Talk Cancer

Question:

A body that is sick cannot be made well by the ingestion of poisonous drugs called medicines.

$$$  So what fruit should they take for their pneumonia?  Their impacted wisdom teeth? The idea is patently absurd.

$$$ What veggie in place of a diabetics insulin? What fruit for a person suffering from acid reflux? If you believe in this idea, you may as well take strychnine when you get sick.

$$$ Which Casket Co. do you own?  Which Funeral Parlor chain? Try it and then see if you believe that ingesting poisons can improve the health of body cells.

$$$  Which veggie or green is for birth control?  If you still believe it, then go ahead and continue to accept the prescriptions of the allopathic witch-doctors.

$$$  So you’re telling us to STOP all meds and DIE so you can profit by all the deaths? — Carol……. Notice: Innocent victims of alt’s and Quacks are seen as "BRAINLESS" according to an alt.health salesperson  selling magnets to the gullible here on Usenet.  Alt’s believe you should have a medical background BEFORE seeing an alt. practitioner – or any deadly consequences are your "OWN" fault.

Response:

To body cells! They have little brains, and they agree with me! They told me so! $$$ Now he’s hallucinating from that severe B12 deficiency. On the other hand, the poisonous materials in chemotherapydrugs can kill cancer cells. When a person speaks of killing "cancer cells" as though they are a species set apart from normal body cells, as though the cancer cells were some sort of foreign "invader", that is superstitious bunk. $$$ And you know this how?  You’re a world famous cancer researcher?  Or just another kook on a freaky diet fad. Cancer cells are body cells just like other body cells. They may be growing abnormally because of abnormally toxic, irritating & oxygen-deprived conditions, but they are not "invaders" and they "attack" nothing. $$$ All cured by a diet of raw string beans and corn. This part, the AMA has completely backwards. Remove the harmful conditions that cause body cells to mutate in the first place, instead of killing the cells! The opposite kind of approach kills the cells, which are not at fault, ignoring the immediatet cause, which caused the cells to grow astray in the first place. This leaves the initial cause in place. It is the difference between actual healing, and the "curing" superstition. $$$ Or the "raw food" superstition. Laugh & ridicule all you wish, but that is exactly right! Antibiotics are called "anti-biotics" (biotics meaning "life", antibiotics mean: "anti-life") because they are poisons that literally irritate microorganisms to death. But they cannot distinguish between one kind of living cell, and another. $$$  Huh?   So it was actually the RAW TURNIPS the nurse was sneaking the person that saved them? == Habibs stupidity snipped == — Carol… "A person who can smile when things go wrong has found someone to blame it on."

Response:

Wrong.  There is overwhelming evidence that the decline in infectious disease is due to antibiotics.  People still get infections at the same rate.  When they do, and are given an antibiotic, the infection is usually cleared. Explain this. Wrong. Indiscriminate use of anti-biotics has contributed in part to the present profusion of immune disorders.

Your evidence?  I’m not holding my breath waiting to hear that you have any… There is overwhelming evidence that the decline in infectious disease is due to antibiotics.  People still get infections at the same rate. Dont’ you contradict yourself here? If antibiotics caused a decline in infectious disease, then how can people also be getting infections at the same rate? Hahahahahahahahahah!

Laugh, clown, laugh.  Once again, your mediocre reading comprehension betrays you.  Antibiotics are responsible for the decline in mortality due to bacterial infection — people get infected at the same rate, it just doesn’t kill them very often these days.   — David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone      These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct.              The Millennium actually begins on January 1, 2001                 So Get Ready for a Second Round of Parties

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And how often do people die of bacterial infections these days, vs the good old days?  Not often.  Can’t be the antibiotics, according to you. Less people die today as a result of bacterial infection, precisely because of practices introduced many decades ago by the hygienic movement Wrong.  There is overwhelming evidence that the decline in infectious disease is due to antibiotics.  People still get infections at the same rate.  When they do, and are given an antibiotic, the infection is usually cleared. Explain this. erf

Wrong. Indiscriminate use of anti-biotics has contributed in part to the present profusion of immune disorders. There is overwhelming evidence that the decline in infectious disease is due to antibiotics.  People still get infections at the same rate.

