Chinese Plant Wipes Out CANCER In 40 Days!

Shane; Let's assume the story here is as you stated. It isn't that the doctors want to let her die. It's that it's illegal to prescribe non approved treatments.

But let's say that doctors get around that. Insurance won't cover it.

But let's say that's not a problem.

If the patient gets sicker or dies, the hospital gets sued and the patient's family will certainly win. The doctor (or two) may even lose their license and even go to prison.

Medicine is big business. But it's also a highly regulated business. And for good reasons.

Steve - I'm talking about legal definitions not Websters. Some foods have the effect of drugs, but they cannot PATENT it. They can can patent a derivative from something, but still have trouble trying to patent the whole plant if it is used in normally as a food or if the active element is in more than one food they just give up on it, too.

You do realize that those of us using the U.S.'s rotten healthcare system as a basis, live in the U.S., right?
Did you watch the videos about Dr. Burzynski?
Did you listen to the father describe what radiation treatments did to his daughter? Did you hear him say her brain was turned to mush by those treatments?
Here's another article for you to read (not about cancer), that shows how honest and "above board" our medical system is here.
http://www.worldpublicunion.org/2013...s-disease.html

You are not offending me. Many people are unable to intellectually absorb the fact that corporate pyschotics are completely fine with killing people en mass. Unfortunately, our 20th century murderous dictators are not the only sociopaths loose in society. It takes a bit of pychosis to get to the top in many fields. So you get these types overwhelmingly at the top of powerful agencies. The problem is after a generation or two of lies, those lies become the common thought of the field and are not really examined until things go out of control. That is the way suppression works. So you need only to look at the problem to understand that some sort of suppression has taken place. Why in the last 50 years or so is the rate of cancer exploding? We have almost a 50/50 chance of getting cancer in the US now.

Smoking is blamed. Fact - 63% of Americans with lung cancer never smoked. If you do smoke you have around a 1 in 3 chance of getting cancer. If you don't smoke - you have the same odds. 1 in 3. In Japan almost 2/3 of men smoke, yet they have relatively no lung cancer there. So our propaganda is that it's cigarettes, yet logically defined.....the stats don't support that statement.

Okay - that's beside the point but I wanted you to understand that we are working blind because those at the top like their funding. If you go into research done over years, you can find answers that have been buried. Until lately, it was infrequent that someone had the time and money to dig those answers out. We have the information at our fingertips now. Anyone can call me fanatic.......but I didn't "make up" my cancer treatments - I got them from 1. treatments doctors actually used that worked -- 2. pubmed == medical research by reputable researchers. It's all right there. It's a lot of work to hunt down what you need. But it's all verifiable and right there for anyone who is motivated enough. So call me a fanatic......ya can't call me a witch

Now --
A fair chance is for instance - if it takes 4 months to completely erradicate a cancer via an adequate dose of a substance - give 4 months of treatment instead of two weeks maybe? The price quoted and payment plan should not be for a PARTIAL dosage - it should be for cure. The partial dosage scam is merely making cancer as expensive and chronic as they can manage to make it.

Herbals and food can work slowly. It took aroiund 7 months to get rid of Ricky's tumor - but I got to him very late on and was not sure he was savable that late in the game. Point though is - that if it's going to take months, why give just a few weeks treatment? That's bullshit plain and simple. If you are going to treat it - treat it, you don't tease with partial treatments knowing that the amount you offer can't work. In my book that is criminally draining someone's wallet while killing them.

By my own admission, too - he had traditional chemo years before. Not sure which kind. Radiation makes a recurrence almost a given - if you live through it at all. Others sport high odds for return - higher than the AMA tells people. Sort through PubMed and you can find the studies that show these treatments not effective in the long run.

Now - what I also said was that he was given "teaser" doses. Enough to slow it down, but not enough to stop it, so between him getting treatments, it spread. My friend was in a typical recurrence - he had the first before I knew him and treated it conventionally and it came back...okay -- now this time, the recurrence was lympnomia - extremely aggressive. He didn't have time to mess around at all. The usual prognosis for that from the stage he found it is only a matter of a few months. So there's no time. Yet he was going up to months between treatments that were only long enough to hinder its progress and slow it down a bit temporarily. If he was able to survive that long with what he had with only partial treatments - full treatments would have saved him I would figure.

I can't tell you all of what I know about my friend's battle. It is extremely upsetting to me, though. There were things going on in his life I can't talke about that factor in quite heavily. So this is just a general discussion for me on this thread.

I will say that, yes, I believe the radiation finished him off. He wasn't strong enough for that and they knew it. They irradiated his WHOLE HEAD. Sweet Jesus, they might as well just have shot him. They'd have been out some bucks they were able to get at the end, though.

