Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

elye

Cancer - - A Fungus?..........

Recommended Posts

Could you please show evidence that they actually do?

http://homodiet.netfirms.com/otherssay/let...r_margerine.htm

This one cites the previous url.

The last link refers to this paper: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...bmedid=16229744

wherein they use mice with a mutation that causes them to produce excess amounts of amyloid protein. A high fat diet does decrease deposition of the protein, however, to categorically state that this genetically engineered mouse model definitively shows a connection between high fat and Alzheimer's is misleading (and in fact the authors DO NOT state that. They suggest looking at the involvement of all food intake with regard to the development of Alzheimer's.)

I'll look through the other sites this afternoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8810

with it's first paragraph suggests that it isn't addressing your point:

The World Cancer Research Fund's new report proclaims three truths about cancer, fat, and food. First, it asserts that being fat increases our risk for cancer; second, it claims that eating certain foods gives us cancer; and, third, it suggests that cancer is "mostly preventable."

The article goes on to discuss how all the cited studies do not show a statistically significant link between what you eat and cancer, which may very well be true, but does not support your claim that low fat diets cause cancer.

And I might also point out that "not proven to be true" does not equal "proven not to be true".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jegstar- You always impress me with drive to learn about these subjects.

Ursa- You have such class in your presentation of information.

We could debate FOREVER. Are all cancers the same? What is the cure? What prevents cancer? What causes it?

Until science proves these answers we should be "thinking outside of the box", because the standard approach to solving these situations hasn't been that successful.

Love ya both!

Laura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5513/2536

This is a fabulous article discussing the advent of 'low fat as healthy'. It doesn't support Ursula's claims:

"To put it simply, the data remain ambiguous as to whether low-fat diets will benefit healthy Americans."

and:

"And while the data on fat and health remained ambiguous and the scientific community polarized, the deadlock was broken not by any new science, but by politicians. It was Senator George McGovern's bipartisan, nonlegislative Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs--and, to be precise, a handful of McGovern's staff members--that almost single-handedly changed nutritional policy in this country and initiated the process of turning the dietary fat hypothesis into dogma."

But it's a fascinating read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if he is a quack, there is absolutely nothing to lose in trying this proceedure, except perhaps a few days while the baking soda is being administered. Is the answer that there is something else to be lost.....the reputation, the integrity of our oncology masters? Flushing away cancerous tumours with baking soda flies very much in the face of the complicated, relatively intellectual and high-tech methods of chemo and radiation.

Is there a monetary reason? The cancer departments within our national health care system, and the doctors and techs working there, would take a big hit.....baking soda is cheap, and the adminstration of it is fast.....not to mention the effect it would have on Big Pharma - - it's baking soda, not a very costly drug.

Patti, I think we're on the same page. There is absolutely no way the medical community is gonna attempt to even take this seriously. They have big egos and they are run by the Big Pharma.

Its very possible that some people may be cured. I dont think it would work for every patient....but some would benefit...and the ones who didnt would not be harmed by the treatment. However, there are soooo many things that the medical community is in denial about...so this may be just one more thing that gets swept under the rug.

Until science proves these answers we should be "thinking outside of the box", because the standard approach to solving these situations hasn't been that successful.

Exactly...and this is something that they just dont do "think outside the box". The ones that DO think outside the box are labeled "quacks".....thats just the way it is.

I think I'll stick with the "quacks"....thank you very much. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jestgar, the problem with actually finding scientific studies to prove my point is, that the government and big pharma will only fund studies that will prove that fat causes obesity. And if it proves the opposite, they'll be dismissed and never published. Because they have decided beforehand what they want to prove, and by heck, they will prove it, even if they have to falsify results.

Anybody who really wants to prove them wrong better be a billionaire, because that is what it will take. Plus, the medical journals usually refuse to print anything that would make big pharma, most doctors and the government look like idiots (and murderers) for making people eat low fat all these years.

The links I provided are just as good as the ones you gave, as yours aren't scientific studies, either, and don't prove a thing. All they are doing is repeating the same old brainwashing nonsense that 'everybody knows is true'.

It is a matter of 'everybody being wrong' and 'the minority being right but dismissed'.

So what most people believe that nonsense that red meat and animal fat is bad. In Galileo's time, 'everybody' believed the earth was flat, too. That didn't change the fact that this lone man was right, and everybody else was wrong.

So, I don't really care if you believe me or not, because I still know I am right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okey dokey

I posted no new links, I only reiterated yours, and pointed out that none of them support your claim. I said nothing to refute your statements; I only said that you, yourself provided no support for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okey dokey

I posted no new links, I only reiterated yours, and pointed out that none of them support your claim. I said nothing to refute your statements; I only said that you, yourself provided no support for them.

