SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Is this something she emailed you?

no

Sooo very vague
> in the facts department but at least we now know,
> (if this is what she actually told you or said)
> that there was more than one doctor. That's
> something.

you'll have to buy her book for more facts, apparently. she'll squeeze money out of you somehow !

no, that was me saying doctors, could have been one doctor.

here's quote from someone who read her book

I have just finished reading Janette Murray-Wakelin's book published 2013 and, although jumping in late to this post, can clarify some questions about her bc prognosis, as reported in her book. She had a golf ball size tumour that was removed without complication and 9/23 lymph nodes present were affected. The cancer was described as highly aggressive and she had "..numerous smaller tumours scattered throughout the chest wall, too many and over too wide an area to remove".



>
> .

here's another lady. but nothing specific about any standard medical treatment that she may have had, nor any documented diagnosis.



[ifood.tv]

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> here's another lady. but nothing specific about
> any standard medical treatment that she may have
> had, nor any documented diagnosis.
>
>
>
> [ifood.tv]
> e-about-a-plant-based-diet

I guess you initially missed this post, too, from page one of this very thread...



Re: Tavis Bradley - "AIDS, HIV, Cancer, & the Truth"

Posted by: SueZ ()

Date: March 25, 2015 07:41PM


Dr. Ruby Latham's story of curing her thyroid cancer doesn't sound convincing either ...


[www.naturalnews.com]

[www.linkedin.com]

[www.rubylathon.com]

Getting back on topic, concerning Tavis, AIDS, HIV, cancer, truth, can anyone who watched the entire video write down a synopsis of the major points of the video?

Thanks in advance.

>I guess you initially missed this post, too, from page one of this very thread...

i don't read every post. i do my best.

prana, it was too boring. couldn't watch it.

Prana Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Getting back on topic, concerning Tavis, AIDS,
> HIV, cancer, truth, can anyone who watched the
> entire video write down a synopsis of the major
> points of the video?
>
> Thanks in advance.

Only a synopsis from Coconutcream could do such a video justice ...

Tai wrote:
I am not criticizing anyone, because some
> people with more sedentary lifestyles can do well
> with a higher fat diet.

SueZ wrote:
Hey, get at the end of the long line of scolders of those who are on a high fat raw vegan diet if you feel like it.
....
I don't know why you brought a high fat raw vegan diet up again just here and now unless you are dragging Tavis back into this, too. Whatever.

Tai:
I said I wasn't criticizing high fat, which means I wasn't scolding those who eat high fat. I actually like Tavis' heart, so I have no interest in publicly criticizing him. I personally use low fat for healing, so I comprehend and can follow the natural healers who use a high raw low fat vegan diet. That is what I comprehend and use, and I did acknowledge Lou Corona's diet as being able to heal disease, even though it is higher fat, because he uses copious amounts of enzymes and probiotics. IT is a valid method. I don't know Tavis' method, so I don't want to comment on it, but simply say that the videos I have seen haven't drawn me in. But I can understand why Dan says they are best friends. He seems like a sincere man with a kind heart.

SueZ wrote:
Janette claims that only going from a vegan diet to a raw vegan diet and running was enough to cure her cancer but that does not mean it is so. Period.

Tai:
I keep saying that she claims she did so much more, including daily IV drips. No, she never said that only a raw vegan diet did the trick. I think it is only appropriate to make such statements, if you were actually quoting verbatim from her published book. Otherwise, what are you quoting from?

Tai, two days ago I took a lot of time to answer your previous post so am not happy to see that you totally overrode my context on the points I made.

For instance, on this one, you took one sentence out of a pp to make it look like what I was getting at was that all Janette did was to change her diet...


"Janette claims that only going from a vegan diet to a raw vegan diet and running was enough to cure her cancer but that does not mean it is so."

And then you countered that out of context quote with this...

