Cancer - the forbidden cures

We've actually moved backwards. Cancer treatment was more successful 100 years ago than it was a century before that, there is no sign that overall things are improving.

There may be some very small advancements in keeping people alive, these are more than offset by the rate at which new cancers are appearing. Yet to read the cancer propaganda and pinkwashing going about you'd think that the cure was just around the corner.

The corny phrase used every time is 'effective treatments from this discovery are 5-10 years away'. Well, the medical cure for cancer always has been 5-10 years away. When my father died of cancer in 1984, at the time I remember thinking 'if only he'd got it a few years later on'. Yet 26 years later I do not now see that this would have made any difference.

It's one of those big projects like nuclear fusion - billions poured into that massive collaboration have yet to yield a single joule of useable energy. What could have been achieved by putting those resources into other projects - who knows? Yet they've become so obsessed with this project that they've forgotten that the question is really about producing energy, the prestige of fusion means nothing if the lights go out.

Likewise, the organisations with the really big resources for healthcare are so focussed on the specifics of each disease, that they haven't learned a thing about keeping us healthy.

Hi

I was talking to a local herbalist the other day, and I was saying that i like to purchase old books on natural healing and lifestyle as they were not so politically correct and had advice that would be considered "dangerous" today. He replied that he recently brought an old book on Herbs & Cancer. I asked if the herbs were potentially effective against cancer, he said they were. Don't take my word for it, compare a old therapy book with a new one and notice the difference.

Best wishes

RP

We've actually moved backwards. Cancer treatment was more successful 100 years ago than it was a century before that, there is no sign that overall things are improving.

I would love to know where these facts come from. Life expectancy for men was 45 and 48 for women in 1900. The majority of cancer deaths occur over the age of 50. So how can cancer treatment be more successful a 100 years ago?

Myarka.

I can't find the thread, but a few months ago I posted about a parent who spent tens of thousands of pounds on alternative methods of treatment for his son's neuroblastoma. And, he's now a happy healthy cancer-free little boy. They've set up an online store ([url]Bobby's Shop[/url]) and all the money goes into providing the same facilities for similar children with cancer. Many of the treatments they tried were way weird (by my standards) - especially since Bobby's father was just a regular tradesman/businessman, and not from an alternative therapies background.

Here is Part I of the [url]YouTube videos[/url] of him describing what they tried. Amazing stuff.

Ava x

Life expectancy for men was 45 and 48 for women in 1900.

Didn't a greater proportion of people die from infections and accidents back then? Antibiotics will have reduced the death toll significantly. So, the percentage of deaths from cancer would be likely to be smaller than we'd see these days.

Ava x

I would love to know where these facts come from. Life expectancy for men was 45 and 48 for women in 1900. The majority of cancer deaths occur over the age of 50. So how can cancer treatment be more successful a 100 years ago?

Myarka, I'd like to hear a bit more qualification of those life-expectancy figures - do they include skewing of the data by infant mortality?

However, that's only for interest's sake; cancer did exist 100 and 200 years ago, and people died in spite of treatment, so I fail to see the relevance of your point. The point I am making is that treatment was more effective at the start of the 19th century than the end. I accept we are not necessarily comparing like-for like, but it is an interesting observation all the same.

Curiously, this has in part been attributed to the lack of surgical hygeine in earlier times, and the result was many more fevers in the post operative phase. What was noticed was that when patients suffered a fever after treatment, they had a much higher rate of remission.

Because of this, attempts were even made to provoke fevers intentionally in the early 20th century, and some therapeutic success was found in this. However, hospital authorities studying all available strategies opted insted for newly discovered radiotherapy, for the simple reason that it was more convenient from an administrative point of view.

Read it in New Scientist so it must be true;) Google 'Dr Coley's fever' if you want to know more - it's fascinating.

from Wikipedia on William Coley's research: 'According to Stephen Hoption Cann of the University of British Columbia, "He had successes you simply couldn't hope for today, curing even extensive metastatic disease."'

Nevertheless, many fields of natural healing have always said that we should not fear fever, and that it has healing benefits. We tend to welcome it, some practitioners set out to provoke it. Even conventional physiology recognises that it increases immune activity and purges the body of cancer cells.

As to cancer's 'forbidden' cures, the cancer act of 1939 makes it illegal for anybody to claim to treat cancer unless they are a registered medical practitioner (which is extremely ironic to say the least for anybody who has ever watched a relative die of cancer in spite of medical treatment). So if any of us tommorow discovered a cure for cancer, we could be fined and imprisoned for mentioning it, even if our cure was 100% effective.

Thanks Maya This was time well spent watching the video AMAZING

Myarka, I'd like to hear a bit more qualification of those life-expectancy figures - do they include skewing of the data by infant mortality?

Life expectancy figures should not be confused with average life span. Life expectancy figues were created for insurance companies that need to calculate payments. Therefore if infant mortality was included, their figures would have been inaccurate.