If you would read Gary Taubes' book, "Good Calories, Bad Calories", and a book called "Life Without Bread, how a low carbohydrate diet can save your life" by Christian B. Allan, Ph.D., and Wolfgang Lutz, M.D., you would find that evidence.

Gary Taubes took years to read through reams of medical journals, articles and studies (many of which we wouldn't have access to) to prove that in fact, meat and animal fat will HEAL those very diseases most people claim they cause. And that it is sugars and other carbohydrates and low fat diets that cause obesity, cancer, diabetes, gastrointestinal disorders and heart attacks (amongst other things).

I just received the second book in the mail yesterday and haven't read it yet. But from what I have read about it before ordering it, it should be an interesting read, which will further strengthen my stance.

Also, I am now committed, after finally being so sick I am unable to function altogether, to completely cut out all carbs, including all starchy vegetables, to hopefully lose weight and get better.

I tried eating mostly meat and fat, with some vegetables thrown in several times, only to cave in to my pushy family (husband and three of my daughters), who told me that I was eating all wrong and needed to stop eating so much meat and fat, and eat more vegetables.

It is very hard to stick to your guns when you are being insulted constantly. But I will have to close my ears to their nonsense and do what I know is right, for my own sake. Because I feel like I won't live long if I keep listening to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you would read Gary Taubes' book, "Good Calories, Bad Calories", and a book called "Life Without Bread" by Christian B. Allan, Ph.D., and Wolfgang Lutz, M.D., you would find that evidence.

Gary Taubes took years to read through reams of medical journals, articles and studies (many of which we wouldn't have access to) to prove that in fact, meat and animal fat will HEAL those very diseases most people claim they cause. And that it is sugars and other carbohydrates and low fat diets that cause obesity, cancer, diabetes, gastrointestinal disorders and heart attacks (amongst other things).

I just read through three of Gary Taubes' articles. In none of them does he state that high fat diets will cause cancer. What he does point out is that the evidence supporting low-fat diets is inadequate.

And I have access to all those articles, and sufficient knowledge of the field to understand them. I'm a molecular biochemist, and I have a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just read through three of Gary Taubes' articles. In none of them does he state that high fat diets will cause cancer. What he does point out is that the evidence supporting low-fat diets is inadequate.

And I have access to all those articles, and sufficient knowledge of the field to understand them. I'm a molecular biochemist, and I have a clue.

I am not sure what you are saying. Of course he wouldn't say that high fat diets cause cancer, as he is proving the OPPOSITE!

And in his book (which is a fat book, that takes quite a while to read) you will find lots and lots more evidence than his articles. In fact, the articles I found he wrote quite a while before he wrote the book, and even says that some of them he wrote before finding new evidence that makes some of them partially wrong.

So, by only reading the articles by him you find on the web, you don't get the whole picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cancer is a subject near and dear to my heart as my beloved mom dies of a very rare form of stomach cancer 5 years ago (it's usually more prevalent in African-Americans and Asians (especially Japanese) MEN who eat high quantities of smoked foods (like fish) and fried foods.

I have been thinking about the fungus/cancer correlation ( not causation) quite a bit since this thread started and I think that as someone (Jess?) stated before, cancer probably has multi-variate causes. In my mom's case, genetics played a large role as they suspect her mom died of the same cancer and was none of those ethnicities and did not eat those foods.

My mom ate both read meat and a low fat diet (yes- it is possible to do both). She exercised. She took excellent care of herself. I don't think genes/fungus/low fat/high fat/ or ANY of these variables alone are enough to be the SOLE cause of anything (cancer included). We are products of both our genes and our environment, and even though it may seem so, we do NOT share the EXACT same environment (we all live in different houses, eat different foods, etc) and I think you can make a good argument for a correlation, but as for the ONE THING THAT CAUSES OR PREVENTS cancer in EVERY individual- sorry, no magic bullet.

I agree- pharma companies, insurance companies and SOME doctors- would suffer if we discovered baking soda (or a low fat diet or Omega 3) prevented any major health problem across the board. I think often about how something I have, systemic chronic Lyme, has been denied by the medical establshment and many are not treated. I can tell you from personal experience- IV treatment costs $3000 a WEEK! Why don't the pharma companies and docs want to cash in on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I wanted to change the alkalinity of my body I'd do something much more fun than chugging baking soda - like a drinking binge or something.

Perhaps there's something here - - why not main-line scotch right into the tumour area? Johnny Walker would be on that bandwagon, fer sure.......... <_<:rolleyes:

Jegstar- You always impress me with drive to learn about these subjects.

Ursa- You have such class in your presentation of information.