TAI:

"I keep saying that she claims she did so much more, including daily IV drips. No, she never said that only a raw vegan diet did the trick. I think it is only appropriate to make such statements, if you were actually quoting verbatim from her published book. Otherwise, what are you quoting from?


When what I said is PUT BACK IN THE CONTEXT I WROTE IT (as seen below) I believe it is clear what I was saying is that my mother's recovery, which didn't even include ANY of the dietary or IV or herbal stuff the vegan runner did, relied on her HAVING HAD SURGURY. I think it is clear that I wasn't saying Janette didn't do tons more that dietary changes and that I was saying maybe none of that necessarily cured her cancer at all. I was saying maybe what cured her cancer was the surgery, as it was in my mother's case.



"As I have said before my mother had breast cancer surgery (she was in her late 50's and it had also gone into her lymph glands) and she, too, also did not opt to have radiation or chemo. She ate a terrible SAD diet before she had cancer and she ate an even worse SAD diet after her surgery and has never had a recurrence. She didn't exercise before or after the cancer either. So I know for a fact that sometimes the surgery itself is enough without even eating a decent diet. Janette claims that only going from a vegan diet to a raw vegan diet and running was enough to cure her cancer but that does not mean it is so. Period. Also remember - many many people have scars from surgeries that were not done for the removal of cancers...

except for the fact that (if true) she , janette, had multiple lymph node problems that were not touched by her surgery

Well I hope I have cleared up what I was really trying to say and meant. I gave it my best shot.


Anyway, fresh, not that you would care to know more or care at all, but since you brought it up - the fact is that my mother had multiple lymph nodes and chest wall involvement, too, and eats a SAD diet to this day without a cancer recurrence.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well I hope I have cleared up what I was really
> trying to say and meant. I gave it my best shot.
>
>
> Anyway, fresh, not that you would care to know
> more or care at all, but since you brought it up -
> the fact is that my mother had multiple lymph
> nodes and chest wall involvement, too, and eats a
> SAD diet to this day without a cancer recurrence.


actually i find that very informative and interesting since i did not know what they did with your mom's nodes. makes cancer outcomes sound like a crapshoot.

SueZ, I understand about your mom and I understand what you are saying about surgery, and I understand that you are saying that Janette's scar doesn't prove anything to you. Did your mother have all cancer surgically removed? Were all affected lymph nodes removed?

I will tell you something so that you don't hold it over anyone's head in the future. But in telling you this, I hope you don't jump to an untrue conclusion. She changed names in the book (Raw Can Cure Cancer) and wrote the book to make it read like a novel. This book is useful for those who have time to read through the creative writing, but will frustrate those who are looking for plain language. Well, I am glad to read about her experience, because I am not very familiar with all those exotic naturopathic procedures. I speculate that she wrote the book in that creative style (i.e., she fictionalized it) as a way to protect herself from liability. She wrote, "This story is the compilation of the highlights of events that really occurred and conversations that really took place...I emphasize that this story is all based on fact."

I like the marathon book, because they share how they dealt with injuries, which gave me hope. I thought they were diehard NH and never used herbs. On page 66 (March 7, 2013), Janette fell on the road and got the wind knocked out of her and used a comfrey salve over the rib injury. She ate a whole pineapple for the bromelain to help with the injury. Marathon #68 on March 9, 2013, they got attacked by sandflies. They sound horrible. I never heard of them. I wonder how they compare to the dreaded chiggers I encountered in Arkansas. After being horribly attacked, they put on netting and were so hot from it, and the last 2 km, Janette tripped and gashed her knees and elbows. The next three days were painful for her. Marathon 194, July 13, 2013, Alan bit the dust too. I haven't finished reading and just have peaked here and there. And they had their share of mosquitos, too, sometimes getting bit all night. They also had to run through rain. I admire the perseverance.

that's strange, Tai....

also i got a response from her and she wouldn't answer my questions, said to buy her book, which irritates me because it validates suez .

