Joined: Oct 15, 2007 Posts: 2664 Location: In your neighborhood, knocking on your door. :)
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:05 am Post subject: Prof John Beard and Cancer
Doctors claim they don't know why cancer grows back after chemotherapy, or even what causes cancer. In his research at Edinburgh University between 1857 - 1924 Professor John Beard found that "Cancer is the result of normal cellular healing processes that continue in a rogue process due to the fact that the cells being replicated are damaged and do not knit together properly. Thus the repaired tissue is not polarised and so the current of injury does not 'switch off'". In other words cancer is a healing process that hasn't switched off. The body is literally staved of sufficient nutrients and cannot heal itself, but it's been designed to keep attempting to repair itself... so the process is unending. More information on John Beard's visionary research can be read here.
Medical doctors either suppress their knowledge of John Beard's work because they're controlled by the drug industry, or they aren't taught this knowledge because of the drug industry. In either case the drug industry is in the business of making profit, and as nutritionist Dr. Andrew Saul put it "health makes a lot of sense, but it doesn't make a lot of dollars." Treating cancer is a 2 billion dollar a year industry. Do you really think they are actively trying to find a cure for cancer? They've thrown 39 billion U.S. dollars at the problem since 1972, and nothing has been achieved. In fact the number of people who have died from cancer more than doubled in 1996.
Cancer could be cured with nutrition therapy, but it is illegal in most countries around the world. The only legal treatments in these countries are surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy.
Joined: Oct 19, 2008 Age: 40 Posts: 2323 Location: Europe
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:12 am Post subject:
As a scientist I would say that the ideas in the original post are a grave distortion of the truth about cancer.
Cancer is caused when at least three changes occur in a cell.
1. The cell must become immortal (normal cells in the body can only divide a set number of times before the division process stops)
2. The cell must switch on the cell division process and keep it switched on.
3. The cell must become invasive and start to ignore the rules regarding its correct place in the body.
The reason why cancer can come back with a venganace after treatment with chemo is quite simple. If we consider cisplatin as an example drug. Cisplatin kills rapidly dividing cells by creating an intrastrad link between two of the DNA bases. Most cells can not repair this damage so they die. But a few cancer cells in a tumor have a DNA repair process which allows them to reverse the cisplatin crosslinkiing of their DNA. As a result of the fact that these cells are the only ones which survive the cisplatin, the tumor if it grows back is very likely to be cisplatin resistant.
The thing about cancer is that each time it is treated in a human which drugs it tends to change in response to the treatment. It is an example of evolution, already cancer cells tend to have unstable genomes so it can be a very fast evolution process.
The reason why surgery for cancer can fail is that the surgery fails to remove all the cancer tissues, either the whole tumor is not removed or already a secondary tumor has started to grow at a remote site in the body.
The primary way in which cancer kills is nothing to do with the cancer staving the body nutrients it is normally due to the fact that the cancer invades organs of the body and stops their normal operation. The cancer cells tend to take up residence in places like the brain, heart, liver and lungs. The new growths then damage these organs so sadly the person gets sick and can die. _________________ Health is a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity I am not a jigsaw, I am a free man !
Joined: Oct 19, 2008 Age: 40 Posts: 2323 Location: Europe
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:32 am Post subject:
The opening post wrote "Cancer could be cured with nutrition therapy, but it is illegal in most countries around the world. The only legal treatments in these countries are surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy.".
There is a good reason why this nutrition therapy is illegal, I am sure it will fail to work. I would like to know of any decent study which shows that diet alone is able to treat cancer. I would suggest anyone who doubts me should read the Ben Goldacre book "Bad Science".
The UK has the 1939 Cancer act of which section four is intended to protect the public from quack cancers by making it is a crime to make an advert for a cancer treatment. I think the idea of this act is to protect people from being sold false hope by bogus medical workers who wish to extract money from people who are in a state of terror.
Joined: Oct 19, 2008 Age: 40 Posts: 2323 Location: Europe
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:58 am Post subject:
I have just looked up "vitamin b17" which is the substance which healthy homes suggest as a cure for cancer.
Irving Lerner has said that it is not effective, the name of the substance is Laetrile which is cyanosugar. It is a modified version of amygdalin. CA Cancer J Clin 31 (2): 91–5. doi:10.3322/canjclin.31.2.91
Many fruits contain compounds which are ethers of cyanohydrins of aldehydes such as benzaldehyde.
Joined: Oct 15, 2007 Posts: 2664 Location: In your neighborhood, knocking on your door. :)
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 12:07 pm Post subject:
Woodpecker wrote:
As a scientist I would say that the ideas in the original post are a grave distortion of the truth about cancer.
Cancer is caused when at least three changes occur in a cell.
1. The cell must become immortal (normal cells in the body can only divide a set number of times before the division process stops)
2. The cell must switch on the cell division process and keep it switched on.
3. The cell must become invasive and start to ignore the rules regarding its correct place in the body.
The reason why cancer can come back with a venganace after treatment with chemo is quite simple. If we consider cisplatin as an example drug. Cisplatin kills rapidly dividing cells by creating an intrastrad link between two of the DNA bases. Most cells can not repair this damage so they die. But a few cancer cells in a tumor have a DNA repair process which allows them to reverse the cisplatin crosslinkiing of their DNA. As a result of the fact that these cells are the only ones which survive the cisplatin, the tumor if it grows back is very likely to be cisplatin resistant.