Agreed! We're very lucky to have you guys around....... :)

Patti, I think we're on the same page. There is absolutely no way the medical community is gonna attempt to even take this seriously. They have big egos and they are run by the Big Pharma.

Yep. Take gluten out of your diet to alleviate depression, insomnia, psoriasis, infertility, chronic fatigue? Preposterous! Read: To much money to be lost in our billion-dollar drug gig. Attempt to flush away tumours with alkaline baking soda? Absurd! Read: Same thing. :(:angry:

I agree- pharma companies, insurance companies and SOME doctors- would suffer if we discovered baking soda (or a low fat diet or Omega 3) prevented any major health problem across the board.

Insurance companies wouldn't suffer! Au contraire, they'd be jumping up and down! Think of how much less money they'd be doling out for cancer drugs, chemo and radiation therapy.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure what you are saying. Of course he wouldn't say that high fat diets cause cancer, as he is proving the OPPOSITE!

And in his book (which is a fat book, that takes quite a while to read) you will find lots and lots more evidence than his articles. In fact, the articles I found he wrote quite a while before he wrote the book, and even says that some of them he wrote before finding new evidence that makes some of them partially wrong.

So, by only reading the articles by him you find on the web, you don't get the whole picture.

Sorry Ursa, you're right, he doesn't say that, but nor does he say a low fat diet contributes to heart disease. His articles are extremely well written and point out only that low fat diets are not proven to be good for the majority of the population (although they may have merit for some people). He also reminds us that high cholesterol is associated with heart disease, but has not been shown to be causative. He also acknowledges that lowering cholesterol in patients with heart disease does lead to fewer heart attacks. - Again, a statement that is true for a segment of the population.

Low fat diets HAVE been shown to reduce heart disease in very sedentary, poor diet populations -not the norm.

Very low fat diets (less than 25% fat) have been shown to raise cholesterol and triglycerides). So maybe it all goes back to what our mom's told us a long long time ago -- everything in moderation.

Caveat: A genetic predisposition to cancer (or high cholesterol or any number of things) DOESN"T fit into any of these models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see, what I am saying is, that he DOES say in his book that low fat diets have been shown to specifically cause breast cancer in women and colon cancer in men, and yes, they cause heart disease.

That is what I am saying........ I have also read the few articles of his that are floating around the Internet. And you are right, they don't say those things. But in his book he really does prove those things. That is why I am saying that in order to understand what I am saying here, you may want to read the book. It is very compelling and eye opening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting cancer topic to read:

http://www.vialls.com/vialls/laetrile1.html

A neighbor started taking vit B17 that had 6 months to live (his cancer was bad and he was a diabetic, he ate deep fried foods and diet pop for years) and he lived a year past that. The docs and nurses said it was b/c of the B17. I have an address for it. The USA wont sell it b/c it works...Big pharma :angry:

medicina alternativa

.cytopharma.com

tjsupply.com

1-888-281-6663

619-819-7931

It's cheap, last report it was $95 for a 3 month supply. Compare that to chemo and surgery. Do a study on laetrile. Apricot seeds. Who would guess that (Genesis 1:29). Years ago there was a scare. Nobody was supposed to eat apple seeds. They have B17...hm. Big Pharma knows how to brainwash the people and make billions doing it.

Here are more:

http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification...17-laetrile.htm

http://www.keepblairalive.com/b17foods.html

I saw a video on cancer is a fungus but I didn't save the web site. Very interesting.

I think I just found it, try this:

www.know-the-cause.com then go to Tullio Simoncini, MD with Doug Kaufmann

...sorry if someone already posted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Grandmother has been smoking since she was 12 years old. She is 80 and still mows her own yard with a push mower. No medical problems

I know a man who was 42. Never smoke, never drank, ate right, and worked out daily. He died of cancer.

I am going to smoke, drink rum, eat high fat red meats, lots of fruits and veggies, and take no medicines for anything. Unless they are "happy pills"!! :P I could care less about the fountain of youth. When I die, I'll be dead. Whoever outlives me by eating twigs and berries, or by pouring baking soda up their cock, good for them. They too will join me in death.

Love all, live for others, fear not.. just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a problem with the "fungus" idea as well. My Grandmother had breast cancer when she was in her early 40's. Back then they just....lopped the whole breast off. She lived with only 1 breast the rest of her life....till almost 90. Never had ANY other cancers again. Knowing how prolific fungi are....there is no way that she only had one spot of fungus in one breast and no where else in her body. And it isnt like she went on an anti-candida diet after the cancer (unless fried chicken, sweet potato pie, collard greens and teeth chattering sweet tea kills Candida). She didnt start exercising either unless watching 3 hours of soap operas a day counts. No meds for cancer. No chemo. No radiation. The only medication she was on at 89 was Armour Thyroid. That's it!

