[www.naturalnews.com]
Sounds good. What do you think? It's associated with an outfit called hoslisticvoice.org with the money on the other side so to speak, it's useful to screen and critique our "allies'.

I was heartened by Annie's story. And I want to add my healthy skepticism to the discusssion. What do you think?

Paul



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2012 10:59PM by pborst.

If it's true, it's a powerful case study, and if it's not.... well... you get the picture.

Paul


"About the author:
(http://www.holisticvoice.org) Allison Biggar is a writer and filmmaker who believes in using the media to empower people to make a difference. Currently, she is directing a documentary on people who have cured themselves of disease naturally without drugs, surgery, chemotherapy or radiation.



Learn more: [www.naturalnews.com]:

comment: corroboration, third party documentation. Otherwise I could go to a faith healer and be cured too. sigh.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2012 11:16PM by pborst.

I don't know about the validity of the author of the afore mentioned story, but i can tell you that less than one month ago when i was eating a completely SAD diet i had a large pre-cancerous "mass" that showed up on my last mamogram. Doc said it wasnt cancer yet but there was a high probability that it was going to be wiithin the next 5 years. After 2-3 weeks of approx 80% raw i cant find the mass manually at all any more! I almost cant wait for my next scan to see what the Doc says.

They do this routinely at HHI in West Palm Beach FL with a 100% success rate? that is why this website exists imo.

I would caution anyone against assuming that a raw food diet will cure cancer automatically. There are stories of raw foodists dying of cancer too.

"i know someone who is well known in the 811 community who had their whole view blown wide open about health and diet when one of their friends, who’d lived a ‘hygienic’, healthy lifestyle including 811, died of cancer…" (ref)


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Allison Biggar is a photographer/film maker.

rawgosia,

I am wondering why you think 30 Bananas a Day Sucks is a reputable site to cite? It is true that the post's caution that no diet can be categorically assumed to be curative of cancer would be prudent to consider, but the author is sketchy about the individuals that have failed to cure cancer on 80/10/10: "I have no wish to divulge further"(?). Elsewhere a validation of Denise Minger, a Weston Price adjunct, makes me suspicious of their agenda. Huh, irony.

The Gerson Therapy is an established successful cancer protocol, as is Dr. Lodi's regimen. There are a few others that appear pretty good for breast cancer, especially, macrobiotics, Oasis of Healing, etc. Certainly a regimented protocol undertaken in a clinical setting is not equivalent to just winging it on a raw diet and expecting a panacea effect.

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Gerson Therapy is an established successful
> cancer protocol, as is Dr. Lodi's regimen. There
> are a few others that appear pretty good for
> breast cancer, especially, macrobiotics, Oasis of
> Healing, etc.


Non-scientifically established as successful, or established as successful in non-scientific circles, one must be aware of it. That's why I would agree that these regimens are good only to the extent that they "appear pretty good" in light of non-scientific sources.

This is something i was also thinking reading another recent thread which discussed possibility of refusing chemo etc. People's opinions differ on this of course, personally though the only way I would refuse chemo is after the consultation with a traditional medical specialist. They may not be allowed to recommend dropping the chemo, but most of the time they are highly intelligent and educated people to be able to see and possibly impartially explain pros and cons of both approaches. It's just I would never believe that becoming a traditional doctor, *of itself* closes the opportunity for the person to appreciate alternative approaches.

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<

Does anyone have any facts about cecilie from denmark who died?

Chat wrote,

<<<People's opinions differ on this of course, personally though the only way I would refuse chemo is after the consultation with a traditional medical specialist.>>>

Yes, people’s opinions differ on Chemo because most people don’t know the difference between their colon and a garden hose, especially our so-called Medical Experts. “Traditional Medical Specialists” are NOT Experts on Health and what we’re supposed to do in the event that we Lose our Health. Most people don’t know that Chemo has never been double blind tested, most people don’t know that Chemo does NOT work and most people don’t know that 70% of Oncologists would refuse Chemo if they had cancer.

The SAD reality to our existence is that all of our so-called Experts in every field of Health, Allopathic Doctors, Nutritionists, etc. have been Mis-Directed by the Sickest of the Sickest of us to make sure that none of our so-called Experts and none of us ever figure out how to get and stay Healthy!!!

