Cure for Cancer, is it possible?
Conventional medicine HATES the word cure when used with cancer. Years ago they talked about a cure for cancer, but after decades of failure they talk about remissions, because they cannot cure cancer.
The definition of CURE has changed. In the 1970's a cancer cure was 20 years survival without return of cancer. Then came the WAR ON CANCER and the search for a cure for cancer. Unfortunately, we took a wrong turn in how we defined cancer and the treatments adopted did not cure cancer, they actually made cancer worse and hope for a cancer cure diminished.
Trillions were poured into the search for a cancer cure, but the cure was elusive. Then came desparation to show headway toward a cure, followed by manipulating cure statistics... a nice way of saying they lied through their teeth about a cure.
Skin cancer was not included in early cancer statistics, so someone decided to include it so cancer survival appeared to improve. In the 80's cancer survival shot up from 2% or 3% to 60%, because skin cancer is very common and practically never kills anyone. Oncologists announced improvements toward a cure for cancer.
So chemotherapy was used for a cancer cure, we tried to cure cancer with surgery, then attempted a cure with radiation. All of these things actually cause cancer! Even so, if an alternative therapy shows promise as a cancer cure the FDA will chase the inventor to the ends of the earth, arrest them, steal their equipment and drag them into court and threaten them with life in prison. Why? Who put them in charge?
You may be surprised to know that the FDA officials are not elected and in most countries do not work for the government or the public. Their paychecks come from the pharmaceutical industry for approving their drugs. So who does the FDA work for? The people who pay them obviously!! Interested in a cure for cancer? Not on your life!
A cancer cure would be a disaster for a trillion dollar a year industry. I know people who have been threatened by the FDA, the TGA and the courts for alternative treatment that actually does cure cancer, certainly more often than conventional medicine cures cancer. A cancer cure would shut down big money pharmaceutical companies, a cancer cure would mean an end to the huge industry asking for donations to research cancer, a cure would mean no more research money, and a cure would mean hospitals would lose billions a year. NOBODY in the conventional medical community wants a cancer cure.
Chemotherapy and surgery and radiation do not cure cancer. Sometimes there are short term benefits after enormous suffering, but in the end if you trust conventional treatment to cure cancer you have signed your death warrent 97% of the time.
In 2007 a woman came to me who worked for health.gov.au, the Australian official mouthpiece for the medical community. She had breast cancer and was looking for a way to cure her cancer. She informed me she had come to me because she knew the REAL statistics so she knew there was no hope for a cancer cure with conventional treatment.
Between treatments we were chatting and I asked for clarification, because Australia had just announced a cure for breast cancer 65% of the time. I asked the woman how Australia could even say such a thing, because everyone in the industry knows it is a flat lie, the cure rate for very early breast cancer is 13% and advanced breast cancer has a cure rate of essentially nothing. The fact that health.gov.au was making this outright lie about cure rates on their web site was astonishing to me.
The patient smiled and said yes, it is amazing and it is all a lie, but you have to read the fine print. I told her I had read the entire press release and she said yeah, but there is stuff buried on the web site that justifies it. We spent two hours digging to find the securely hidden information. What it came down to was this.. it used to be that a cancer cure was by defintion 20 years without return of the cancer. Well, the definition was chanbed by a wave of their magic wand, and it became still being alive at five years, even if you had cancer and were on your way out if you were alive you were listed as a cancer cure. If you died you were not listed as a failure because maybe you died as a result of the treatment, not the cancer. Yes, amazing at it seems those are the rules.
The next bit of hocus pocus in creating this cancer cure lie was a changed definition of breast cancer. With the same magic wand the definition of breast cancer became a single lump one cm or less in size, without any lymphatic involvement or any indication of metastasis. Makes it a lot easier to get a cancer cure when the definition of cancer is a condition which has a mean survival of 17 years when not treated. So why does treatment result in a "cure rate" of 65%? How do they kill 35% in less than five years?
So now you don't have breast cancer anymore if your lump is bigger then the tip of your little finger, and you don't have breast cancer if there are two lumps even if they are the size of peas, and you sure don't have breast cancer if it has spread at all. What do you have? Nobody knows, but it can't be breast cancer because that would mess up their cancer cure statistics!
Back to the question, is a cancer cure even possible? Yes a cure is possible, but never with conventional treatment. You need to look at alternative treatment to find a cure for cancer, and you need to be very careful because most of the alternative treatment is only helpful to cure cancer when it is in the very earliest stages.
For advanced cancer and cancer they say you can not cure, you will have to dig deeper and look at many alternative treatments. Many alternative treatments are helpful but most will NOT cure cancer, I don't care what the promoters say about it. Some alternative treatments are almost worthless, I would estimate about 95% will not help much at all. How do you find out which alternative treatments actually cure cancer? Years of research, or find someone you trust and listen to their advice, but if they don't have some evidence of lasting success look for your cancer cure in other alternative treatments.
If anyone tells you they can cure cancer with diet alone, in my opinion they are nuts. Don't get me wrong, proper diet is PART of a cancer cure, but never on it's own.
You may be told that milk is an absolute NO, but that is based on the China Study, and it is total nonsense from a retrospective analysis designed to study the effect of a particular protein on parasites. The China study is probably the second worst study quoted about cancer in all of history, right above the stupid Vitamin C religion.
The China study was promoted by a hardcore vegan, and in it the author damned animal protein, claiming it caused cancer. The entire study was gutted by a proper analysis done by Denise Minger. You can find her excellent erudite observations here.
If you have been suckered into believing that soy and vegies will cure your cancer, read all of the above link before your mistake kills you.
The following is a very short quote from Denise Minger, you need to read it until you get it through your head that animal protein actually protects us from cancer.
Notice Campbell cites a chain of three variables: Cancer associates with cholesterol, cholesterol associates with animal protein, and therefore we infer that animal protein associates with cancer. Or from another angle: Cancer associates with cholesterol, cholesterol negatively associates with plant protein, and therefore we infer plant protein protects against cancer.
But when we actually track down the direct correlation between animal protein and cancer, there is no statistically significant positive trend. None.
Looking directly at animal protein intake, we have the following correlations with cancers:
Most are negative, but none even reach statistical significance. In other words, the only way Campbell could indict animal protein is by throwing a third variable—cholesterol—into the mix. If animal protein were the real cause of these diseases, Campbell should be able to cite a direct correlation between cancer and animal protein consumption, which would show that people eating more animal protein did in fact get more cancer.
But what about plant protein? Since plant protein correlates negatively with plasma cholesterol, does that mean plant protein correlates with lower cancer risk? Let’s take a look at the cancer correlations with “plant protein intake”:
Nasopharyngeal cancer: -40**
We have one statistically significant correlation with a rare cancer not linked to diet (nasopharyngeal cancer), but we also have more positive correlations than we saw with animal protein.
In fact, when we look solely at the variable “death from all cancers,” the association with plant protein is +12. With animal protein, it’s only +3. So why is Campbell linking animal protein to cancer, yet implying plant protein is protective against it?
Sorry, bottom line is vegies cause cancer, meat does not!
|For an alternative view on the cause of cancer, click here|
|If you are doing research there are over 1,000 technical papers here|