reports of beating cancer in a week

First, I have to say "don't get your hopes up."  I have to say that because the last time I mentioned this publicly I had such a massive backlash from people that I was misleading sick people that I deleted all of my posts. 

I present the information I have as purely anecdotal.  Feel free to ignore it.

I have two parts to this.  The first part is about somebody I know.  The second part is about an internet "hoax" that I ran by a guy that did cancer research.

This is the cancer cure from my crazy ex-housemate.  While she is a screwball in many ways, she is somebody I would consider a friend and this is something where I am convinced that she is truly onto something.

She has not only beat cancer herself, but she has several people who
have come to her just weeks from the grave who have beaten cancer in less than a week.

She lives near bridle trails and I would be happy to take you over
there and I suspect that she would be happy to tell you all she knows in person.

So here is the one page that she gave to me, unedited.  I'll post my
comments below:

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


The book to read is "The Cure For All Cancers" by Hulda Regehr, Ph.D., N.D.

Eat Alkaline vs. Acid foods.

Consume Chlorophyll [a good source is Odwalla "SUPERFOOD"] you can get
it at Costco.

Take "Biotin" to lower yeast production.

Take Coenzyme Q 10

Take lots of "Vit. C" [a good source is "Emer-gen-C"] you can find it
at Trader Joe's

Take lots of calcium.

Cancer's "cause" I believe is due to a particular parasite (the
fluke).  This parasite
gives off a growth hormone during one of its growth stages.

The herbal cure that Dr. Hulda Regehr has discovered is:

  1.  Wormwood (liquid extract)
  2.  Black Walnut (liquid extract)
  3.  Red Clover (liquid extract)
  4.  Cloves (whole)
  5.  Dandelion (liquid extract)

These herbs destroy the parasite in each of its growth cycles


//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Okay, that's the whole document.

The alkaline stuff fills a whole book.  Pamela (my previous housemate)
talked at length about eating lots of grapefruit and grapes when she first got started.

In fact, she talks about so many aspects of all this stuff that I can
see how it can fill a book.  But this tiny document is the quick-cookbook "just do this and you'll beat it."

As I've passed this info on to others I've received feedback that this author is a crazy quack and has been in all sorts of trouble with the law for pushing her crazy ideas.  Apparently, there is no explanation for these people to get this parasite.  I'm kinda torn between whether this really is a quack or whether this woman is onto something that is gonna take money away from all the other people making money on people with  cancer.  I even suspect that there is no parasite - but there is something in the combination of herbs that is of great help.  I look at it like this:  we're talking about food and herbs for one week.  Try it.  If you aren't cancer free in a week, then what have you really lost?  So far, I have yet to hear of one person doing this (correctly) for one week that still had cancer at the end of the week.

somebody forwarded me something on cancer.  While I thought it had a lot of good information, I was a bit skeptical and found that on snopes it was discounted as complete crap because it claims to be from Johns Hopkins and Johns Hopkins says it is not.

I got to thinking that it is possible that it did originate from Johns Hopkins, only not through an official channel. Therefore, some could be profound truth and some could be somebody's less-than-endorsed opinion.

I think that a lot of stuff is not advocated because there is nobody to profit from it. And there is a lot of stuff that is advocated mostly because there is profit, and not so much because it is best. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for paying heaps of good money for stuff that is heaps of good - and for folks to get big time rich on their damn good inventions.

Well ... back to cancer ...

I have a friend, Mike, that worked for a long time as a cancer
researcher. So I forwarded to him and asked for feedback.

I submit to you all, FWIW, the original document and Mike's comments:

----

Executive summary: This article is selling Veganism, not cancer
prevention. It uses trueish sounding statements to make
unsubstantiated claims in support of an agenda.

Commentary is inline:

Paul Wheaton wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Snopes says that this is not an official statement from JH. I suspect that that is true, but I wouldn't be surprised if it came, unofficially, from somebody there.
>
> What do you think of it?
>
> AFTER YEARS OF TELLING PEOPLE THAT CHEMOTHERAPY IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRY AND
> ELIMINATE CANCER, JOHNS HOPKINS IS FINALLY STARTING TO TELL YOU THERE IS AN
> ALTERNATIVE WAY .
>
> Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins
>
> 1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show
> up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When
> doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their
> bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the
> cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.
>
> 2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person's
> lifetime.
>
> 3. When the person's immune system is strong the cancer cells will be
> destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.

Good so far...

> 4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional
> deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and
> lifestyle factors.

No. Cancer is the unregulated growth of a cellular subtype. In essence
a cell line has become 'immortalized' such that it ignores apoptotic
regulation, and it masks itself from immunoregulation. The final stage
in a 'healthy' tumor is that it can support anaerobic (oxygen free)
conditions in which the center of the tumor can continue to dundergo
mitosis in an oxygen free and nutrient poor state.