<<<They may not be allowed to recommend dropping the chemo, but most of the time they are highly intelligent and educated people to be able to see and possibly impartially explain pros and cons of both approaches. It's just I would never believe that becoming a traditional doctor, *of itself* closes the opportunity for the person to appreciate alternative approaches.>>>

You’ve got to be kidding!!! “Traditional Doctors” are the most closed minded people on this planet. Their Ignorance and Arrogance is unmatched by any other profession mainly because they are NOT taught the Concept of Totality, as every other profession is taught. Obviously, everyone has Knowledge Filters, but “Traditional Doctors” have the biggest Knowledge Filters of all and the biggest Mistake anyone of us can make is to think that “Traditional Doctors” are Experts on Health.

Peace and Love..........John





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2012 02:48PM by John Rose.

No I don't kidding and I actually believe that to think otherwise is narrow-minded. Traditional doctors are human just as everybody else, and just as everybody else they are able to reason. Becoming a doctor simply does not preclude one from the latter.

On the contrary, i believe that in many cases it helps, due to innate and acquired over the years intelligence typical of people whose everyday job requires extensive use of reasoning abilities. So yes, at least so far as UK specialists are concerned, I would not make a decision relating to cancer treatment without consulting them first.

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<

chat,

Consulting with an onco is prudent, as they are supposed to be the ones with latest data on therapies, oncogenic theory, and epigenetics. Caveat: supposed to be; here in the States, it varies. Heck, general knowledge of human biology varies from doctor to doctor--I had one recent graduate insisting, violently, that the liver does not regenerate! Of the six oncologists I have met with[my mother was a cancer patient], only the oncologist she eventually selected was what I would call open-minded. The others were doctrinaire pharmacopiaholics without the slightest knowledge of true long-term chemo-reagent based outcome statistics, alternative therapies or willingness to consider alternative therapies as adjuncts. And by willingness, I mean, apparent lack of derisiveness. Hopefully, it is different in the UK, what with your tradition of homeopathy, herbalism, etc. Note: the onco my mother selected made a point of mentioning that when he graduated from med school, pharmacology was still closely tied to herbal botany, and this informed his understanding of the body's healing mechanisms and its responses to chemical protocols.

Also note: Though he was knowledgeable and diligent, he had still missed the core data on one of the chemoreagents he prescribed to my mother, which had in fact never proven efficacy for her cancer and had a very serious fatal side effect, but was approved by the FDA anyway(it has since been discontinued for this use).

So, should it ever come to your having to consult with an oncologist, please, please remember to ask what percentage of that onco's patients are still alive ten years after diagnosis, especially stage 1 and 2s. To not ask this question is to be negligent about your options, IMO.

I agree that there will be differences in different people. What I wanted to argue against, is the assumption that doctors go to med school, learn A,B,C, and then practice applying this A,B,C to people. And period.

*Some* doctors do this no doubt. In UK, you'd be likely to find them among GP's. Even though during their uni years they were encouraged to use their brains not only to memorise but also critically, once they start practice for many it becomes a routine and so they mechanically apply A,B,C without caring about advanced aspects of said applications, and without caring about possible alternative approached unless they happen to be independently interested in some of them.

But things tend to be different with specialists. In UK at least, many of them are inviolved in full-time research in addition to their practicing duties. And these people by the very nature of their jobs do not think in terms of applying A, B, C and period. They are constantly on the lookout for new ideas and different approaches simply because these may provide or suggest a solution to a particular problem they are working on. So you can see that if such specialist had not been taught herbal botany at university, this would hardly be a reason for him to close his mind to the matter once he comes across it in his research.

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2012 04:32PM by chat.

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, should it ever come to your having to consult
> with an oncologist, please, please remember to ask
> what percentage of that onco's patients are still
> alive ten years after diagnosis, especially stage
> 1 and 2s. To not ask this question is to be
> negligent about your options, IMO.

Honestly, this is the question i would never ask. For to ask this would be to assume that all you need to do in order to fight cancer is to arrive at an appropriately good (=successful) doctor, which is a wrong assumption in my view. The doctor's care is only part of the job, the other part is done by the patient himself, and we know only too well how different people are when it comes to caring about their body. Plus yet another part of the job of fighting with cancer is to be done by the body, and here again I don't need to tell you to what extent sone people abuse their bodies before it becomes too late. Plus there are genetic individualities of the bodies, plus individualities of the cancers, and so on.

Against this picture the success rate means very little I think. I believe it would be prudent to ask a second opinion (an opinion of another specialist), and even third or forth, and of course to do as much research yourself as one can. But that's about exhausts the reasonable precautions, I think.

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2012 04:51PM by chat.