Dont’ you contradict yourself here? If antibiotics caused a decline in infectious disease, then how can people also be getting infections at the same rate? Hahahahahahahahahah! Habib — Click here for Free Video!! http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/

  rawimmortal.vcf

< 1K Download

Response:

 If what you say is true why don’t you take antibiotics all the time? $$$ Because the disease causing bacteria would then rapidly develop immunity to said antibiotics and they would become useless.  They also kill off the good bacteria.  That’s why we don’t take them all the time.   Take antibiotics or ANY medicine while you are healthy and you will get sick. $$$ Why would a healthy person WANT to take them?   Do you eat more on a full stomach? Tell me, if you have children, do you keep your antibotics on the kitchen table next to the fruit bowl? Or do you keep them out of reach in the medicine cabinet perhaps locked?

$$$ Would the child KNOW enough that one capsule can save his life and the 10 or 20 might make him awfully sick? Medicine is poison.

$$$  What a great POISON because it saved my daughter in law from a certain death by childbed fever – and YES, this infection still rears it’s ugly head.  And this POISON also saved my life  when I had pneumonia and just couldn’t overcome it.  The active ingredients in medicine are toxic to the body. $$$  So are too many cabbages. Take the wrong medicine, in the wrong combination or in the wrong amount and you are dead. That’s why medicine is restricted. It does damage the body.

$$$ So if you ever develop a severe infection you have mankind’s permission to go ahead and pass away. — – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – -OrionsDad

Response:

  Dawg , where do you get antibiotics do no harm to the body ?   $$$ tell us what HARM they do by allowing us to overcome deadly infections?   —   Carol…..   Before buying health care products on the net see:   http://www.quackwatch.com

Response:

  Guess we don’t have any antibiotic resistant bacteria now . Must be the alt’s paranoia huh ?   T   Sure we have them now.  That’s why we DON’T take antibiotics unless we really need to.  Urine doesn’t cure anything.  It’s just recycling waste.   —   Carol…..   Before buying health care products on the net see:   http://www.quackwatch.com

Response:

A better question for you Habib would be what specific evidence would convince you that the chemo had SOME positive effect on preventing the children from dying. And what evidence would you need before you recommended that children with certain forms of leukemia be given certain chemo to keep them alive???

I have never questioned the ability of chemotherapy to prolong life. I do question it’s ability to do so in a manner that improves health. And I also maintain that despite your unfamiliarity with them, there are actually safe and effective alternatives to them. Hygiene works, when applied. In the instance of leukemia, it must be applied to a more exacting degree than many people are willing to go, even for their beloved children. Those who will not go the distance using hygiene to become well, would be better off at least using chemo drugs to artificially stimulate the body to live longer than it would have. I have never denied this. But I also call a spade a spade, choosing not to attribute to drugs "magical powers" as do all who believe in them. I only admit to what I know they can do. And it’s different than "healing". I also know that in many cases where chemo is used, the cancer sufferer has their life shortened, suffering much more than they would have otherwise. BTW your question was better worded. It did suggest that drugs can prolong life, but did not suggest that they do so by increasing health. Habib

  rawimmortal.vcf

< 1K Download

Response:

When a person speaks of killing "cancer cells" as though they are a species set apart from normal body cells <snip Cancer cells are body cells just like other body cells. They are not.  They look different.  They act different.  If you introduce them into the body, they grow unchecked.  What more evidence do you want?  Have you ever discussed this with an oncologist?

I know  they act different. I know they are very undifferentiated. I know they grow in an unchecked manner. I wrote my statement with this understanding firmly in place. It does not directly contradict a single word I said. I do not accept your statement that cancer cells "introduced" into a healthy body, will take root, grow and destroy the host. If introduced into a healthy body, they won’t last for long. No one has yet showed me any rational reason why using chemicals to damage integral parts of the body, "cures" anything. Thousands of clinical studies comparing the effect of placebo to drugs.  What more do you want?

I understand perfectly what you just said. I also see no relevant connection between this statement, and the actual question I asked, which it does not directly address. Absolute rubbish.  You are confusing antiseptics with antibiotics and cells and micro-organisms.