So to say that cancer is the result of nutritional deficiency it seems
true but it is also completely nonsensical. How can you attribute a
nutritional deficiency to a transcription error that removes a
metabolic regulator from proper expression in subsequent generations?
Or what about the metabolic processes that detect and repair natural
O2- genetic damage (a proicess helped by antioxidants, hence their
popularity)?

There are to many natural causes for cancer to solely attribute it to
'nutritional deficiencies'. Cancer is, at the end of the day, a
natural result of cellular division and replication. It is completely
and absolutely unavoidable. That being said, poor nutrition can make
the environment that gives ride to cancerous mutations much more
likely.

> 5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and
> including supplements will strengthen the immune system.

Trueish

> 6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also
> destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastro-intestinal
> tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs
> etc.

Completely accurate. Therefore, Chemotherapy is a part of the 'Dark
Ages' of medicine we are trying to move out of this techniques like
targeted genetic trigging of natural cellular apoptosis in cancerous
cells, or using modified viroids to reintroduce damaged protein
expression which can repair subverted metabolic machinery.

> 7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and damages
> healthy cells, tissues and organs.

True. Again, see above.

> 8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor
> size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in
> more tumor destruction.

Nonsense. The point of chemotherapy and Radiotherapy is that both are
predominately absorbed by cells undergoing rapid cellular mitosis
(hence why you loose your hair). The entire *point* of chemo and
radiotherapy is to not quite kill you.

> 9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation
> the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can
> succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.

See above. The immune system is dependent on random differentiation of
cellular markers to identify invading proteins. Ergo, it is subject to
the same uptake rules as your hair.

> 10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become
> resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to
> spread to other sites.

Both are 'trueish' statements.

> 11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by not
> feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply.

Yes. But again, this misses the 'big picture'.

> WHAT CANCER CELLS FEED ON:
>
> a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one
> important food supply to the cancer cells. Sugar substitutes like
> NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful.
> A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses but only in
> very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it w h i te in
> colour. Better alternative is Bragg's aminos or sea salt.

Sugar powers glycolysis in all cellular mitosis. What is the point of
this statement?

> b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the
> gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and
> substituting with unsweetened soy milk, cancer cells are being starved.

What?! Beyond absolute rubbish.

> c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet
> is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef
> or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and
> parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.

No. Cells which have resistance to low pH environments thrive in low
pH environments. An immortalized cell line with multiple regulatory
mutations is more likely to develop resistance to low pH in subsequent
generations due to accumulating mutations.

> d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains,
> seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline
> environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh
> vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach
> down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of
> healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and
> drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat
> some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at
> temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).

This is good advice in general, although it doesn't really have much
to do with carcinogenesis.

> e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine.
> Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties.
> Water-best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and
> heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.

I am unaware of any studies directly linking caffeine to
carcinogenesis. Purified water lack the natural minerals we need to
survive. Helloooo supplements. Why would distilled water be 'acidic'?
Green tea is suggested to be a 'cancer fighter' because it contains
higher than normal load of antioxidants. No more, no less.

> 12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive
> enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines become putrified and
> leads to more toxic buildup.

Nonsense.

> 13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or
> eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer
> cells and allows the body's killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.

Nonsense.

> 14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence, Essiac,
> anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the body's own
> killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other supplements like vitamin E are
> known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body's normal method
> of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.
>

All true, but again, not relevant from a metabolic standpoint.

> 15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and
> positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger,
> unforgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic
> environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and
> enjoy life.

Trueish. Stress alters your metabolism. I'm not certain how it woul
make your fauna 'acidic' though.

> 16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising
> daily, and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular
> level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.

Nonsense. Some cellular mutations thrive an aerobic rich environments,
as it increases glycolysis.

I can't wait to see how cancer treatments will evolve with new and better therapies. nutrition and treatments that are considered alternative now are sure to be used in mainstream medicine at some point as the wheat is seperated from the chaff. at this point personally make out what is is quackery and what is not is practically impossivle because it is so often a mix with the pseudo scientific evidence becoming homogenized completely with the garbage.. I'll abandon faith completely in the face of potentially terminal illness and along with general good nutrition and supportive therapy will gladly accept what modern science has done as far as the great leaps in cancer treatment. 

There's the scientist pointing out what is quackery and what is not. 

As for all of it standing up to science, my understanding is that there was no profit in doing the double blind studies, so the studies are not done. 

Quackery ....  are you sure? 

Your point about the folks where it didn't work are not alive to tell the tale is a good one.  Of course, people know those folks and are able to tell the tale. 

Leah,

I'm with you on this.  Sort of.  I'm not willing to say "it is quackery" but I am willing to say it could be. 

On the other hand, one week of a change of diet and $200 worth of herbs.  Seems like it isn't gonna make things worse. 

I took this down before because people shamed me into taking it down.  And then I got lots of people that kept asking for it via email. 