Chat wrote,

<<<No I don't kidding and I actually believe that to think otherwise is narrow-minded. Traditional doctors are human just as everybody else, and just as everybody else they are able to reason. Becoming a doctor simply does not preclude one from the latter.>>>

It sounds like you know as much about "Knowledge Filters" as you know about Biophotons. Everyone, especially scientists, have "Knowledge Filters" on their brains so that when any new Knowledge comes along that threatens their existing Paradigm, they filter it out.

This is what Dr. Richard Thompson said about "Knowledge Filters." "This is a fundamental feature of science, it’s also a fundamental feature of human nature. People tend to filter out things that don’t fit, that don’t make sense in their terms of their paradigm or their way of thinking. So, in science you find that evidence that doesn’t fit the excepted paradigm tends to be eliminated - it’s not taught, it’s not discussed and people who are educated in scientific teachings generally don’t even know about it. ... It’s not necessarily a deliberate conspiracy in the sense of some people getting together in a smoke filled room and saying we’re going to deceive people. It’s something that happens automatically within the scientific community. So, when a given piece of evidence disagrees with the predominate theory, then automatically people won’t talk about it, they won’t report it and that means that science fails to progress in the way that one would hope."

<<<I would not make a decision relating to cancer treatment without consulting them first.>>>

There are NO Chemical Solutions for Lifestyle Related Problems!!! The history of using Chemicals to treat Cancer is a story straight from the World Wars. Farben was the prime manufacturer of the poison Mustard Gas used to kill soldiers, and of Zyklon B, the nerve poison used to kill six million Jews in the concentration camp of German-occupied Europe. In a bizarre development, poison Mustard Gas was simultaneously researched for its ability to kill Cancer tumors and soldiers.

Alan C. Nixon, PhD, Past President of the American Chemical Society wrote that 'As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that Chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good'.

You mean to tell me that the best medical science has to offer is destructive and toxic pharmaceuticals, Mustard Gas Derivatives labeled Chemotherapy and Cobalt Radiation, all of which Cause Cancer? This is your Wake Up call folks! They tell you to stay 100 miles away from an atomic bomb and nuclear detonations but they stick deadly Radiation and Chemo agents directly into your bloodstream and call it cancer treatment.

The failure of Chemotherapy to control Cancer has become apparent even to the oncology establishment. Scientific American featured a recent cover story entitled: "The War on Cancer -- It's Being Lost." In it, eminent epidemiologist John C. Bailar III, MD, PhD, Chairman of the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McGill University cited the relentless increase in cancer deaths in the face of growing use of toxic Chemotherapy.

The main problem with Chemotherapy is that the general public is generally unaware that in most cases chemotherapy does more harm than good; most doctors knowledgeable in the area know this and will admit it in private. When an oncologist is asked what he or she can do for a patient's cancer it is hard to say - Chemotherapy is unlikely to help you!

Doctors sometimes brush off Chemotherapy’s side effects as a small price to pay for increased survival. But Chemotherapy came out of World War II Mustard Gas experiments and it remains a Poison.

Peace and Love..........John

<<<Honestly, this is the question i would never ask. For to ask this would be to assume that all you need to do in order to fight cancer is to arrive at an appropriately good (=successful) doctor, which is a wrong assumption in my view.>>>

The Flaw in your thinking is that we have to FIGHT CANCER.

“Why are they poisoning the sick? Because they’re carrying on a warfare against attacking entities.” Herbert Shelton, Audio Tapes

"This symptom/drug approach points the way to what is amiss in mainstream medicine today. It suffers from a fixation on the drug treatment of health problems. The typical medical treatment program for almost any given problem follows a war metaphor: Find the villain and destroy it. If a villain cannot be found, look for the destruction left in its wake. That is, treat the disease by killing it or, failing that, treat the symptoms." -John R. Lee, MD, "What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Menopause" p. xxii

Peace and Love..........John

So where again is your knowledge about biophotons, John? I've tried to ask you this question twice already, in two different threads, but apart from dismissing my knowledge as incorrect without giving any reasons for it, you haven't progressed any further.

So here comes the question again: why and in which sense our biophotons need to be "bumped up", and why should one chose juice fasting to achieve this? Grazie!

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<

Chat,

<<<why and in which sense our biophotons need to be "bumped up">>>

I’ve already told you that Dr. Fritz-Albert Popp found that our Health, as well as the Health of all Living Systems, is directly related to our Biophoton Levels and there ain’t No Biophotons in Water, hence the superiority of Juice Fasting/Feasting over Water Fasting.

Tell me chat, why haven’t you done an adequate search on Biophotons?