The thing about cancer is that each time it is treated in a human which drugs it tends to change in response to the treatment. It is an example of evolution, already cancer cells tend to have unstable genomes so it can be a very fast evolution process.
The reason why surgery for cancer can fail is that the surgery fails to remove all the cancer tissues, either the whole tumor is not removed or already a secondary tumor has started to grow at a remote site in the body.
The primary way in which cancer kills is nothing to do with the cancer staving the body nutrients it is normally due to the fact that the cancer invades organs of the body and stops their normal operation. The cancer cells tend to take up residence in places like the brain, heart, liver and lungs. The new growths then damage these organs so sadly the person gets sick and can die.
This is all very good information and thank you for sharing, but how do you explain the effectiveness of using extremely high doses of Vitamin C to fight cancer?
Joined: Oct 19, 2008 Age: 40 Posts: 2323 Location: Europe
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:05 pm Post subject:
I am in favour of a good diet with plenty of vitamins.
Large doses of vitamin C do not cure cancer, however it is important to note that a large dose of vitamin C can alter the way other drugs behave. I also suspect that a large dose of vitamin C might alter the outcome of any treatment which involves oxygen centred free radicals such as radiotheaphy.
L.R. Qian et al in Journal of Radiation Research (2010, vol 51, issue 6, page 741) showed that hydrogen protects mice against a 7 Gy dose of gamma rays. So it is possible that vitamin C might have a protective effect against gamma irradation.
I hold the view that the role of vitamins in cancer is that a diet poor in vitamins is likely to encourage the induction of cancer. I think that free radicals are likely to be more likely to react with DNA if a person has low levels of vitamins in their body. But once they have cancer it is not possible to reverse the disease with vitamins. But it is noteworthy that in one major study done in the north of europe with male smoking medical doctors showed that vitamin pills can increase the likelyhood of getting lung cancer. _________________ Health is a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity I am not a jigsaw, I am a free man !
Joined: Oct 15, 2007 Posts: 2664 Location: In your neighborhood, knocking on your door. :)
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:35 pm Post subject:
Woodpecker wrote:
I am in favour of a good diet with plenty of vitamins.
Large doses of vitamin C do not cure cancer, however it is important to note that a large dose of vitamin C can alter the way other drugs behave. I also suspect that a large dose of vitamin C might alter the outcome of any treatment which involves oxygen centred free radicals such as radiotheaphy.
L.R. Qian et al in Journal of Radiation Research (2010, vol 51, issue 6, page 741) showed that hydrogen protects mice against a 7 Gy dose of gamma rays. So it is possible that vitamin C might have a protective effect against gamma irradation.
I hold the view that the role of vitamins in cancer is that a diet poor in vitamins is likely to encourage the induction of cancer. I think that free radicals are likely to be more likely to react with DNA if a person has low levels of vitamins in their body. But once they have cancer it is not possible to reverse the disease with vitamins. But it is noteworthy that in one major study done in the north of europe with male smoking medical doctors showed that vitamin pills can increase the likelyhood of getting lung cancer.
They also said the same thing about 100mg of vitamin C causing kidney stones. Not one case has occurred in the mega high dosages of vitamin C from the video above. So either the video above is lying or the medicine profession is lying.
Personally, if I ever get cancer (and I pray I don't) I won't use American medicine and doctors to cure me. I'll travel out of the country to where I can get nutritional therapy. Quite simply I don't trust drug companies and never will. I also believe God created humans and plants to form a symbiotic relationship. We provide plants with what they need to survive, and in turn they provide us with what we need to thrive. 100% of the human body isn't made up any man-made chemicals, it's made up of elements found in the earth, and our plant life.
Joined: Oct 19, 2008 Age: 40 Posts: 2323 Location: Europe
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 6:34 am Post subject:
I have done some checks, A person named I Brighthope is in Auz and he has published papers on nutrition I have not had a chance to read any of these papers yet.
Dr A.W. Saul has only published one paper which is in the ISI web of knowlege, I find it a little odd that an editor of a scientific journal has such a short publication record. Maybe I he uses a name in a form other than Saul AW (This is the search term I used). If anyone else finds more papers then please tell me about it.
Of the vitamins vit C is one of the safer vitamins, in large doses it is not very toxic as it is water soluble and it is lost from the body with ease. The fat soluble vitamins are very toxic when excessive amounts are taken. If you shoot a polar bear, never eat the liver unless you want to die of vitamin poisoning. _________________ Health is a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity I am not a jigsaw, I am a free man !
This is interesting, about how fasting on alternate days, ( but only a small reduction in calories over all ) in mice/rats significantly slowed/reduced cancer cell proliferation.
As if fasting rather than the kind of food eaten may be more important for healing. Apparently scientists have known for quite a while that significant reduction in calorie intake slows/reduces cancer cell proliferation, ( "Until now, scientists have been certain only of a link between a more substantial calorie reduction [ of 33% ] and a reduction in the rate of cell proliferation." ) but this study found that don't need to reduce intake much if give the body a complete rest every other day.
A low sugar diet appears helpful in preventing and possibly even treating different cancers. Otto Warburg won a noble prize for his work showing cancer needs sugar as its fuel, I believe.
"Low-carbohydrate diets look good for the prevention and treatment of cancer"
I am not a jigsaw, I am a free man !
