Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Independent Cancer Research Foundation (ICRF) website lists 400 cancer cures and tells which treatments are best for various types and stages of cancer. They're URL is cancertutor.com/ They have thousands of pages people can copy.
They get their info from doctors & patients around the world about what has worked for them. Some treatments listed are DIY. A doctor in another country may help when something goes wrong, with e-mail & phone call help available 24/7, for a fee. Some routes to a cure may require travel to places in US or another country.
Some of the info is available in books on Amazon, most highly rated and reviews include info their cancer was cured by a method in the book. Search under books for Bill Henderson.
Some treatments are very expensive, but for those who can't afford them, they list dirt-cheap protocols.
This is a unique website as it was not a group of doctors who started it. It was founded by Bill Henderson after he lost his wife to cancer and decided to spend the rest of his life helping cure cancers. He even got his webmaster working fulltime with him.
Cannabis oil has proven very effective treatment/cure with high dose like a gram a day for 90 days. It's still illegal in many places. Works on most cancers, even at stage 4, with over 90% cure if there isn't serious damage to an organ. There's videos on You Tube like Rick Simpson's "Run From The Cure" & numerous studies quoted, plus films from many of the top experts in cannabis research. Best wishes, all!
While I agree with your assessment of quack medecine, I think you have an anti marijuana bias that is not warranted. The articles you quoted on possible increase of cancer tumors from cannabis in 2004 were conducted in petri dishes, not in human subjects. There's no evidence in humans that cannabis is toxic for cancer patients, but it's well known that chemo is toxic.
P.S. I'm not saying that I have found any convincing evidence that cannabis cures cancer, but I have not found any evidence that it does harm either. There is lots of evidence that cannabis has helped people with the side effects of chemo like nausea, lack of appetite and pain, as well as new evidence that it may help some with Parkinsons tremors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobspez
While I agree with your assessment of quack medecine, I think you have an anti marijuana bias that is not warranted. The articles you quoted on possible increase of cancer tumors from cannabis in 2004 were conducted in petri dishes, not in human subjects. There's no evidence in humans that cannabis is toxic for cancer patients, but it's well known that chemo is toxic.
And this is just a guess, but my guess is that most alternative cancer treatments are just ways to get money from desperate patients.
Coretta King was desperate after all the pharma treatments failed, and then she went to Mx and it was too late. Wonder how many would do the opposite and come out better.
Steve McQueen went to Mexico for a last ditch treatment with the same result. A guy I knew at work tried laetril when his chemo failed, and he died anyway. Once all the approved medical treatments fail, it's likely that barring a miracle, you are going to die. Bob Marley and Farah Fawcett also tried alternate treatments in Europe and failed.
I saw an interesting documentary on PBS a number of years ago about 6 people who experienced spontaneous remissions from cancer. They had been through all the medical treatments and were told to get their affairs in order, and nothing else could be done for them. Of course these are one in a million incidents, but all six had verified spontaneous remissions and became cancer free for no apparent reason. One of the people said he decided to spend all his money on the best cigars, the best liquor, the best vacations, etc. until he died. Amzingly after doing this for close to a year he had a spontaneous remission. Another person with end stage melanoma was washing their face and the melanomas just began falling off and all traces of the cancer disappeared over a period of weeks and never returned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaminhealth
Coretta King was desperate after all the pharma treatments failed, and then she went to Mx and it was too late. Wonder how many would do the opposite and come out better.
In my experience, doctors are upfront with what can and can not be expected with chemo and other treatments for cancer. They are optimistic when the outlook is good, and they don't sugar coat when it is not so good. I've been through this both myself when I had breast cancer, and with my father-in-law (I went to his first oncology appointment and heard what the doctor had to say). But doctors can only present facts and recommend, not force.
The wild card is the patient. Some patients absolutely insist on being treated even though the treatment will likely be ineffective and reduce their quality of life. I witnessed this with a friend's father who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer at a very late stage. He demanded chemo even though the doctor told him it was almost 100% sure not to help, and his wife was also against it. He really wanted to try it regardless. So they gave it to him, and it made him worse. He died three months later.