I'm going to leave it up this time.  I think your warning is a good one and if somebody reads this stuff, they would need to keep that aspect in mind.  This could be worthless. 

At the same time, I kinda hope that as the months pass somebody will say "I was dying of cancer.  I did this.  Full remission."

Or, maybe somebody will say "I was dying of cancer.  I did this.  No change."

It is possible it is true even though there is no scientific backing.  I also don't know of anything scientific that says it is not true.

I see some serious contradiction. first people say that they drug companies want to make money and they are only in it for profit (often the funding source of the studies) but then you say there is no profit in the double blind studies for this stuff.

i think that if a combination of herbs or nutrition could cure cancer it would be a gold mine!!! the quick fix society isn't going to want to cook this stuff up in their kitchen. they won't even care whats in it! they just want to take a pill. so who wouldn't jump on this stuff from a business perspective?

personal accounts are the least reliable method for determining the effectiveness of a treatment. although they certainly can have their place in shooting science in the right direction sometimes they are no way no how a reason to change your treatment for a terminal or serious illness but maybe to look at other ways you can support your health during it. 

I do however look forward to seeing the results of the pursuit of what are now alternative therapies and watching some new lights come on in the heads of medical proffesionals considering the role good 'ole nutrition and the offerings that the natural world has to it.

paul wheaton wrote:
On the other hand, one week of a change of diet and $200 worth of herbs.  Seems like it isn't gonna make things worse.

For most cancer patients, time is of the essence. It's my understand that the earlier cancer is caught, the more treatable it usually is & the rate of survival is higher.

My father was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer when he was 71. After diagnosis, he lived only 10 days. Unfortunately, the cancer was really advanced. Previous to diagnosis, he didn't realize just how ill he was. He didn't feel that sick.

Granted, a change of diet and 200 bucks worth of herbs probably wouldn't have made it worse, but it wouldn't have done him any good either. The cancer had already spread into other, surrounding major organs. Pancreatic cancer is one of those cancers that is pretty insidious when it begins and it spreads easily. There are many other organs crowded around the pancreas.

Ovarian cancer is another insidious cancer, it's difficult to detect and once it is, time is of the essence.

If I was diagnosed with cancer I would choose modern science/medicine for treatment. As I've mentioned previously, I have problems sleeping. I've tried just about every herbal sleep remedy I can get my hands on. None of them work as well as the prescription I have. I would give anything to find a replacement for this med, but so far, no luck. This alone causes major doubts in my mind regarding herbal remedies as a cancer treatment.

I think the "one week of change of diet and $200 worth of herbs" is being taken the wrong way.

You can still schedule the surgery, get the life-saving medical treatment, a lot of times without even delaying anything at all. Just try this while you're doing/scheduling all the medical stuff, too.

I know folks with horrible eczema. For the vast majority, all it takes to clear it up is to avoid milk products. And I have been told this is lunacy. Strangely, it was common knowledge at the turn of the century, but ever since the germ theory of modern medicine, it's been one steroid or other prescription after another, nothing as simple and effective and inexpensive as avoiding dairy. Only in the last 5-10 years have dermatologists again come around to the dairy issue and will now mention it to their patients. Though for one of my friends, the doctor offered it as a choice: you can go off dairy or use the steroid creme. My friend told me she could not take her son off dairy and so they used non-irritating soaps and the cremes instead.

It is so true that cancer is nothing to mess with. Get the medical help. Just be aware that some things can be tried in conjunction with the medical help that might sound very strange but could make a dramatic difference.

I hope Paul doesn't have to remove this topic by people calling it quackery. Yes it's quite alternative. Yes it's strange. Yes be skeptical. In my experience, eating differently has cured not just eczema, but sinus infections, digestive distress and a whole host of other symptoms; so why not cancer? Plus, the herbs listed are actually quite beneficial and aren't anything to make anyone rich.

Personally, I'd love to hear from folks who have tried it.

I place much emphasis on nutrition but we are worlds away from understanding the intricacies of that. but heck! anecdotal personal accounts are fun to analyze to determine their validity. so.

paul- what is the full story on your freind with cancer? what stage? what specific diagnoses? did she get a second opinion? did she use any standard treatments? maybe we can weedle out wether there is some validity to the treatment?

my sister went through 4 mo of hospitalization at the Karmonos Cancer hospital this fall and winter..the chemo and stem cell transplant nearly killed her..guess that was the point..but she said she would rather die than go through all that again..and I believe her.

i guess trying to eat better might be a good start..and getting plenty of exercise..as my sister was a very picky no vegetable eater and wasn't much into exercise..

Brenda, since you've mentioned it, what kind of cancer did your sister have? Did they find it early? (You don't have to answer me, I understand the personal nature of details.)