Now let me temper this........I think his mistake was made with his method of treatment the first time around. It was melanoma. So when it came back, it was deadly - lymphnoma Lymphnoma is usually the result of metastasis, from what I've been able to figure from stats, but I could be wrong. At any rate - once in the lymph nodes, you have not much time and you have a serious problem of that cancer being spread everywhere in your body very rapidly. Even with my views on cancer = that one kinda turns me white just to hear the word. The first thing that should be done is to get rid of that lump. Fast - I would not follow up with traditional chemo, but I'd sure be in getting that lump taken out - if they wouldn't do it, I'd cut myself.

No way can you survive with cancer in a lymph node in your body as far as I can tell. It spews it around the body way too fast to control it. One area it seems to like to target from there is the brain. What I would do - get the lump removed then kill the metastasizing cells with natural cancer killers. Whatever anyone thinks of that - that's what I would do. Don't quote me as giving illegal advice. I'm just stating what I would do. When my sister found her cancer (breast), the first thing she did was talk to me and we hashed out everything I knew, everything her doctor told her - and sent a LOT of pubmed links. What she did is have the lump removed and then went onto natural killers and preventative measures (diet, exercise, land line instead of cell phone, NO GMO's in her diet etc). Her doctors are amazed. She isn't just a "survivor" she is thriving.

So anyway - Come on. They are making 1000's of % profit, is it okay to kill someone just because your profit is knocked down to 100% - serious.

As far as the issue that even rich die of cancer. That is valid and I've always wondered why someone would trust a medical community with such a shoddy track record when they don't have to. That just goes to show that money doesn't make people less susceptible to propaganda and information suppression. Look at the woman who didn't trust it - Suzanne Summers. She looked for other ways, had the money to afford anything she wanted, and she survived just fine. Of course that's only one person, I realize.

In Germany a Doctor in the 80's was curing people with a special diet - you've probably heard of it "Gerson Diet". I used one element of that for my dog because it incorporated the fats that the body needs and the sulfur, too. Lack of sulfur is a very dangerous deficiency in the body. Because of the sunscreen scam, many people aren't getting enough -- when your body gets sunlight to produce D it also produces a cancer fighting sulfur. So why don't people know that? It's right in the research. Oh yeah. That research wasn't ever published for doctors to read. Face it - they usually only see what is in the journals, and that is edited when they get it. The most famous of the medical journals were on the lead of the culprits that suppressed the sonar cure that worked 100% of the time (discovered in 1938).

There will never be a true cure for cancer in the US until healthcare is by legislation made a non-profit industry. Period. The cures are already all over the place.....they just aren't legal yet. Tell the healthcare industry they are now non-profit entities, and you will have fast effective cures falling out of the walls at you.

Just before my wife died from cancer we looked into changing her diet.
Then during one of her hospital stays I questioned what they where feeding her.
One of her doctors had the gall to tell me that once you have cancer, nutrition doesn't matter. I was "escorted" by security out of the hospital that day and almost arrested.
That was also the day I started to really look in to our healthcare here in the U.S.

Thom, the medical system in the US is known to be very unusual compared to the rest of the world for a number of reasons.

1. Almost 100% private practice
2. Different states have their own rules
3. Insurance companies have a say on what treatment is suitable and what is not
4. An extremely high rate of medical litigation that results in doctors being very defensive. This often results in very aggressive treatments being recommended, such as that Angeline Jolie took.
5. Also, you have got pharmaceutical companies trying to bribe doctors into using their drugs all the time.

If a treatment is not FDA approved, obviously the doctor is on shakier ground but I still don't think it is illegal. For example, there are only two drugs approved for autism and it does not stop psychiatrists from prescribing a whole load of unapproved drugs for it in the US. Similarly, LASIK machines are used for vision corrective treatment well beyond that approved by the FDA in the US. There are lots of other examples I can think of as well in the case of infectious diseases. I would be surprised if cancer is a special case.

Concerning the Burznski case, I don't know much about it. But a search on the Internet will review a lot of complaints about his treatments and the film itself. If the information in the Wikipedia is correct, I think the FDA does a good case as their prime directive is for safety. There are a number of issues involved. seem to be that there are no credible scientific explanation on how antineoplastons work. Moreover, his results could not be replicated by other people.

Burzynski Clinic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The clinic has been the focus of much criticism due to the way its unproven antineoplaston therapy is promoted, the costs for cancer sufferers participating in "trials" of antineoplastons, significant problems with the way these trials are run, legal cases brought as a result of the sale of the therapy without board approval, and for other causes.

There is a scientific consensus that antineoplaston therapy is unproven and of little promise in treating cancer. Clinical trials initiated in 1993 and sponsored by the National Cancer Institute were closed due to inability to recruit qualifying patients, and a Mayo Clinic study found no benefit from antineoplaston treatment.[1] Some sixty phase 2 clinical trials and one Phase 3 trial have been registered by Burzynski since the mid-1990s, but no results have been published. The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center has stated: "Bottom Line: There is no clear evidence to support the anticancer effects of antineoplastons in humans."