To Fresh,
I personally don't assume anything. I found them totally genuine. Look at how much heat Brian Clement is getting now. If a patient was getting help from HHI, maybe they would want to keep that private, given the controversy. I think there is enough people that meet Janette and Alan and want to know the deeper story and so they read the book.

What were your questions?

i asked about her treatments and anything like turmeric taken and who gave clean bill of health.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SueZ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well I hope I have cleared up what I was really
> > trying to say and meant. I gave it my best shot.
>
> >
> >
> > Anyway, fresh, not that you would care to know
> > more or care at all, but since you brought it up
> -
> > the fact is that my mother had multiple lymph
> > nodes and chest wall involvement, too, and eats
> a
> > SAD diet to this day without a cancer
> recurrence.
>
>
> actually i find that very informative and
> interesting since i did not know what they did
> with your mom's nodes. makes cancer outcomes
> sound like a crapshoot.



On review of this thread I noticed two new things which were posted which (I'm guessing) both originated in Janette's tale of her story that need further explaining to jibe ...


1. "except for the fact that (if true) she , janette, had multiple lymph node problems that were not touched by her surgery"

2. "and 9/23 lymph nodes present were affected"

Unless things have radically changed over the years, and huge leaps have been made (which could have been possible ) lymph nodes need to be surgically removed from a body and sent to the lab. It is in the lab where they are counted and subjected to biopsy. I'm pretty sure that is how it used to be done but I'm not positive how things were done in 2001.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fresh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > SueZ Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Well I hope I have cleared up what I was
> really
> > > trying to say and meant. I gave it my best
> shot.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyway, fresh, not that you would care to
> know
> > > more or care at all, but since you brought it
> up
> > -
> > > the fact is that my mother had multiple lymph
> > > nodes and chest wall involvement, too, and
> eats
> > a
> > > SAD diet to this day without a cancer
> > recurrence.
> >
> >
> > actually i find that very informative and
> > interesting since i did not know what they did
> > with your mom's nodes. makes cancer outcomes
> > sound like a crapshoot.
>
>
>
> On review of this thread I noticed two new things
> which were posted which (I'm guessing) both
> originated in Janette's tale of her story that
> need further explaining to jibe ...
>
>
> 1. "except for the fact that (if true) she ,
> janette, had multiple lymph node problems that
> were not touched by her surgery"
>
> 2. "and 9/23 lymph nodes present were affected"
>
> Unless things have radically changed over the
> years, and huge leaps have been made (which could
> have been possible ) lymph nodes need to be
> surgically removed from a body and sent to the
> lab. It is in the lab where they are counted and
> subjected to biopsy. I'm pretty sure that is how
> it used to be done but I'm not positive how things
> were done in 2001.

Recently, I started wondering if the star client of the California based HHI cancer crew, Suzanne Somers, had actually really had breast cancer. While looking for clues on that I ran into the answer whether there was some way developed which could diagnose lymph nodes for cancer that didn't require them being removed. The answer is "yes" but as those who read the article will discover, Janette-Murray-Wakelin was not a person who had that procedure and so must have had her lymph glands removed in order for it to have been determined that 9/13 were "affected". That is, if she really had breast cancer at all...



"In preparation for my talk at TAM7, I searched for all the information I could find that was publicly available about Suzanne Somers’ diagnosis of breast cancer back in 2000. For your edification, I’ve also uploaded the slides from my presentation relevant to Suzanne Somers’ breast cancer diagnosis as a PDF file. Suffice it to say, there is a great deal of misunderstanding of breast cancer in Somers’ testimonial. In this case, I don’t actually blame Somers all that much for her misunderstanding, because it is a very common misunderstanding that clearly derives from a misunderstanding of the difference between using chemotherapy for primary treatment of cancer versus adjuvant treatment of cancer. In early stage breast cancer, which can be surgically removed for cure, chemotherapy and radiation therapy are in general used as additional therapies that decrease the risk of recurrence of the cancer after surgery. That’s what adjuvant therapy is, extra therapy that improves a patient’s odds of surviving after a primary treatment. In the case of early stage breast cancer, the primary treatment is surgery.