I don't think anyone disputes that current cancer treatments are really hard on people and everyone has their own level of what they can take physically. Certainly, a person's physical & mental condition at the onset of cancer has a great bearing on how well they handle the surgery/therapy.

I had a hysterectomy in 2000, but not because of cancer. I had fibroids that were making my life miserable. I WANTED a hyst. & I begged for it. I had to jump through a lot of (HMO) hoops to get it. Did a lot of research. Some of the info that's out there regarding this surgery is overly frightening and blown out of proportion (on certain websites, particularly), but I took it with a grain of salt. I had my mother's experience with it to relate to. She had a hyst at age 32 in 1962. Piece of cake, no probs for her at all. She is 79 at the end of June.

I consider myself to be a "poster child" for a happy hysterectomy. I'd do it all again in a heartbeat if I could. It was the best thing I've ever done for myself. I had a positive attitude about it from the git-go, wasn't apprehensive in the least and it worked for me. My point here is I didn't let the horror stories stop me, nor did I look for alternatives, I wouldn't consider them. I wanted as clean a break possible from the problems; my surgery was the best choice. I gleaned research from matter-of-fact, unemotional, science oriented sources. Got rid of that dang uterus and never looked back! Woo hoo!

Brenda, you didn't mention how your sister is doing now. I sincerely hope she is making a full recovery/remission and all the misery she went thru will be worth it.

No one would dispute that a good diet and exercise is key to a healthier life...period. It's never too late to change, but I think the best case scenario is to eat healthy and stay active from early on. Parents who do their level best to instill these habits (early) in their children are right on target.

Unfortunately, once cancerous tumors are present and growing/spreading, all the best veggies in the world and exercise probably won't stop aggressive tumor growth in most people; particularly people (myself included) who haven't led the healthiest of lifestyles for most of their lives. I've become overweight and more sedentary than active. I didn't used to be this way. I kept my ovaries and am now menopausal, which just plain sucks. I know I desperately need to change my lifestyle, or I will likely pay for it later.

Yes, I think this is something that a person would probably do simultaneously to the conventional techniques. 

The story of my housemate went like this.  She felt awful.  She went to the doctor.  She was diagnosed with colon cancer.  She got her surgery scheduled and then went to see the "alternative" doctor who set her up with herbs and eating lots of grapefruit (including the seeds).  A few days later she felt fine.  She never had the surgery.  She never had chemo.  She has eaten an alkaline diet ever since and has never had cancer again.  It's been something like 20+ years. 

And then another woman came to our house.  It was the first time either of us had met her.  My roommate told her story and the other woman had the same story but with a different type of cancer.  Herbs, alkaline diet, cancel the surgery, cancel the chemo. 

And then there were three other people that came to my roommates house with cancer and, apparently, left a week later without cancer.    Apparently, one person arrived in a wheelchair unable to walk and six days later went out for a night of dancing. 

This is the limits of my knowledge down this road. 

I simply share what little I know, and folks can run with it or flush it down the toilet as they see fit. 

i think that if a combination of herbs or nutrition could cure cancer it would be a gold mine!!!

Only if you could patent it.  And since it is a bunch of food and herbs, you cannot patent that.

And wouldn't you need to get some sort of government seal of approval?

I'd like to comment that an alkaline diet is far more of a total diet change than just eating veggies. Most carbs (breads, crackers, etc.) and sugary foods are acid-producing. As are milk products and a lot of meats. The typical American diet is HUGELY acid producing!

The herbs for this remedy could be quite potent, too. It's true that generally, you can't patent herbs, or diets, which is why, like eczema treatments, these simpler, more cost effective, and sometimes more effective methods stay unknown. There is the problem, that without a patent, one could be buying herbs with poor/varying quality or potency. Natural health care practitioners know the brands that are standardized--guaranteed to contain the listed levels of the active compounds. Find the good brands available near you. Plus, there are those wacky doctors and patients who keep on trying alternatives when it is past time for them to use surgery or prescription medication. Those radicals give the natural route a bad rap.

Gwen, I'm so sorry to hear about your father's cancer, and Brenda, your sister's, too. I think most of us have had a friend or relative with cancer. It is insidious, awful and dangerous.

As for me, I try the alternatives first, and would do so with cancer, too (or at least in conjunction, depending on the situation). Then, if that doesn't work, I'm thrilled we have modern medicine that can do so many amazing things these days. We are very, very lucky to have options. No one option fits for everyone, or even works for everyone.

There are some Native American tribes who had zero cancer. We don't even question nowadays why that is, or how that was. It was their diet, and we'd all be a bit better off to learn more about it.

Cancer is very curable, and it's not cured by poisoning the body with such quackery as chemotherapy, which the main compound used was developed by the Nazi's for chemical warfare, and it now the primary component in chemotherapy. Yikes!

That just can't be good.

This article from a few weeks back is pretty telling... poision...err... I mean chemo forced upon someone at the point of a gun. It's sad that it's come to this.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/21/minnesota.forced.chemo/index.html

I think there is a lot to what we eat and illness.