So you say. Antibiotics work BECAUSE they can kill bacteria without damaging the body.

Come on now! I am perfectly aware of the standard medical positions on this and a great many other points. I understand their line of reasoning, and am perfectly aware of it. However, I disagree with their conclusions, as I am free to do. Where do you get stuff like the above?

From over 160 years of hygienic medical research and clinical practice. Hygiene has been around a long time, and has at times in history been such a powerful force by the allopaths that it was considered extremely dangerous. One single physician with hygienic knowledge can do infinitely more to increase actual body health, than a score or more of medical doctors. Hygiene is extremely dangerous to "medicine." Naturopathy is not dangerous to medicine. Neither is herbalism, homeopathy, chiropractic, etc. Hygiene directly addresses the false concepts which keep the whole complicated web of medical theory from falling apart at the seams. They are hacking at the branches, and hygiene hacks directly at the root. They are dangerous. Protect your pocketbooks. We are coming to a town near you. Can you point to a source or do you make it up yourself? Honestly, this is getting weird… erf

Come on, every time I point to a source, people simply act as if nothing happened. This happens ad infinitum, ad nauseum. So why should things be any different with you? I know they won’t be. Why should I continue beating my head against an obvious brick wall? If I quote sources, they will be inserted into posts that are placed for all to see for potential benefit, not for dispute. Habib — Click here for Free Video!! http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/

  rawimmortal.vcf

< 1K Download

Response:

Less people die today as a result of bacterial infection, precisely because of practices introduced many decades ago by the hygienic movement,

$$$  BS!  Pure BS as anyone in the health care field will tell you. which became so pervasive that some of them even filtered into the practice of medicine,

$$$  And the one’s in NY state (commune) became very devitalized with deficiencies after a few years. as well as into the common health practices of the masses. These measures were so protective, that less people even died from the practice of medicine…

$$$  Gibberish,.. mindless blather. — Carol……. Notice: Innocent victims of alt’s and Quacks are seen as "BRAINLESS" according to an alt.health salesperson  selling magnets to the gullible here on Usenet.  Alt’s believe you should have a medical background BEFORE seeing an alt. practitioner – or any deadly consequences are your "OWN" fault. —

Response:

Certain forms of childhood leukemia are up to 90% curable with chemotherapy. What more evidence would you like Habib?? And there are

Your personal interpretation of events, then offering opinion based upon that interpretation, does not constitute "evidence". Didn’t do too well in Critical Thinking class? Habib — Click here for Free Video!! http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/

  rawimmortal.vcf

< 1K Download

Response:

And how often do people die of bacterial infections these days, vs the good old days?  Not often.  Can’t be the antibiotics, according to you. Less people die today as a result of bacterial infection, precisely because of practices introduced many decades ago by the hygienic movement

Wrong.  There is overwhelming evidence that the decline in infectious disease is due to antibiotics.  People still get infections at the same rate.  When they do, and are given an antibiotic, the infection is usually cleared. Explain this. erf

Response:

When a person speaks of killing "cancer cells" as though they are a species set apart from normal body cells <snip Cancer cells are body cells just like other body cells.

They are not.  They look different.  They act different.  If you introduce them into the body, they grow unchecked.  What more evidence do you want?  Have you ever discussed this with an oncologist? No one has yet showed me any rational reason why using chemicals to damage integral parts of the body, "cures" anything.

Thousands of clinical studies comparing the effect of placebo to drugs.  What more do you want? And how often do people die of bacterial infections these days, vs the good old days? Not often.  Can’t be the antibiotics, according to you. Laugh & ridicule all you wish, but that is exactly right! Antibiotics are called "anti-biotics" (biotics meaning "life", antibiotics mean: "anti-life") because they are poisons that literally irritate microorganisms to death. But they cannot distinguish between one kind of living cell, and another.