I don’t understand why you are refusing to look into this and in all honesty, you’re making me doubt your sincerity and sometimes I even doubt your motives for being here.

However, if you are sincere and if you are simply overwhelmed when searching for Biophotons, perhaps you might try fine tuning your search with these words:

Biophotons and Dr. Fritz-Albert Popp

Biophotons, Dr. Fritz-Albert Popp and Mercola

Biophotons, Dr. Fritz-Albert Popp and Cousens

You’ll also want to do a Video search, especially with Cousens in the search.

<<<but apart from dismissing my knowledge as incorrect without giving any reasons for it, you haven't progressed any further.>>>

I’ve never dismissed your Knowledge as incorrect - it’s just incomplete and it’s not up to me to progress this any further. If you are truly genuine and sincere in finding the Truth, then do your homework and please stop blaming me for your Lack of Knowledge.

Peace and Love..........John

problem is that some do heal like lance armstrong, who got chemo.

even though that likely wasn't what healed him.

Aww bless you John, no one blames you. If you like, I will copy and paste for you what I have found out about biophotons, from the thread when I first asked the question.

So you spoke about "the issue with our biophotons" and urged that our biophotons need to be "bumped up". Intrigued, I did a search and this is what I found. Biophotons are tiny particles of light emitted by living cells. The research is ongoing as to the function of these emissions and possibility of them being part of cells interaction. Fritz-Albert Popp is a professor of biophysics who in 1970s discovered biophotons and since then has continued the research in biophotonics.

Now the above does not really make it clear what you could possibly have meant by "the issue with biophotons", nor why and in which sense our biophotons need to be "bumped up". Let alone the connection of "the issue with biophotons", their need to be "bumped up" with the need to juice fast. But i couldnt find any other scientific information which would shed light on your words. Hence I asked you a question - to either clarify or possibly point to a link which leads to such scientific information, which would explain what you meant. Suggesting to google dr mercola is not going to cut it unless dr mercola is the source of scientific information on the matter, which I sort of doubt merely because dr mercola does not do biophysics.


If, however, you "issue with biophotons" comes directly from dr mercola's and similar sloppy science, then yeh - in this respect my knowledge is certainly incomplete and i sincerely hope it will remain so.

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2012 06:26PM by chat.

Chat,

You are becoming very predictable! SIGH!!!

As Einstein once said, “Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.” and you are the epitome of IGNORANCE.

So last year my friend asked me if I would talk to her neighbor who had gone to conventional doctors to determine why he wasn't feeling well, though he kept healthy lifestyles in general. The first year they told him it was gastroesophogeal reflux and told him to take tums, the next year when he went back and said he wasn't feeling better, they gave him a perscription remedy. The following year when he went back still complaining, they told him he had stage 4 esophogeal cancer and he had to start chemo and radiation immediately so they could shrink the tumor and operate asap. or he had 6 months or so.

I spoke with him telling him it was his choice and other options, specially HHI FL. He chose to do a round of chemo and radiation. I don't know exactly what happened (he had had experience the loss of love ones from cancer a few times in the past). But he called me and wanted me to repeat my thoughts. It has been since the New Year. He is staying in Florida, running everyday, and thriving now.

All I can say is YEA!!!!!!

Here are some of my notes from Harvey Diamond's book "You Can Prevent Breast Cancer":

"I came to a passage, a short, simple passage that spoke volumes. At first I couldn't believe what my eyes saw, so I read it over carefully again and again. It was as if all my work and effort had been rewarded with one simple sentence found in probably the last place on earth I would expect, or even hope, to find it; in a defining text to TEACH the subject."

"Here is the passage which was set off from the rest of the text and printed on a different colored background in order to set it off from the rest of the information on that page."

'Cancer cells can spread from a tumor site to other areas of the body through the lymphatic system. At first, however, as the cancer cells pass through the lymph system, they are trapped in the lymph nodes, which filter the lymph. During cancer surgery, malignant (cancerous) lymph nodes are often removed, and their vessels are cut and tied off to prevent the spread of the cancer.'

"Now in all likelihood, there's nothing so momentous there that you would equate it with finding the lost Holy Grail as I have. But let me highlight the sentence that jumped off the page at me like a pit bull going after a steak and explain why it is of such significance:"

'At first, however, as the cells pass through the lymph system THEY ARE TRAPPED IN THE LYMPH NODES which filter the lymph.'

"This one sentence proves so much of what I have been stating."