For some interesting reading on that subject try:
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html
Look at the books in the soil and health section right at the beginning.

All these books are available online and most of them are free to download.

If you have never been to this site, it has a lot of great info for folks looking at breaking away from the "normal" lifestyle.

Especially read the book "Fertility Farming" by Newman Turner, also found on the page the above link takes you to.  In that book he discusses the methods he used to treat his animals of diseases such as tuberculosis, and how he took a run down farm that produced literally nothing and made it into a great producer again, using all natural methods. 
Great reading. 
As health care continue to rise fewer people can afford it, maybe this sort  of thing can help at least a few people.

I should have posted this sooner.

I spent halloween visiting friends.  A couple.  The fella told me about how he had a growth appear on his forehead.  Somebody pointed it out to him and said it was most certainly cancer.    The same person said to look into this black goo - it apparently beats skin cancer.

My friend tried it and the cancer-looking thing shriveled up and fell off. 

Later I wrote to him and asked what it is called.  He said "black salve, from Herbal Plus."  He also said that they make pills for other kinds of cancer.

Please note that there are myriad varieties of cancer.  Talking about "a cure for cancer" is about the same as talking about "a cure for virus (sic)" or "a solution to the energy crisis": it is always an over-simplification. There are quick and safe cures for some cancers, and others have frustrated generations of physicians.

I agree that being healthier overall, especially one's attitude on life, makes a huge difference in risk for many diseases, including some varieties of cancer. But the topic is extremely complicated. 

I read as much as I could stomach of one of Hulda's cancer books, this one published under the name Clark.  It took a basic technology (the radio) with complicated science that scares most people, and applied it to a frightening problem that is extremely complicated (cancer), and reported that the whole problem was solved.  Its interpretation of that process was highly suspect for two or three reasons.

Her concept of what is going on is not self-consistent, and perhaps more importantly, her experimental methods are explicitly limited to confirmation only by techniques she has developed herself. 

The third reason I find the book suspect is that her claims are nonsensical from the perspective of any of the three disciplines that apply to her work (electromagnetic waves, oncology, parasitology), but of course contradicting the consensus of experts doesn't always make a person wrong. I would be willing to overlook this if it were the only problem.

I think the most important thing about her accounts of research is that she has consistently and vigorously avoided independent verification of her findings. Most of her claims would be extremely easy to test by means other than those she has developed.

For example, she claims that each species emits its own characteristic frequency of radio wave. Any university, most large high schools, and a significant minority of electronics hobbyists have the equipment and expertise to independently verify this claim, but she does not report any effort at independent verification.

You could say that she had some unique combination of equipment and skill that allowed her to obtain results that no one else could, but she could share this technology if it existed, and I am entirely convinced that she has no unique expertise.  A friend and former colleague of mine was on a team that built the world's least-noisy radio reciever to search for dark matter.  A significant part of the experiment was identifying and tuning out all explainable signals: cell phones, AM and FM and shortwave broadcasting, sattelite transmissions, the 60 hz signal from the US power grid, etc.  There was nothing much left. If Hulda's theory were correct, there would have been a signal from the operator whenever he entered the room, and another from each strain of lactobacilli and e. coli on his skin and in his gut; the lactobacilli in his fingerprints would keep emitting after he left the room.  There would have been anomalous signals from dust mites, and from worms burrowing in the soil overhead.  No such signals were observed.  They would have been published as evidence of dark matter, of course...but I digress.

An example of internally inconsistent logic: The book claims that pulses of radio waves applied to the body using electrodes kill the parasites responsible (in her opinion) for cancer.  Unfortunately, says she, the parasites have parasites of their own, which burrow out of the dead bodies after treatment: the treatment doesn't penetrate through the outer parasites, and so to get three or four layers down, you need repeated treatments at particular intervals. She is right to notice that living things are electrically conductive, and this conductivity can shield the contents of a living thing from some sorts of electromagnetic radiation, but how does she imagine waves reach inside of a person, if they can't reach inside of a notional fluke?

The stuff on herbs was not the focus of the edition I read.  The book I saw centered on radio waves that cannot penetrate a living thing, zapping histology-proof parasites within a living thing. 

I wonder if it is a coincidence that the name she published under changed, as well as the content of her foolproof method against all cancers.

Edit: cleared up some typos and clarified some wording.  I also found this:

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clark.html

Which reports:

"On September 3, 2009, [Hulda Regehr] Clark died of complications of multiple myeloma."

'Nuff said.

I agree:  my spidey sense says that that book is most likely a big pile of horse potatoes.  And that same spidey sense says that the herbs + alkaline diet is probably a pretty good general solution despite the book/author.  Perhaps the author stumbled onto the remedy and made up a big bunch of crazy to explain it. 