From what I can find from publicly available information on the Internet (I’ve never read one of Suzanne Somers’ books), at age 54 Somers was diagnosed with a breast cancer that was treated by lumpectomy (excision of the “lump” or tumor) and a sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy, the latter of which was negative for tumor cells in the SLN, plus radiation therapy. For those not familiar with the SLN procedure, it is a procedure that developed in the 1990s to determine whether a woman’s breast cancer has spread to the axillary lymph nodes (the lymph nodes under the arm) without actually removing all of the axillary lymph nodes. Before the advent of SLN biopsy, the standard of care was to do an axillary dissection (removal of all the lymph nodes under the arm) on the side of the tumor in order to determine if and how many of the lymph nodes are positive for cancer. This is critical information, because the single most powerful prognostic indicator for potentially curable breast cancer (i.e., breast cancer that has not spread beyond the axillary lymph nodes to the rest of the body, such as bone, liver, or lung) is the presence of metastases in the axillary lymph nodes and, if they are present, how many. Unfortunately, as less invasive means of treating breast cancer were developed, such as lumpectomy, the part of the operation that carried the most morbidity was the axillary dissection. Consequently, as science-based physicians are wont to do, during the 1990s surgeons tried to find a way to get the same information (are the lymph nodes positive or negative) with a less morbid procedure and thus reserve axillary dissection only for patients who do have lymph nodes with breast cancer metastases in them.

Thus, the SLN biopsy was developed as a strategy to decrease the possibility of the most feared complication of axillary dissection, lymphedema, and still get the necessary information regarding lymph node positivity or negativity. Basically, an SLN biopsy is preformed by injecting both a radioactive dye and a blue dye (usually Lymphazurin Blue) into the breast. The dyes are then taken up in the lymphatics and head towards the axilla, where they lodge in one or more lymph nodes. This is (these are) the sentinel lymph node(s). The concept behind the procedure is that the sentinel node is the first lymph node a tumor cell that broke off from the tumor and got into the lymphatics will “see” and lodge in. In other words, the dye mimics the pathway that tumor cells take to metastasize to the axillary lymph nodes. If the sentinel node is negative, it’s an accurate indication that the rest of the lymph nodes are negative, and in general no further surgery is needed. Women are identified as node negative without removing all the axillary lymph nodes. Best of all, the risk of lymphedema from the procedure very, very small, far smaller than it is for axillary dissection (removing all the lymph nodes). Since the purpose of axillary dissection was far more diagnostic (to find out if the lymph nodes are contain tumor and, if so, how many), this is a good thing. On the other hand, if the SLN contains tumor, then axillary dissection is needed. In fact, far fewer women now undergo the procedure than in the past, and it is even coming under question whether a woman with a positive SLN truly needs a full axillary dissection."

[www.sciencebasedmedicine.org]

So, in short, for those who haven't read the above post, if Janette-Murray-Wakelin had 9/13 affected lymph nodes they HAD to have been removed from her body to know that. If she is claiming that she had 9/13 lymph nodes affected AND that she did not have lymph nodes removed she is not telling the truth about "her cancer surgery".

Does anyone know whether she had "her cancer surgery" while she was running her 20 employee "wellness" corporation on Vancouver Island in Canada?

i don't think that is correct.

could have been needle biopsy or assumption from size of nodes

---------------

[www.cancer.org]

Doctors may also take samples of one or more nodes using needles. Usually, this is done on lymph nodes that are enlarged. This is called a needle biopsy. The tissue that’s removed is looked at under the microscope by a pathologist (a doctor who diagnoses illness using tissue samples) to find out if there are cancer cells in it

Under the microscope, any cancer cells in the nodes look like cells from the primary tumor. For instance, when breast cancer spreads to the lymph nodes, the cells in the nodes look like breast cancer cells. The pathologist prepares a report, which details what was found. If a node has cancer in it, the report describes what it looks like and how much was seen.