Absolute rubbish.  You are confusing antiseptics with antibiotics and cells and micro-organisms. Antibiotics work BECAUSE they can kill bacteria without damaging the body.  Where do you get stuff like the above?  Can you point to a source or do you make it up yourself?  Honestly, this is getting weird… erf

Response:

Guess we don’t have any antibiotic resistant bacteria now . Must be the alt’s paranoia huh ?   T

Tools, show me where I said, or even loosely implied, the above.  I have said, in other threads, that this is a problem with overuse of antibiotics.  They pollute.  So what are you referring to?  Do you have a comment relative to the thread?  Tell me or get stuffed. erf

Response:

Dawg , where do you get antibiotics do no harm to the body ?

Just for the sake of lurkers who don’t understand your idiotic straw man tactics, use of ALMOST ANY medicine carries some risk.  So does crossing the street.  In the case of antibiotics, it has been clearly demonstrated beyond sane reason for doubt that antibiotics clear otherwise lethal infections.  Now can you show me similar evidence that drinking your piss, the cure all you are trying to promote by spewing crap like the above, does the same?  Well? erf

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Have you considered Thorazine for this apparent psychosis you are experiencing?? Have you considered engaging in intelligent, respectful debate rather than the constant attempts to "bait" people to get reactions? Habib, how come you snipped your comment which I was referring to. I was referring to your statement: Habib says: To body cells! They have little brains, and they agree with me! They told me so! You seem to be saying that the body cells which have little brains TOLD you  that they agree with you. Others can decide whether your statement suggests a loss of touch with reality (psychosis).

You obviously completely missed that this was a joke. Come on! Can’t you recognize a joke when you see it? I didn’t know that was the statement to which you were responding, but if I had, it would have made your response seem that much more ridiculous! My statement about cells having little brains which were communicating with me, was a joke! Wake up! Smell the coffee! Alsi, I snipped it simply because being a joke, it was not relevant to any argument being made. duh. Unfortunately, the majority of people on this ng don’t debate, but ridicule. You haven’t exactly shown yourself to be head and shoulders above the crowd, in this regard. If demeaning tactics are all you can come up with, you can do better than that. Certain forms of childhood leukemia are up to 90% curable with chemotherapy. What more evidence would you like Habib?? I would like to have evidence that it is not the body’s own cells that heal themselves, in spite of irritating chemicals. Well if the leukemic  patients are not given the chemicals then they die. You can believe all you want that going on some special diet or health regimen will also be life saving if you like. Just like you can believe that cells "talk" to you.

Your psychosis makes you take jokes for serious opinions. what a gas! BTW it has nothing to do with a "special" diet or "special" health regimen. "Special" diets are for people who think that strange articles of diet and strange influences, having no relation to human evolutionary adaptation, can "save" or "cure" them. Gee, that sounds like allopathic medicine! What a riot! Do you also receive messages from the radio and TV and think that they are talking to you.??? Do you believe that you have special powers and can read other peoples minds???

No, but maybe some telepathic signal from aliens clouded your mind, so you wouldn’t recognize a joke when you saw it. Really, this is about the most ridiculous response I have ever received from anyone on any topic, in any newsgroup. I’ll be laughing about it for weeks, and telling friends about it too. By the way, the comment about aliens is a joke too, in case you still can’t tell the difference. This is evidence you can’t provide, since it doesn’t exist. You don’t know the definition of the word "cure". Well these children who had leukemia and now live normal lives can tell you the definition of cure. And there are thousands of such people who are living now due to the chemotherapy.

Let me see…"they had leukemia…AND they live normal lives! I think you left something out here, in the way of critical argument. Because two events happen at the same time, does not necessarily show, that one is due to the other! I still maintain that it is the body cells which keep themselves alive, in spite of the chemical assault they must also contend with. But then again, I suppose that those of us without leukemia, must be born secreting chemotherapy drugs into our bloodstream, and those who do have leukemia must be born with a chemotherapy drug deficiency, which doctors must correct with supplementation…right?  (warning, this is another joke since you dont’ know the difference) BTW these children can only tell me the definition of "no symptoms" not the definition of "cure". You still don’t get the difference. Without the chemo those afflicted with leukemia will die. You can rationalize all you want about why they don’t succumb to this previously fatal illness but what almost ALL the children who survive leukemia are the ones who are given the chemotherapy.