The anecdotal evidence is compelling.  It would be worthy of further study except that there isn't anybody to get rich from it, so there probably isn't gonna be a study.

I would be interested to know what you make of this, Paul.

http://www.healthfreedom.info/Cancer%20Essiac.htm

Cyara wrote:
I would be interested to know what you make of this, Paul.

http://www.healthfreedom.info/Cancer%20Essiac.htm

Well, I've never struggled with cancer personally.  And I'm certainly not a doctor.  But!  I do think that if I had cancer, and I was told that surgery would be in a week followed by lots of chemo, I would definitely re-read all of this stuff, switch my diet and probably take these herbs.  And if the day before surgery I felt WAY better, I think I would ask for a new biopsy in the hopes that they would say "oh hey - it looks like all the cancer went away."

I agree.

A postcard that came in my mail

The thing that really wrenches my gut:  How many hundreds of millions of people have channeled their money, effort and promotion into the little pink ribbons that ended up going to this?

Joel Hollingsworth wrote:
Please note that there are myriad varieties of cancer.  Talking about "a cure for cancer" is about the same as talking about "a cure for virus (sic)" or "a solution to the energy crisis": it is always an over-simplification. There are quick and safe cures for some cancers, and others have frustrated generations of physicians.

Couldn't agree more.  I get irritated by stories of "I cured cancer doing this or that diet," because of the lack of specifics.  Lymphoma alone has 40 different varieties.  Many cancers are easily removed with surgery.  Others may be effectively treated with diet and herbs.  Some slow-growing cancers may not need to be treated at all.  Some fast-growing cancers may be effectively treated with chemo.  A one-size fits all approach is doomed to failure. 

Cancers should not all be lumped together.

The best part of this "cure" is, if you still have cancer at the end of your treatment, you've only lost a week.  If it took 6 weeks it might be too late for proven therapies to be effective.

I'm with whoever sent that postcard to paul wheaton: the trick to ending cancer is to stop causing it.  I'm sure cancer existed prior to the widespread poisoning that industrial civilization has foisted on us, but I would bet my shiniest penny there was an awful lot less of it.

of course, knowing that doesn't make anybody's cancer go away.

another taboo subject: HIV and AIDS.  I've read a couple of articles that suggest an HIV-positive diagnosis has as much to do with your personal history interview and questionnaire as it does with antibody levels.  I read another article that stated vitamin A supplements and improving diet were much more effective than any pharmaceuticals for treating AIDS in African subjects.  these articles could be patently false or out of date or contain only a kernel of truth, but they raise important questions about the nature of epidemics and public health and who stands to benefit.

A lot of people poo-poo many of the alternative cancer treatments. If you were to do some research many of the "new" alternatives were mainstream  before big pharma came along. The reason pharmas don't jump on the more naturals cures and therapy is money, they can't get patient on them. Black salve is a big one but it is made of all natural stuff. It was used for centuries as a drawing agent for tumors. Pharma can't money off of it so they do everything they can to turn people from it. I'll you that there is a lot of quackery out there and it is hard to winnow it out. The best way is to follow the money, who backed the study. I'll bet the reason there is no money in double blind studies is they are hard if not impossible to focus the out come. Pharmas push their own studies just like any other business.
If I found out I had cancer I would look for a good MD. ND. who specialized in natural methods including diet.

my feelings are that cancer can be promoted under circumstances of poor nutrition AND by exposure to noxious chemicals
we all owe it to ourselves and our fellow humans to put ourselves individually in a position where, should we be diagnosed, our diet does not change since we have been so aware of its importance forever, that a change could not be an improvement
and not expose ourselves or any other living being to noxious chemicals

friends die from sprays, friends children die from other peoples sprays, farmers squirt deadly poisons on to cattle.... and we all should take a really close look at what is happening to food flavours and fragrances and how the promoters are blasting their shit into the food supplies of the world (google IFF) eventually to replace food itself (see mango)

The reports of people beating cancer with natural methods are too numerous to ignore.  The thing is, most of them embarked on a program that most people would find prohibitively intensive, a program that would require total dedication for hours a day every day, doing things like making fresh juices, exercising, brewing herb teas multiple times a day, alternating hot/cold therapy, and so on.  I would argue, a course of treatment far less troubling than the average round of chemo with it's pain, nausea, mouth ulcers, weight loss, and hair-loss caused by deliberately poisoning oneself, but without a strong belief in oneself and some serious research to back it, I can see how it would be daunting to consider such an effort.  The other thing to keep in mind is that the AMA and the FDA are extremely sensitive about the topic of cancer, moreso than almost anything else, and it is highly illegal to claim to have a cure for cancer that is not the traditional and approved surgery, radiation or chemotherapy.  People have reportedly been thrown in jail with multi-million dollar cash bails for doing so.  And for that reason, no self-respecting licensed doctor is going to verify a home-baked cure even when it walks into his office, either.  So natural cures are of course difficult to verify!  Most MDs won't even ask what you did for fear of the responsibility of having that knowledge under such a legal climate, a common response seems to be "whatever you did, keep doing it", and in the official records, it's called "spontaneous remission".  Which is to say, we're on our own where natural remedies are concerned, for the foreseeable future.