"As I am writing this right now, I'm so excited I hardly know where to begin in showing you the magnitude of this statement. First of all, it shows that although there may be a masterful understanding of the TECHNICAL functions of the lymph system, there is no understanding of the PRACTICAL functions it performs. Earlier I stated that Natural Hygiene sees the body as dynamic, as the actor. Traditional medicine sees the body as passive, as a victim. We so often hear about how cancer spreads and works itself into a lymph node requiring the node's removal. But it is made very clear, totally clear in the passage from the teaching text that cancer cells don't work their way into a lymph node, the cancer cells are "TRAPPED BY" the lymph nodes."
A cancer cell works its way into a lymph node in the same way a piece of dirt "works its way" into a vacuum cleaner. The lymph node is doing something to the cancer cells. It is not the other way around. No wonder "they don't know." They have reversed the entire order of things."

Then on page 108, Harvey continues:

"Within the lymph nodes there are what are called phagocytic cells. Phago means eat and cytic means cell. Eating cells gobble up and degrade foreign substances. Cancer cells are trapped there as the body's last line of defense. Remember, cancer is the seventh and last stage of disease. All during the first six stages when cancer could have been prevented by certain life-style changes, but wasn't, the next stage kept inevitably following the previous one until cancer appeared. As a last ditch effort to deal with the cancer that had obviously broken away from its original site and started to spread through the lymph system, the body traps them, to deal with them."

"And how are these precious lymph nodes treated by those who "don't know?" THEY ARE CUT OUT! And why? FOR PERFORMING THE VERY FUNCTION THEY WERE CREATED AND INTENDED TO PERFORM!

-Harvey Diamond's book "You Can Prevent Breast Cancer" pp. 106-107, 108

Peace and Love..........John

Thanks John Rose, one day Chat will wake up! well I hope he will.

Yeah John, I'm very predictable Sadly you aren't, i imagine it would have been of some help with "the issue with biophotons" the secret of which you refuse to reveal. Oh well, maybe one day!

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<

rzman10001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks John Rose, one day Chat will wake up! well
> I hope he will.


Rzman no way, not until there is a solid support to whatever claims are made. (And no, capitalising every other word as the above very knowledgeable John loves so much, does not count as the solid support)

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<

OK chat,

How many times do I have to tell you this?

Dr. Fritz-Albert Popp found a direct relationship between our Health and our Biophoton Levels. Perhaps if you think of our Biophoton Levels as one of our Biomarkers, you might be able to wrap your brain around it. However, you are proving yourself to be a Dishonest Skeptic and obviously, you are NOT interested in the Truth - all you want is for me to give you something specific so you can attack it, as you did with Mercola. In contrast, if you were an Honest Skeptic, you would be genuinely interested in the Truth and would stay cautious until you were clear about what is True and by now, would have already figured out what Biophotons are all about.

Once again, you are extremely predictable, just like every other Dishonest Skeptic I have ever met.

What 'skeptics' really believe about vaccines, medicine, consciousness and the universe
Sunday, January 24, 2010
[www.naturalnews.com]

'Skeptics' article stirs up condemnation from skeptics, praise from holistic thinkers
Monday, January 25, 2010
[www.naturalnews.com]

Peace and Love..........John

Yeah yeah, so "the issue with biophotons" is that "Dr. Fritz-Albert Popp found a direct relationship between our Health and our Biophoton Levels"? And how exactly this statement elaborates on your claim?

To remind, your claim was that juice fasting is good "because of the issue with biophotons". Then you said that our biophotons need to be "bumped up", and I assumed that since juice fasting is good "because of the issue with biophotons" it is juice fasting that is supposed to "bump up" our biophotons.

And so i asked: what exactly is the "issue"? Why and in which sence our biophotons need to be "bumped up"? What is the evidence of the relevance of juice fast to this matter?

And your answer is: "Dr. Fritz-Albert Popp found a direct relationship between our Health and our Biophoton Levels." Bless you!

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<

<<<Thanks John Rose, one day Chat will wake up! well I hope he will.>>>

Thanks Chris, but I don’t think chat wants to wake up. In fact, I have a sick feeling that she is not who she pretends to be. I could be wrong, but my Spidey Sense is tingling. Oh no, I gave her a clue. Will she figure it out or will she just attack me again or will she attack Mercola again or will she attack Cousens this time around?

Peace and Love..........John

Yep im a little black ninja prowling its way up in the trees of doom. I thought everyone knew this! (Looks around) Juuuuuummmmmpppppp!


Poor John is under attack, awwww...




>Banana ice-cream rocks!<