Doctors may also use scans or other imaging tests to look for enlarged nodes around a cancer if the nodes are deep in the body. For more on this, see our document Imaging (Radiology) Tests. Often, enlarged lymph nodes near a cancer are assumed to contain cancer.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> i don't think that is correct.


It doesn't seem to me you read the link I provided.


> could have been needle biopsy or assumption from
> size of nodes


Extremely improbable. Maybe impossible timing wise .

I don't see anything in your text above that precludes those 2 procedures, and i don't know what you mean, "timing wise"

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't see anything in your text above that
> precludes those 2 procedures

Maybe you would benefit from reading the entire link again. Your link was general info which was written for general public information whereas the previous linked info got into the nitty gritty specifics of what really goes on in surgical suites during breast cancer operations.

In the next few days, I guess, the Tavis Bradley Conductivity Diet I am on will be really put to a severe test of it's protective powers.

Many of the inmates at the nursing home I visit and help out with every day at lunch time have been sick for a few days. Yesterday it was worse with at least half of them confined to their rooms and on isolation - including my mother who I brought plenty of young Thai coconut water and bananas to.

Today the dining room was almost empty with just maybe 15 of the 135 that are usually there allowed to be there. The rest were confined to their rooms behind big orange isolation signs and the halls were lined with carts full of additional supplies.

The whole building reeked of bleach so badly I had the infrequent opportunity of putting the HEPA 100 mask I always carry with me to use. I was lucky it blocked the fumes so I could visit. I asked someone who works there if they knew yet what was causing the problem and was told it's a highly contagious Norovirus.

" Opps, what I referred to as the "movie deal" is actually a crowd fund project by a commercial tv film maker. There is one guy named who had pledged 5K of his own money to the film making. It is said "Janette and Alan will be donating as well". "

It seems that the pledged $5K from Philip Wollen hasn't been donated yet and that the majority of actual donated money for the Raw film is the $5K Janette Murry Wakelin donated herself (3 months ago) to the movie about her.

The only other name on this list of donators I recognize is the movie maker who donated $100.


[chuffed.org]

*To access this info you have to click on the "supporters (92)" tab as their site does not allow direct access to the list on the link



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2015 01:24PM by SueZ.

There sure was a major hoopla made about Janette's saga while she was making the rounds of the worldwide raw vegan community's circuit so why are none of these raw gurus and bloggers and fruit festival producers who praised her to the moon not putting their money where their mouths were such a short time ago?

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There sure was a major hoopla made about
> Janette's saga while she was making the rounds of
> the worldwide raw vegan community's circuit so
> why are none of these raw gurus and bloggers and
> fruit festival producers who praised her to the
> moon not putting their money where their mouths
> were such a short time ago?

Why not one penny contribution from Durianrider toward Jannette's "vegan success story" movie, which would get huge vegan pub at Cannes, for instance?

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the next few days, I guess, the Tavis Bradley
> Conductivity Diet I am on will be really put to a
> severe test of it's protective powers.
>
> Many of the inmates at the nursing home I visit
> and help out with every day at lunch time have
> been sick for a few days. Yesterday it was worse
> with at least half of them confined to their rooms
> and on isolation - including my mother who I
> brought plenty of young Thai coconut water and
> bananas to.
>
> Today the dining room was almost empty with just
> maybe 15 of the 135 that are usually there allowed
> to be there. The rest were confined to their
> rooms behind big orange isolation signs and the
> halls were lined with carts full of additional
> supplies.
>
> The whole building reeked of bleach so badly I had
> the infrequent opportunity of putting the HEPA 100
> mask I always carry with me to use. I was lucky it
> blocked the fumes so I could visit. I asked
> someone who works there if they knew yet what was
> causing the problem and was told it's a highly
> contagious Norovirus.