Long time lurker, and this is my first time post.  I have read several books by Joanna Budwig.  http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/budwig_protocol.html
She was nominated 7 times (I think) for the Nobel prize in medicine, but never received one. In one of her books she describes being visited by people that worked for big Pharma in the US.  As soon as they found out that there was nothing patentable about her treatments, they completely lost interest.  Her protocol is similar to some of what has been mentioned above, with a key ingredient being a mixture of flax seed oil and quark.  In her books she goes into detail about the medical reasons that it works.  She also had great faith in the benefits of sunlight.  We try and take the mixture a couple of times a week, substituting yogurt for quark. 
Best hopes,
Ed

This is us: http://luckydogfarm.wordpress.com/

Below I've posted a link which should be of interest.  This is only one of many.

I am an administrator of an online cancer support group.  As with any forum, including this one, we've had debates.  One of the main sticking points of ours is the natural cure industry which purports to have the cure for cancers.  Imo, nowhere is the need for scientifically based and proven treatment and cures more important than in the field of cancer.

Because of the confusion brought into the debate by natural, alternative remedies/therapies, diet, etc., we have a policy in place that prohibits the discussion of any therapy other than scientifically proven, medically accepted treatment.

We have had members abandon medical treatment in the past, turning to these alternatives, mostly when at the last stages of disease.  Most have died.  We've had others use it as an adjunctive and have said it worked, although no supporting evidence could be provided.

I am not offering this to engage in a one on one debate.  I have done that in the past, enraging members who were true believers in alternatives.  I did at one time believe natural/alternatives held hope for a cure.  I no longer believe that after attending a workshop at the National Institutes of Health, seeing dedicated physicians, pathologists and researchers working countless hours in search of the best treatments, and cures.  Yes, there is a monetary incentive for the medical community, but there is also tremendous amounts of time, energy, education and personal sacrifice they have invested in their field.  No, there is not a conspiracy to keep natural, unpatentable natural cures out of the public's hands.  There is no magic bullet hidden away in some vault either.  Someone would have let the cat out of the bag if that were so.  Too many people involved to keep that big a secret.

I am not a doctor, nor do I posses any special knowledge of medicine.  I am open minded and would readily accept any cancer treatment which could be scientifically proven through rigorous and accredited testing.

http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/altseek.html


Respectfully,
Al Loria

Ed wrote:
Long time lurker, and this is my first time post.  I have read several books by Joanna Budwig.  http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/budwig_protocol.html
She was nominated 7 times (I think) for the Nobel prize in medicine, but never received one.

Nobel nominations are not disclosed.  Perhaps it was the alternative Nobel although just about anyone can nominate anyone.

I recently watched an excellent documentary titled "The Beautiful Truth" (available through Netflix) that examined Dr. Gerson's cancer protocol.  It was quite a compelling film that convinced me that the best thing to fight cancer is to help the immune system.  I was told of an unusual cancer treatment by a close friend who was diagnosed with cancer 14 years ago.  It took me two years to try his treatment (it actually will fix any autoimmune disease) and it did indeed cure me of chronic dermatitis that had been plaguing me for 40 years.  I'm now a recovered cortisone addict.  If anyone is interested in the cure my friend shared with me:  http://billyandanuttama.wordpress.com/the-cure-for-autoimmune-diseases/

The cure is free and only takes about 5 seconds a day, but when you read it you may wish that I were pushing an herbal remedy.

Paul, you mentioned skin cancer. Here is a good cure! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPm0Jq9bj98

About cancer in general and how to cure it. My father has it, but unable to change habits. Anyway, curing is easy done with raw food. We all got better, but now father is again on old track of eating. And yes, as many agreed, it's really most part about the food. Not only what to eat, much more important is how to eat. And faith. If you know that body is self healing organism you will heal much faster. As family, we read a lot, and acidic environment is really not our best friend. Cooked food is acidic for our bodies. What to eat? It depends where you are. Here we have lots of green stuff, abundance in spring. + Most of it pure cure, if not processed. Fasting on water, good water, is the ultimate healer. It says in the article, to not feed cancer cells. Let water be your friend, and maybe some grapefruit or some other fruit where grapefruit doesn't grow.

Beside our own studying, there are people we know, who also cured themselves with raw food. Or fasting. But it's essential that you live on what your body thrives on or you will get sick again. It thrives on what you've been healed with. If you give yourself what you need for 7 years you will have completely new healthy body.  Every single cell in a body change in 7 years. While results of healing show up really fast, in a week.

