Metals can be taken out of the system by chelating herbs and certain herbs like bladderwrack, in combination.
Of course, a healthy diet, and other healthy things, need to be added to optimize healing and reverse all the damage it can. Just google it, reverse metals damage, etc. See what you find! share with us.
God's creation is amazing! don't need to shortcut it. It can do amazing things to heal us and reverse conditions.
Otherwise, the other questions on cancer can be addressed to Tony Isaacs, okay? he's an expert, here.
God bless you! have a great day.
Edited by moderator
Neither does putting links in nearly every post. There is no need to link to external websites to "show people the way" to health. For starters, there is a wealth of information right here on Curezone.
I agree, and it is still a form of spamming. Especially when posting someone's phone number and stating that they also sell the alkaline water machines though a multilevel marketing company.
I would like to hear all the different point of views on cancer on this board. I read a few posts regarding cancer being caused by viruses, which I would also like to delve deeper into.
Also would like to hear anyone's input on why chemotherapy is bad or that the pros DO NOT outweigh the cons.
The biggest issues with chemo are:
1. It kills more people than it helps. One of my text books on cancer that was written as a training guide for doctors states that chemotherapy kills 95% of cancer patients undergoing chemo primarily due to the malnutrition it induces.
2. Chemotherapy DOES NOT address the microbial causes of most cancers. This is one of the primary reasons that the cancers tend to come back in a few years. This is like having a big piece of wood stuck in your leg and simply taking antibiotics to treat it. Unless the cause of the infection (the wood) is removed treating the infection with antibiotics is not going to do squat. With cancer the chemotherapy simply kills cells at random, healthy or not. How is poisoning the body deliberately going to be good by any stretch of the imagination. And again why would they expect the cancer to stay away when the infectious agents that cause most cancers are still present?
3. Chemotherapy drugs can cause serious damage to healthy tissues. These include organ damage, hyperpigmentation, ulcerations, etc.
4. Chemotherapy is a strong immune suppressant. Treating a condition that involves immune suppression with an immune suppressant is just plain lunacy. Funny how mainstream medicine makes fun of homeopathy because of the concept of like treats like, which they call quackery. Yet they are trying to do the same thing with chemo. And the immune suppression just leaves the person prone to the cancer coming back or secondary cancers by giving cancer pathogens more of a foot hold.
The only advantages of chemotherapy is that it can knock some cancers back to give time for people to obtain and do something that will really work such as ozone therapy. And the drugs vincristine and vinblastine do have a pretty high success rate for treating leukemias and lymphomas. Interestingly the drugs are derived from the herb Madagascar periwinkle.
Since cancer by definition, is the uncheck reproduction/proliferation of cells.
Somewhat. But not unchecked reproduction/proliferation of cells are malignant. Warts and lipomas would both fit that definition, but they are not malignant. Malignant cells have other characteristics that differentiate them from healthy cells.
The immune system can play a role in nipping it in the bud but the cause or main impetus for uncontrolled cellular division can also be due to DNA and genetic damage. Mutagens and carcinogens damage DNA and I don't have much information on viruses as a cause but theoretically viruses like retroviruses, by definition, can cause cancer if cellular DNA is messed with.
Yes, the viruses insert their genes (oncogenes) in to the DNA of healthy cells altering the chemistry of the cells.
I also know that there is a lot of components to cancer treatment. In cancer cells, cellular inhibition and the receptors on the membrane that stop it from growing once it makes contact with other cells is broken or dysfunctional and most of these receptors are glycoproteins. Perhaps thats why the whole "glyconutrients" buzz was such a hit.. but there's no real proof that taking glyconutrients will cause an increase in glyconutrients in the cell.
Absolutely true. In fact many of the glyconutrients are actually never absorbed from the gut. The molecules are too large to be absorbed.
Another aspect of cancer is metals. If you have a metal issue that damages and oxidizes everything in your body, causing DNA damage and cellular dysfunction, no amount of herbs will do the trick.
I totally disagree.
So what all the different possible causes of cancer, what I would like to know is why are viruses touted so strongly on this board? at least from posts Ive seen?\
Because most cancers have been linked to viral origins, including those believed to be hereditary. Problem is that every oncogene ever discovered has been viral. Viral genes are not hereditary. Some of the cancers that have been linked to viruses include Kaposi's sarcoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, leukemais, lymphomas, liver, bone, pancreatic, breast, skin, nasopharyngeal, prostate, brain, eye, cervical, ovarian, uterine, vaginal, penile, anal, kidney and lung cancers. Again this is just a partial list of cancers linked to viral origins.
What are cancer viruses?
Where is the medical literature that shows that this virus a) has genetic material that causes cancer b) enters into the lysogenic cycle to have it inserted into the host DNA and not lyse the cell c) Why isn't cancer contagious then or contracted via viral contamination or transfer like fluids, blood, saliva, etc.
Cancer viruses have been known since 1908. And there is all sorts of information on them in the medical journals for one and even entire books written on the subject. You might want to start by researching Medline.
Anyway, regarding the metals. Why do you disagree?
I should have been a little more specific saying my main point of disagreement was the statement "no amount of herbs will do the trick". Regardless of the cause of cancer there are herbs that can still address the cancer.
But the other part is that some metals can contribute to cancer formation, but this is not always due to oxidation. Free iron can lead to oxidative damage, which can contribute to cancer. But oxides, which do not cause oxidation can also contribute to cancer. Magnesium oxide and calcium oxide for example can burn tissues that can lead to chronic inflammation and cancer. Then there are toxic metals that can cause DNA damage without oxidation. And there are radioactive minerals that can deposit in tissues and cause radiation induced DNA damage.
This is in combo with another question I have/topic of discussion which is, is ALL cancer linked to viruses?