But on the other hand are the patients who have something curable and/or treatable and refuse treatment. A family friend was diagnosed with breast cancer that had a good chance of being cured, or at least suppressed for an extended time, with surgery and chemo. She refused both. Surgery would leave her disfigured and chemo would destroy her immune system, she claimed. She went to a clinic in Mexico, came back nine months later with the tumor larger than ever, and finally consented to the mastectomy--too late. The cancer had spread and she died a short time later.
I can say as a cancer survivor that I believe people have the absolute right to make their own choices about their care, even though I sometimes think that I would have made a different choice and wish they would have, too. I have less patience with people have no personal experience, but who loudly proclaim what they "think" they would do if they got cancer.
Just yesterday I had a conversation with a woman about my age who knows someone with an advanced brain tumor. She's seen this person become debilitated, and conventional treatment has not helped. After sharing this sad story, she told me, "I don't believe in chemo. I've seen what it did to my friend. If I had cancer, I would NOT treat it. I would just accept God's will and enjoy as much time as I had left." She was silent when I told her that I had surgery and chemo for my cancer, and so did my father-in-law, and we both went into complete remission. My father had surgery and chemo for colon cancer 15 years ago, and is alive and well at the age of 93. I could go on and on with stories like these.
Now, if I had an advanced brain tumor that everyone agreed was untreatable, would I attempt to treat it? Probably not. But that fact isn't going to cause me to make blanket statements about how conventional treatments just don't help anyone, but just poison the patient and line the doctor's pocket. It is not true, and it hurt me to think that many people have been duped by this idea and have died of some cancer that could have been treated effectively.
I can say as a cancer survivor that I believe people have the absolute right to make their own choices about their care, even though I sometimes think that I would have made a different choice and wish they would have, too. I have less patience with people have no personal experience, but who loudly proclaim what they "think" they would do if they got cancer.
Just yesterday I had a conversation with a woman about my age who knows someone with an advanced brain tumor. She's seen this person become debilitated, and conventional treatment has not helped. After sharing this sad story, she told me, "I don't believe in chemo. I've seen what it did to my friend. If I had cancer, I would NOT treat it. I would just accept God's will and enjoy as much time as I had left." She was silent when I told her that I had surgery and chemo for my cancer, and so did my father-in-law, and we both went into complete remission. My father had surgery and chemo for colon cancer 15 years ago, and is alive and well at the age of 93. I could go on and on with stories like these.
Those people baffle me. I would have died a long, painful, drawn out death before my 25th birthday if I had just "accepted G-d's will." My belief is that if it was G-d's will that we die of these diseases that there would be no such things as oncologists!
Those people baffle me. I would have died a long, painful, drawn out death before my 25th birthday if I had just "accepted G-d's will." My belief is that if it was G-d's will that we die of these diseases that there would be no such things as oncologists!
Those people baffle me. I would have died a long, painful, drawn out death before my 25th birthday if I had just "accepted G-d's will." My belief is that if it was G-d's will that we die of these diseases that there would be no such things as oncologists!
Exactly. Science is not evil and vile, like some make it out to me. Medicine is the same. I'm glad that it all worked. It is sobering when you see someone pass from the same disease I had. There's no way I'd roll over and take it laying down.
I think it's all very confusing. First of all, medical science does not have a good understanding of cancer, or the various diseases that we call cancer. So they have no treatments that correct what actually is the cause, since the cause is not really understood.
It is very hard to tell how often cancer is cured. When it's caught very early, it often seems to be cured, but there is no way of knowing if it really was cancer. Having some cancer cells is normal, everyone has them, but most are controlled or destroyed by the immune system.
When they find very early cancer from a mammogram, for example, it might be harmless. They remove it, or destroy it with chemo, and the patient is fine. So it counts as a cure, but no one knows if the patient really had cancer or not.
There is just no good way to know.
Childhood leukemia is unusual in that they have found ways to cure it. But for most types of cancer, if they are aggressive and not localized, there is no good treatment.
They still give chemo anyway, because it can extend life. But it makes people very sick.
So I think, for most types of cancer, if they are really cancer, there is still no answer.
Haven't you heard of biopsies? Breasts are not removed or lumpectomies done without a biopsy. That's how they know if it's cancer or not. No Dr is going to treat what they suspect is cancer without a biopsy and CT, PT or MRI scans. I had chemo for 6 months. It doesn't make everyone very sick. Not everyone loses their hair. That's a fallacy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