I never indulge in rationalization, it is not necessary. The medical system is founded upon nothing but pseudo-scientific, metaphysical rationalizations. It is an extremely complex web of rationalizations. From within that web, it is not surprising that you can’t see. You will keep participating in their rationalizations, not recognising them for what they are. Let me guess now, you’re going to call me a cold-blooded murderer, right? You are so out there it’s pathetic! Leukemia mahy indeed be responsive to symptomatic suppression, but if a person’s goal is actual restoration of health, such "cures" are not even desirable. If they don’t get the chemo they die you idiot!!!!

Well, lets hear it for logical, rational argument! Hear hear! BTW you’re not just an "idiot" but a "f-g idiot". So there! Got ya! Do you think that DEATH is preferrable to life????

Oh, of course! Can’t you tell? (another joke, dummy) Are you claiming that YOU can keep children with leukemia alive with something other than the life saving chemotherapy.

I have never claimed sufficient experience with natural hygiene medical protocols. But I do know that there do exist protocols for such things, in the writings of resident physicians at the old hygeio-therapeutic colleges and hospitals. They did indeed experience success in ,many such incidences. They experienced a much greater success rate with virtually all medical conditions, than that realized by "medicine". Drs Trall and others have written detailed protocols for them. Since my goal is to be a lay educator for laypeople, teaching them about hygienic healthful living practices and self-healthcare, I do not study some of these more advanced texts that were written specifically for medically-educated doctors who had chosen the hygienic model over the allopathic. Since I don’t really feel it necessary to study these extremely long and complicated treatises specifically for the purpose of pleasing "little ol’ you", I will just say that if you are ever curious, I will tell you where to find them. In the meantime, I leave them to the hygienic physicians, whose place it is to deal with such cases. When it comes to children with leukemia, I would always refer to a hygienic physician, who are all licensed primary healthcare providers. Recently a person asked me for help in a condition that I knew was outside my scope of knowledge or legal practice. I told them I would be willing to provide them with information on healthful living, but also told them of the limitations of my knowledge in their case. My continuance of self-healthcare education, can only improve a person’s chances for health, regardless of medical choices they make. That is, unless you consider healthful living to be dangerous, as do many on this ng. (again, a joke you dolt) If so what and where is the SPECIFIC evidence and not your anecdotal stories. Look at the evidence. Those afflicted with leukemia who did not get the proper chemotherapy almost ALL DIE. Those who get the chemo almost ALL LIVE. Wonder why???

I do not doubt the power of "emergency medicine" for symptomatic suppression. But that form of "curing" is different than "healing." Obviously, if allopathic "cures" were actually "healing" they would also completely eradicate the underlying condition as well. But they don’t. Instead, the person is tied to "managing" a continuing, and often medically-aggravated, increasingly worsening condition. For this reason they are merely "palliative". Many extremely educated medical doctors have attested to this over the years.If they can get this, why can’t you? Palliative treatments are those designed to reduce suffering in those with incurable diseases. Children with certain forms of leukemia are NOT incurable and can now have their lives saved with chemo. Of course you in your infinite wisdom would suggest that the children NOT have this chemotherapy. And in your infinite wisdom you would be contributing to their demise if they listened to your psychotic nonsense.

You in your infinite wisdom are a complete dolt who has nothing better to do than waste time insulting everyone you disagree with. Dr Saul knows that hygienic methods have literally saved the lives of many thousands of people over the years, many of whom were incurables, by medical standards. It is recorded history. It still happens today. Hygienic methods have effected complete reversals in many conditions still considered "incurable" by the medical profession. Just because you don’t choose to expose yourself to that realm of health information and practice, does not mean that it does not work with extreme effectiveness. It just means you are unfamiliar with it. It also means that you favor what you are most familiar with, to the extreme of advocating suppression of anything you have no understanding of. It makes no rational sense to oppose something you are not truly familiar with. I maintain that I am infinitely more familiar with "medicine" than you are with the actual principles and practices of natural hygiene. The people will not have the wool pulled over their eyes forever. When the medical monstrosity comes tumbling down, hygiene will be there to pick up the pieces, and true "physiologic health reform" will once again sweep America, just as it did in the last great hygienic movement, where hygiene’s great efficacy caused hygienic practitioners to outnumber all the medical doctors, naturopaths, chiropractors, homeopaths, and hydropaths, put together. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There are numerous other cancers which respond to palliative

… read more »

  rawimmortal.vcf

< 1K Download

Response:

Antibiotics work BECAUSE they can kill bacteria without damaging the body. If what you say is true why don’t you take antibiotics all the time? If they don’t damage your body and ONLY kill bacteria why don’t you take them everyday?

