to do its job against cancer we haven't a cure yet . IMHO. - Tom
apoptosis is the death of abnormal cells; that’s what you ultimately want. abnormal cells in mineral deficient people flourish, they don’t die.
There are newer treatments, targeted monoclonal antibodies, as well as immunotherapies on the market today, that do not pose near the hardships on cancer patients that previous chemo-therapies posed.
I think your definition of "cure" is a bit of a high standard. For many diseases and medical conditions, there are degrees of "hardships" on the patient. Antibiotics can be cures for various infections, but the patient may have to deal with a rash, nausea or a dry mouth. Does that mean that antibiotics aren't cures?
For all medicines, there is a trade-off between a temporary side effect, and a longer-term outcome. When doctors prescribe medication, they weigh the side-effect with the long-term result. If you had some insidious cancer or infection of a limb, you might very well indeed take an amputation over a sure death.
As a cancer patient, I deal with the side-effects of my treatment because they have minimal impact on me, but the overall result is that I can still live for a long time with my friends and loved ones, and do the things that I enjoy. To me, that's a pretty good trade-off.
The only reason I am alive is because of cancer radiation and cancer surgeries done on me by good doctors on different types if cancers.
But those are TREATMENTS not cures.
I am only pointing out that after decades of research, billons of dollars spent and the best minds on the planet working to find a cure for cancer the bottom line is:
They don't know what causes it, except in a few types.
. .They don't know how to prevent it and
They don't know how to cure it.
It's all about exotic treatments at this stage. And they are getting good at that.
I am aware there are many types of cancer, but I am referring to the cancers that are fatal and no solution seems to be found yet except on how to treat them, after all the time and money and effort competent people have put into this.-Tom
That said, I think you do yourself and others a disservice when you refer to cancer in the singular. There are many types of cancers; as you pointed out, they do know what causes some kinds of cancer. Some cancers are theoretically preventable. There are many variables; e.g., genetics, environment, that play a role in oncogenesis. The number of permutations has to be enormous.
We are making progress, and much of that progress has come in the past decade or two--quantum leaps over where we were with the first chemotherapies in the 1950's. Some cancers do seem to remain death sentences however, but I see no point in throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Just because we haven't made progress against all, doesn't mean we haven't made progress against many.
We'll have to agree to disagree about the treatment vs. "cure" debate. I think it is a matter of context and relevance. If a former cancer patient is in remission long enough, I think they feel that an effective "cure" has been obtained.
How about this stuff....as opposed to lodoral? Less expensive, seems organic, etc....just wondering (btw, I did order some lidoral). I’m probably going to have to come back and thank y’all....I ended up with Hashis a couple years ago...and just realized it was AFTER I quit taking IODINE!
http://www.lifeextension.com/search#q=iodine&sort=relevancy&f:@fhierarchicalcategory22137=[products]
there you go!
that product looks good to me. I know Iodoral is more pricey but I keep coming back to it after trying other products. I’ve done IodoRx and LugoTabs as well. Both good but I like Iodoral.
The thing with Hashis is you have to take 50-100 mg/day. so you’ll take 4-8 of the 12.5mg product. You also have to take selenium when you supp with iodine. Viva Labs has a good one but there’s a few out there.
And...when on the iodine protocol, as a reminder, take mag glycinate, salt and vit C
I already take all that other stuff...:*)
And my hashi numbers have gone down
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.