However, that's only for interest's sake; cancer did exist 100 and 200 years ago, and people died in spite of treatment, so I fail to see the relevance of your point. The point I am making is that treatment was more effective at the start of the 19th century than the end. I accept we are not necessarily comparing like-for like, but it is an interesting observation all the same.

I'm not arguing about the existance of cancer a 100 years ago... I am arguing that the % of cancer cases is greater now because the of cases are diagnosed in the over 50s. So if a greater proportion of the population is over 50, then the proportion of cancer cases will be greater. It's basic maths really.

Myarka.

Yes, I take the point that there are more cancer sufferers because people are living longer. I'd like to argue with that, but I won't here, for the simple reason that it has nothing to do with the point I was making.

As I have said twice already, the relevant point was about the success of cancer treatment, not whether there are more cancers about these days.

As I have said twice already, the relevant point was about the success of cancer treatment, not whether there are more cancers about these days.

I think you've missed my point as well..... How can you measure success without data?

There are many different types of cancer and those that affect the under 50s are of the rarer types. Therefore it's not possible to draw a conclusion when you are comparing different types of cancer.

Myarka.

Who said 'no data'? The relevant data are those who went for treatment, and as a result appear to have gotten better or worse. I agree that's a big question, and I accept that comparing like-for like is difficult. All I am going on is someone elses comparison of summaries of patients treated in hospital in different ages.

The claim, by persons who have studied this more than you or me is this: that some older treatments that have been abandoned may be more effective than some modern treatments. And that to many lay persons and professionals alike many modern treatments are very disappointing in what they have accomplished.

This isn't a statement of fact, or I'd be standing outside the DoH with a placard right now demanding action. What this amounts to is a very intriguing possibility - doesn't that interest you? It interests me.

Does anyone else think we shouldn't be interested in this possibility? Anyone else think we have reason to dismiss it without even looking at it? I think we have a duty to check it out and not accept the official word without question.

[You're arguing another question entirely, which seems to be why there are more cancers about these days. The conventional view on this is that we're living longer, whereas there is also the possibility in many peoples' minds also that this is only part of the story. Our environment has changed hugely in a very short period, it's not good enough to say that has nothing to do with the changing health status of our society, frankly it's laughable. But that, as I've said, is another story.]

[You're arguing another question entirely, which seems to be why there are more cancers about these days..........]

I'm probably more to the point arguing more than one point here. Victorian public health is one of those things that I've gained an interest in the last couple of years. I think it's true that every subsequent generation has a new health risk.. Not only did the Victorians have to contend with TB, Cholera and typhoid, they were killing themselves through the poisoning of industialisation. Most victorian townies had their daily dose of mercury, lead, arsnic and homes full of carbon monoxide.

Therefore, as we look at the bigger picture of public health a 100 years ago, there is very little that can be compared.

However, having said that..... I think be protesting outside the DoH. Far too many patients are going into hospital for routine treatments and are coming out disabled or far worse, dead. That is a scandal that should not be tolerated.

Myarka

Fair point Myarka. Did anyone (apart from Tottie - thanks 🙂 get a chance to watch the film? It may answer some of the issues that are coming up on this discussion.

Hi Maya

I have watched a big chunk of it. Very interesting.

Best wishes

RP

Hi Maya

I watched the video all through - very interesting! It fits very much with m own conclusions.

My brother died of cancer, and if I had known then what I know now and persuaded him to follow a different treatment, or even follow a natural treatment concurrently, then I'm sure he'd be with us now.

Hi CarolineN
I have experience of cancer in the family also, I suppose many many of us do. As for persuading people in these situations, they get bombarded with information from every angle, so it tends to get lost. So I let them know I'm available if they want another pair of eyes for their situation, and leave it at that.

What I have noticed is it's very easy to persuade a very toxic person that a salad or a piece of fresh fruit is risky, but very difficult to convince them of the risks of medication or hamburgers.

Hi RP
"I was talking to a local herbalist the other day, and I was saying that i like to purchase old books on natural healing and lifestyle as they were not so politically correct and had advice that would be considered "dangerous" today. He replied that he recently brought an old book on Herbs & Cancer..."

Do you have any titles: we are currently helping my friend's 83 yr old mum with natural remedies for recently diagnosed colon cancer - doing well so far, but any info really gratefully recieved. Will watch the film tomorrow!

Love & light

amanda

Thanks Maya, I watched and enjoyed the video.

My heart is firmly on the side of nutrition, I have made my feelings clear on here before.

Absolutely no chemo or radiation!

Hi Amanda

Sorry to here about your friend's mum. Unfortunately I don't know the title of the book. One book you maybe able to get hold of is "Essaic Essentials: Rene Caisse's Herbal Cancer Remedy" by Sheila Snow & Mali Klein.

Best wishes

RP

It's admirable to help in this situation if that is what your friends' mum really wants, but I would say that this is not a good time to be reinventing the wheel. In these situations, small details can make a big difference, navigating this does take experience and commitment, it's the job of an expert.