Let thy Food be thy Medicine and thy Medicine be thy Food. Hippocrates

Lemon grass

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_grass
In 2006, a research team from the Ben Gurion University in Israel found that lemon grass (Cymbopogon citratus) caused apoptosis (programmed cell death) in cancer cells. Through in vitro studies, the researchers examined the effect of citral, a molecule found in lemon grass, on both normal and cancerous cells. Using concentrations of citral equivalent to the quantity in a cup of tea (one gram of lemon grass in hot water), the researchers observed that citral induces programmed cell death in the cancerous cells, while the normal cells were left unharmed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15931590

FWIW This past year I found out I had a liposarcoma tumor in my leg.  It had been there for a minimum of 5 years and I just thought it was a bump maybe scar tissue from repetative injury.  While I have not done a vegan diet, I ate a very fresh, local, and organically raised diet for the past 10+ years.  I do not know how long the tumor was in my leg as it likely originated near the bone where it was largest, but I am positive about it being there for at least 5 years.  The doctors were very surprised by this, but didn't spend too much time talking about in my presence.  I did end up going through localized radiation and surgical removal.  It was a hard decision for me, but I had been eating a really good diet for years and while I never got worse per se it didn't go away either.

Essiac  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essiac   A friend lent me a book and by the middle of the book it all turned to documentation; letters from Medical Organizations, Gov Agencies (Canadian), etc...  I found it credible due to the documentation.

I went to my doctor once because I had a burning pain in the corner of my gut. It had been there for a couple weeks. Never had anything like it. Etc. When I described my symptoms to my doctor, her face turned white. She said the only thing that she knew that could cause those symptoms was colon cancer, and she wanted me to have a test that day. I said "Wait a minute." I told her about a supplement I had been taking that contained capsaicin. It was a garlic/capsaicin combo that I had purchased because I couldn't find the plain garlic. Could taking a lot of that cause these symptoms? She actually sighed with relief when she heard what I said and said yes. She said capsaicin was like stripmining your innards. She didn't make me go for the test. I quit taking the stuff, and the symptoms went away in a few days. It taught me a lesson about supplements. I still take garlic, but nothing else.

Black salve would work on the kind of skin tumor that's caused by too much sun exposure and makes for a kind of rough skin patch. Thing is that black salve works by eating off the skin. It contains bloodroot sap, which is highly corrosive. Personally, although I use herbs medicinally, I would never use black salve for anything. Nor would I try the 1-week cure using wormwood, clove, and whatnot. I do believe that everyone is walking around with parasites, but as a cause for cancer? If that were true, people would have been dropping dead of cancer in the distant past, and they mostly weren't. IMO, cancer is a combo of viruses and toxicity from the environment, esp. from endocrine disruptors, which are ubiquitous. But I am no medical researcher.

Even though it's true that allopathic medicine is dominated by big pharma, we had another type of medicine prior to the 1930s called Eclectic Medicine, a combination of European experimental methods and Native American herb knowledge. If there were any herbal treatment of note for cancer, they would have written about it. But nothing in their literature mentions any cures for cancer. You can look at their dispensary here:

http://www.henriettesherbal.com/eclectic/kings/index.html

It's helpful for learning about herbs but I always take it with a grain of salt. Their treatments tend to be a bit rough on the body.

I also do not believe that single herbs being non-patentable would prevent big pharma from researching an herbal treatment. They don't need to patent the herb. They can patent the preparation and/or delivery method or combination of herbs. I do think they are enamored of their tanks of bacteria producing stuff. But they are not ignoring herbs. Look at how they have patented rainforest plants. If something was out there, they would be on it like white on rice. You would not be able to buy wormwood seeds to save your life.

paul wheaton wrote:
Cancer's "cause" I believe is due to a particular parasite (the
fluke).  This parasite
gives off a growth hormone during one of its growth stages.

There are many causes of cancer. Viruses, genetic mutations, certain types of irritants or harmful chemicals, toxins/poisons, or simply due to chance, etc. Many, many possible causes. But flukes are generally not one of them.

T

maikeru wrote:
There are many causes of cancer. Viruses, genetic mutations, certain types of irritants or harmful chemicals, toxins/poisons, or simply due to chance, etc. Many, many possible causes. But flukes are generally not one of them.

That's my belief too. But.. I believe that not only are there many causes of cancer, but that each cancer has many causes. Every one of us has cancerous cells in our body at any instant, only rarely does on of these cells go on to proliferate and cause problems. Some people get cancer, some people don't. Some people die from cancers that are highly treatable, others survive cancers with low survival rate. Some cancers go into spontaneous remission, others disappear. Why? I've known people who were as fit as possible, who ended up with cancer, while others who were at the other other end of the spectrum, don't.

Took me a long time to realize that fitness does not equate with health.
Finally came to the conclusion that all cancers are multifactoral, usually with one main primary cause, but supported by other conditions, stress, diet, weak immune system, attitude, etc.