No, not all. But the vast majority have been linked to viruses. There are other causes though. There is a bacterial form of Kaposi's sarcoma for example. Mycoplasmas are also linked to some other cancers. The fungus Aspergillus niger produces aflatoxins that can cause liver cancer. Parasitical cancers are extremely rare but do occur. Radiation induced cancers, such as radon induced lung cancer, also exist, but again are rare. Then there are carcinogens. But few have actually been shown to cause cancer. Many simply promote the growth of existing cancers.
I happened to have found one of your posts on this matter and am reading through the links and the first link mentions that about 10-20% is viral linked. Depending on the virus and cancer. Is your opinion that ALL cancers are caused by viruses?
Based on what I know of human biology as well as medicine, the oncogene insertion into the host DNA does not necessarily become expressed unless there are mutagens or oncogens that turn them on.
Yes, exposure to a cancer virus does not necessarily mean the person will develop cancer from the virus. Viruses can be present in the body and not be active. Take herpes viruses for example, which generally only pop up when there is immune suppression. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is another great example. It is estimated that about 80% of the population is infected with CMV but are asymptomatic. People do not become symptomatic with the virus unless severely immunosuppressed.
This mechanism is still not very well understood of gene expression but I would categorize heavy metals and metal toxicity as a mutagen. Mercury for example, among others like lead, cadium, etc. literally work in the body as if you would drop a wrench into an engine. It binds and destroys everything, and puts the body under heavy oxidative stress.
But these are things that we are exposed to on an daily basis but not everyone is getting cancer. So again there is a lot more to the story.
We all know the damage that oxidative stress puts on genetic material and if heavy metal toxicity is the TRIGGER that expresses the oncogene, then treating the virus or immune system is only half the battle. Metals suppress the immune system as well. From a metabolic standpoint, I cannot see how any amount of herbs or immune boosting drugs can help a body that is not functioning properly on the cellular level due to literal blocks in the cellular processes.
Again different herbs have different properties. But many herbs actually make pretty good antioxidants. Especially amla berry, which also raises levels of the antioxidant superoxide dismutase and has been shown to help protect DNA from heavy metal damage. And some plants contain metal binders such as alginates, pectins and phytates.
Also, there is SO much medical literature on the link between metal toxicity and cancer and Dr. Buttar touches on cancer and metals all the time. I believe the truth lies somewhere in between.
Getting rid of metals and chelation therapy alone is not going to cure cancer. But if the cancer is caused from that particular toxicity which hinders the cells from doing its basic functions, it's another layer of problems that need to be addressed.
I read somewhere where you stated that there is NO human oncogene and that all oncogenes (over 100) are all viral. Do you have any literature or links I can read on this topic?
I first read this a while back in Scientific American article on cancer viruses. They stated that EVERY oncogene that had ever been discovered was viral. Since then I have yet to see any reports of any human oncogenes.
Given the fact that viruses are everywhere and the manner in which it spreads, I wouldn't be surprised if everyone had an oncogene of some type in their DNA.
We have to keep in mind though that viruses have a difficult to impossible time of infecting healthy cells. So exposure does not mean infection. If this were the case then we would be screwed since some cancer viruses have been shown to be airborne transmitted, including the HIV virus. It has been a while since I looked at this article, but I think this was reported in either the British Medical Journal or the Lancet. US medical journals were really bad about reporting findings on transmission routes of the HIV virus. But it was also reported that researchers were unable to infect healthy CD4 cells, even with direct manipulation. The only cells they were able to infect were those of leukemia patients who already had severely compromised immune systems.
And oncogenes can very well be passed on if it is incorporated into the germ cells. My idea is that oncogenes are a problem, yes. If they do indeed come from viruses, addressing the immune system to react better to the virus would only be preventative. Once the virus has incorporated the genetic material into the host DNA, it is only a matter of bodily dysfunction before it becomes virulent and capitalizes on the body's weakened state. The WEAKENED state, can be due to all sorts of things including heavy metals, pesticides, adrenal, leaky gut, antibiotics, you name it.
But these would be co-factors, not causes. It is like estrogens do not cause cancer, but they can promote cancer growth once it is started.
At THIS point, addressing the virus doesn't seem like a viable option to me but I'm open to enlightenment if you feel otherwise.
Why do they use protease inhibitors to address the HIV virus, which is a cancer virus? In fact why are antivirals used for any viral disease if they are not going to have any benefit? Keep in mind that not all the viral particles are going to be within the cells. And infected cancer cells can easily be dealt with through other means such as ozone that destroys cancer cells and viruses or herbs that inhibit mitosis such as chaparral or black walnut hull.
Basically I dont think its a matter of the virus being active once you are diagnosed in late stage cancer. It has already done its job and the reason the oncogenes are expressed and causing cellular issues is due to the MULTITUDE of carcinogens and mutagens in our environments, AKA "toxicities" (which i avoid cause it has a quackery connotation/ring to it).
Actually the virus is still active because it is still doing things such as increasing cellular division hormones and enzymes targeted by the chemotherapy. Look in to some of the research done by Naessons, which validates a lot of this.
Ty Bollinger has some very good things to say in his book about some guy named Tony Isaacs and his book.
EGO ALERT!!!!! Same massive ego that leads Tony to severely abuse his privileges as a moderator. Hiding posts he disagrees with, attacking people in violation of TOS then threatening to ban them if they fight back, selectively enforcing TOS violations to fit his needs.......
BTW, what do you suppose Ty and his wife take every day?
Oleander, that's what!
So what, just shows how gullible some people can be. Shoot, guess what I take every day?
Silica water, that's what! And guess what else, I have no health issues even without the unproven oleander.