Essiac tea is a detoxifier. It can be purchased through the Ojibwa tribe in Canada. This original herbal tea formula was given to Rene Caisse by a medicine man of this tribe. Caisse spelled in reverse is Essiac.

"Ojibwa Tea of Life™ is an "essiac" four-herb formula. It contains Burdock Root (Arctium lappa), Sheep Sorrel (Acetosella vulgaris/ Rumex Acetosella polygonaceae) whole herb, Turkey Rhubarb Root (rheum palmatum) Slippery Elm (Ulmus fulva) Powder. This formula is prepared according to tradition.
Note: These herbs are to be used in the manner as root, plant and powder as directed. The structures are for the remedy to be most efficacious. They are not to all be powdered and broken down..."

People who believe that 'they' are really trying to find a 'cure' for cancer, also believe that 'reality tv' is real-it's not going to happen. Wonder where I would be today if I had chosen one of the cancer 'miracle cures'. A scam I just heard about this week is to test for the 'cancer gene'-and it ain't cheap. Can you believe it-a cancer gene!!! You pay almost four thousand dollars to find this 'mythical gene'-and people are doing it !!!

kcat

A scam I just heard about this week is to test for the 'cancer gene'-and it ain't cheap. Can you believe it-a cancer gene!!! You pay almost four thousand dollars to find this 'mythical gene'-and people are doing it !!!

Fear sells and makes high profits, this doesn't suprise me at all.

Amanda, Sorry to hear about your friend's mum.

A scam I just heard about this week is to test for the 'cancer gene'-and it ain't cheap. Can you believe it-a cancer gene!!! You pay almost four thousand dollars to find this 'mythical gene'-and people are doing it !!!

I was born genetically disposed to a broken leg - if I stand in front of a bus.

Good one !!!!!:)

kcat

Thanks Reiki Pixie - she is already taking Essaic tea - and I think my friend has that book!

XXA

Thanks everyone for your wishes for friend's mum.

She has the backing of her gp re the complementary stuff (probably becos the establishment 'cant offer anything') so he's agreed to some ongoing blood tests to check how she's getting on, and we've found a really good naturopath/dietician to help.

All the dietary advice for cancer seems to be along the lines of an vegan diet plus various supplements including essaid, so it's a bit of a culture shock particularly for an elderly lady who was never that bothered with cooking in the first place - and you do have to eat! We do veggie ok, but no eggs or dairy is a big change. I'm sending her a few easy recipes and we'll stock up her freezer as soon as poss! She's really up for it, so will keep you posted!

Glad to see some of you have watched the film, I found it so interesting, and backed up really what I have been thinking all along.. there's no profit in wellness unfortunately.. and that is the sad driving force of the 'health' business these days I believe.

About personal remedies for cancer. There's many in Homeopathy, but without a one to one consultation it would be impossible to prescribe, so best to see a homeopath (or other complementary professional) for that.

Having watched both my dad die of cancer, and a good friend this time last year. My observation is that cancer has to be treated in mind, body and spirit.. all 3 have to be tackled together, and the mind is often the hardest to keep positive. I was intrigued how the woman on 'The Secret' tackled it by her positive attitude and watching comedy to keep her spirits up.

I also went to visit 'John of God' in Brazil a few years back, which is where i'd go should it happen (heaven forbid), or find someone with a kosmed, Health Kinesiology, Homeopathy or Acupuncture.

Hope this is helpful.

Glad to see some of you have watched the film, I found it so interesting, and backed up really what I have been thinking all along.. there's no profit in wellness unfortunately.. and that is the sad driving force of the 'health' business these days I believe.

I Don't have a problem with complimentary therapies being used as part or all of the treatment for cancer. I do have a problem with the positioning or some of these arguments. The driver for this information is an attack of the American healthcare system and its commercialisation. This is not as relevant to life in the UK because we have the NHS. Although the NHS is not perfect, and in many cases has let its patients down, it still works for the vast majority. Yes, I know in both the UK and the US we are dealing with the same drug companies, but in the UK we have government organisations that do make an attempt to control costs, and regulate the usage of ineffective drugs. Not perfect I know, but not completely unrestrained like the US. So I find it hard to buy into the arguments of this video because it's not really about cancer treatment, but it's about the American application of cancer care.

In the UK we have people like [url]Sir Paul Nurse[/url] leading the battle against cancer, and he certainly isn't about big business.

Having watched both my dad die of cancer, and a good friend this time last year. My observation is that cancer has to be treated in mind, body and spirit.. all 3 have to be tackled together, and the mind is often the hardest to keep positive. I was intrigued how the woman on 'The Secret' tackled it by her positive attitude and watching comedy to keep her spirits up.

Having lost family members, and seen others recover from cancer, it's amazing how a positive outlook can change the outcome.

I also think it's important that folk should seek an early diagnosis where cancer can be treated with minor surgery. I've seen this happen with family members where they have been treated in the early stages and resolved very quickly.

Myarka.