CureZone   Log On   Join
Re: No its not
parazapper Views: 8,207
Published: 13 years ago
This is a reply to # 1,621,123

Re: No its not

Again, you have missed the point completely.

>->- "The study, as was clearly stated in my post, demonstrated that chemotherapy alone only contributed between 2.1 percent and 2.3 percent to 5 year cancer survival rates."

>- You are simply twisting and distorting the facts and didn't read the analysis of the study that you presented. The chemotherapy survival rate is NOT 2 - 3% as you imply.

As he stated, chemo alone "contributed" between 2.1 percent and 2.3 percent to 5 year cancer survival rates.

That does not mean that the 5 year rate was 2 or 3 percent, It means that chemo increased the total number of survivors by 2 to 3 percent.

What you and many others do not see or understand is that cancer is not necessarily a death sentence, only a symptom of a failed health condition.

Back in the 1800's and early 1900's, there were many cancer survivors when there was no chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

Sorry, Essiac and Pau d Arco are not the answer either, though they may help to some dgree.

Cancer will not survive in a properly alkaline body. That is all that there is too it.

When I was studying cancer proliferation in college, we had to grow cultures of various cell lines. The main rules were, feed it Sugar and keep the pH below 7.28. Does that tell you anything?

Just raise the pH to 7.30 and the cells start dying. Raise it to 7.35 and they are gone!


Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2023

5.750 sec, (1)