Can we conclude that Armour Thyroid kills fungus since she never got cancer again????

If you rounded up enough people who got cancer, but never had it come back and started taking Armour Thyroid AFTER the cancer, you could form a very strong hypothesis, write a book, do videos and make it seem PRETTY DARN convincing that Armour cures Cancer.

My brother got melanoma 15 years ago. They removed the spot. Clear margins. No recurrence in 15 years. No chemo. No radiation. He eats sugary cereals for breakfast, typical southern food and dips snuff. He lives in Florida and spends plenty of time outside. He "forgets" to put his sunscreen on all the time.......Where did ALL that fungus go that caused his skin cancer? Did it disappear??? Wait. He is on Armour Thyroid......

Hmmmmmm.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will add that my Sister was just Dx breast cancer in February. She was on Synthroid (which was not working for her). I finally convinced her to get her Doctor to switch her to Armour a few weeks after her Dx. She opted for double mastectomy. No radiation and no chemo. It will be interesting to see if she ever gets a recurrence. Of course I am praying not.

Maybe I will be writing a book someday.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fairly certain that Dr. Simoncini does not say that all cancerous tumours are fungal. I will have to watch the interview again, and take time to read some of his articles, but from what I remember, he puts forward the idea that those tumours which he has made completely disappear by saturating them with baking soda are fungal. They are white, and they die when exposed to an alkaline enviornment. Whether or not these characteristics are conclusive enough to determine that the tumours are fungal, I don't know, but it certainly sounds plausible at the very least. If I remember correctly, the areas of the body that he has successfully rid of cancerous tumours are the lungs and colon (the breast, as well? I must watch it again).

Some cancerous tumours are comprised of fungal material - - this is what I heard him say. If he said that ALL cancer is fungal, well......that is something I would have more trouble with, for certain..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm fairly certain that Dr. Simoncini does not say that all cancerous tumours are fungal. I will have to watch the interview again, and take time to read some of his articles, but from what I remember, he puts forward the idea that those tumours which he has made completely disappear by saturating them with baking soda are fungal. They are white, and they die when exposed to an alkaline enviornment. Whether or not these characteristics are conclusive enough to determine that the tumours are fungal, I don't know, but it certainly sounds plausible at the very least. If I remember correctly, the areas of the body that he has successfully rid of cancerous tumours are the lungs and colon (the breast, as well? I must watch it again).

Some cancerous tumours are comprised of fungal material - - this is what I heard him say. If he said that ALL cancer is fungal, well......that is something I would have more trouble with, for certain..

I don't recall him ever offering any proof that what he's showing (or discussing) is actually cancer (or fungus, for that matter. For all I know he could be showing globs of mucus).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got a book on Breast Cancer and lo and behold. Thyroid medications can shrink cysts and tumors. So maybe there is something to my line of thinking. I didnt watch the whole video. Hopefully he doesnt say or even "imply" that ALL are fungal. That would really blow a hole in his credibility IMO. There is so much we just dont understand. I firmly believe that some cancers are completely psychologically induced. Maybe we hate our breasts. We hate being a woman. We resent having babies that take up all of our time and leave little time for ourselves. Maybe we were sexually abused and learn to find our female parts repugnant and a source of pain. So on some deep level we create illness there. Day in and day out we send negative messages to those female organs. Then we get Breast Cancer or Ovarian cancer and get those "nasty" organs removed........

I think in ALL disease, you have to have an open mind about MANY different causes. I dont think "fungal" fits the cancers in my family and therefore I dont buy it so to speak. That doesnt mean that I couldnt be convinced that "some" cancers have a fungal cause. Like I said in the beginning of this thread. One of the ways the body deals with an "invader" is to surround it and make a protective "tumor" around whatever the irritant is. Sometimes there is just too much "irritant" and the body fills with tumors and is unable to keep up...and then the person dies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Discussions

    It is ugly truth that taking vitamins/minerals with RDA and AI can leads to major side effect. Biotin: it comes in food and supplement. It is highly suggested not to take it doses more than 30 µg. Its biggest sources is almond,cauliflower ...
    This is great advice, my mother and grand mother (both Hispanic) always would get the freshest ones and dip in the sauce before rolling. When reheating it varied with tortillas on freshness (and how much of a hurry) but they either heated...
    Hello.  Sorry you're so worried about your daughter.  You're a good mom to search for answers. Hope you're ready to read some articles..... B12 deficiency can cause abdominal pain... https://www.livestrong.com/article/478308-can-a...
×
×
  • Create New...