Oh man, even more of the inmates at the nursing home have Norovirus now and are on 24/7 lockdown in their rooms. The visitor's parking lot is almost empty and even the few regular visitors are standing outside the rooms to visit. I was the only visitor for most of them. Luckily they don't feel good enough to really care too much.

I can't believe the place ran out of those paper isolation gowns! The staff offered me a patient gown to use but no thanks to that. I don't know if Norovirus can make it through their laundry and probably everything there has seen some nasty action. How they are going to get rid of this problem with all of their probably contaminated staff going from room to room without protection I just don't know. I'm praying. It's crazy. Quite an Easter.

SueZ, if you feel susceptible to this Norovirus given your current health and lifestyle, I would question the quality of the Conductivity Diet you're doing. Me, I would not be afraid of catching something at this nursing home.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Quote

Outbreaks of norovirus infection often occur in closed or semiclosed communities, such as long-term care facilities, overnight camps, hospitals, schools, prisons, dormitories, and cruise ships, where the infection spreads very rapidly either by person-to-person transmission or through contaminated food.[9] Many norovirus outbreaks have been traced to food that was handled by one infected person.[10]

A 2008 study suggests the protein MDA-5 may be the primary immune sensor that detects the presence of noroviruses in the body.[32] Some people have common variations of the MDA-5 gene that could make them more susceptible to norovirus infection.[33]

When a person becomes infected with norovirus, the virus is replicated within the small intestine. After approximately one to two days, norovirus infection symptoms can appear. The principal symptom is acute gastroenteritis that develops between 12 and 48 hours after exposure, and lasts for 24–72 hours.[13] The disease is usually self-limiting, and characterized by nausea, forceful vomiting, watery diarrhea, and abdominal pain, and in some cases, loss of taste. General lethargy, weakness, muscle aches, headache, coughs, and low-grade fever may occur.

The norovirus can survive for long periods outside a human host depending on the surface and temperature conditions: can stay for weeks on hard surfaces,[52] and up to 12 days on contaminated fabrics, and it can survive for months, maybe even years in contaminated still water.[53] A study done in 2006 found the virus still on several surfaces used for food preparation 7 days after contamination.[54]

Vomiting, in particular, transmits infection effectively, and appears to allow airborne transmission. In one incident, a person who vomited spread infection right across a restaurant, suggesting that many unexplained cases of food poisoning may have their source in vomit.[18] 126 people were dining at six tables in December 1998; one woman vomited onto the floor. Staff quickly cleaned up, and people continued eating. Three days later others started falling ill; 52 people reported a range of symptoms, from fever and nausea to vomiting and diarrhea. The cause was not immediately identified. Researchers plotted the seating arrangement: more than 90% of the people at the same table as the sick woman later reported becoming ill. There was a direct correlation between the risk of infection of people at other tables and how close they were to the sick woman. More than 70% of the diners at an adjacent table fell ill; at a table on the other side of the restaurant, the attack rate was still 25%. The outbreak was attributed to a Norwalk-like virus (norovirus). Other cases of transmission by vomit were later identified.[19]

In one outbreak at an international scout jamboree in the Netherlands, each person with gastroenteritis infected an average of 14 people before increased hygiene measures were put in place. Even after these new measures were enacted, an ill person still infected an average of 2.1 other people.

"The norovirus can survive for long periods outside a human host depending on the surface and temperature conditions: can stay for weeks on hard surfaces,[52] and up to 12 days on contaminated fabrics, and it can survive for months, maybe even years in contaminated still water.[53]"

Thanks. Good to know. I'm going to start double gloving and continue to wear a mask after reading that.

Apparently the parking lot was empty partially because visitors had caught the Norovirus, too. I talked to 2 of them today. One of them had mostly upper GI problems and the other one had mostly lower GI problems. Kind of strange. Well at least the place renewed their supply of paper isolation gowns. Too bad I didn't see any of the staff wearing them. I did.