Because it is well known that overuse of antibiotics leads to the emergence of resistant strains of bacteria.  As well, antibiotics are not without any negative effects.  But the reward of clearing the targeted infection usually greatly outweighs the risk.  People used to die regularly from minor staph infections. Any care giver who remembers the forties can tell you this.  Few people die from a minor puncture wounds these days.  And almost everyone has a relative who has had a life threatening pneumonia cleared by antibiotics.  Care to explain that? Take antibiotics or ANY medicine while you are healthy and you will get sick.

Your actual evidence, please? Medicine is poison. The active ingredients in medicine are toxic to the body. Take the wrong medicine, in the wrong combination or in the wrong amount and you are dead. That’s why medicine is restricted. It does damage the body.

Are you desperate to prove a point?  Take the "wrong combination or in the wrong amount" of almost ANYTHING and you have a problem.  You haven’t even begun to make a case for your assertion that almost all medicine is bad and unnecessary.  Do you make this stuff up or do you have some real evidence? arf

Response:

Antibiotics work BECAUSE they can kill bacteria without damaging the body.   If what you say is true why don’t you take antibiotics all the time? If they don’t damage your body and ONLY kill bacteria why don’t you take them everyday?

Because we don’t want to breed antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria for as long as possible. Because antibiotics may kill useful digestive flora and cause problems in the digestive tract. Take antibiotics or ANY medicine while you are healthy and you will get sick.

Hahahahaha.   — David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone      These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct.              The Millennium actually begins on January 1, 2001                 So Get Ready for a Second Round of Parties

Response:

Antibiotics work BECAUSE they can kill bacteria without damaging the body.  

If what you say is true why don’t you take antibiotics all the time? If they don’t damage your body and ONLY kill bacteria why don’t you take them everyday? Take antibiotics or ANY medicine while you are healthy and you will get sick. Tell me, if you have children, do you keep your antibotics on the kitchen table next to the fruit bowl? Or do you keep them out of reach in the medicine cabinet perhaps locked? Medicine is poison. The active ingredients in medicine are toxic to the body. Take the wrong medicine, in the wrong combination or in the wrong amount and you are dead. That’s why medicine is restricted. It does damage the body. -OrionsDad

Response:

drugs can kill cancer cells. And how often do people die of bacterial infections these days, vs the good old days?  Not often.  Can’t be the antibiotics, according to you.

Less people die today as a result of bacterial infection, precisely because of practices introduced many decades ago by the hygienic movement, which became so pervasive that some of them even filtered into the practice of medicine, as well as into the common health practices of the masses. These measures were so protective, that less people even died from the practice of medicine… Habib — Click here for Free Video!! http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/

  rawimmortal.vcf

< 1K Download

Response:

A body that is sick cannot be made well by the ingestion of poisonous drugs called medicines. The idea is patently absurd. If you believe in this idea, you may as well take strychnine when you get sick. Try it and then see if you believe that ingesting poisons can improve the health of body cells. If you still believe it, then go ahead and continue to accept the prescriptions of the allopathic witch-doctors. Habib — Click here for Free Video!! http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/

  rawimmortal.vcf

< 1K Download

Response:

A body that is sick cannot be made well by the ingestion of poisonous drugs called medicines. The idea is patently absurd.

To you.  On the other hand, the poisonous materials in chemotherapy drugs can kill cancer cells. And how often do people die of bacterial infections these days, vs the good old days?  Not often.  Can’t be the antibiotics, according to you. Oh, wait, I forgot — you think all drugs are poisonous.  I’ll get back to you on that one.   — David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone      These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct.              The Millennium actually begins on January 1, 2001                 So Get Ready for a Second Round of Parties

Response: