Date:   6/22/2009 1:41:58 AM ( 16 y ago)
Hits:   6,156
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1442141

They are right about being careful with killing cancer cells.  There are ways for example to kill off large amounts of cancer cells.  But this also comes with risks.  If you killed off a basketball sized tumor in a single shot you would likely kill the patient from sepsis.  We have to keep in mind that dead cells in the body are infectious material.  The body has to have time to clear dead cells from the body before adding to the load by killing more cells.

One thing that I did not like was their saying not to use any antioxidants, immune builders or even multivitmains.  Cancer patients need to protect their healthy cells from free radicals such as chemotherapy, radiation therapy and oxidizers.  Many cancer patients also suffer from cachexia, and really need to maintain their nutrition.  I have an old training textbook on cancer written for doctors. One thing I found really interesting in the book was their statement that most cancer patients do not die from their cancer.  Instead, most cancer patients die from the malnutrition brought on in large part from their treatments.  The treatments can cause severe nausea preventing them from getting all of the nutrition they really need.

They are partially right about the microbial connection to cancer.  There are numerous viruses, bacteria, fungi, etc. capable of causing cancer.  But these are not the only cause. DNA damage, from sources such as radiation exposure and other sources, can also cause cancer.  By far though viruses are the number one cause of most cancers.  There was a very interesting article back years ago in Discover magazine discussing oncogenes (genes that cause cancer).  They finally admitted what had been known in medicine for decades but the medical establishment was doing their best to cover up.  They made the simple statement that every oncogene that had been found to date was viral, and that no human oncogene had ever been found.  The medical establishment wanted to keep this quiet because the implications were enormous.  They would not only have to admit that they had known for a long time that cancers WERE NOT hereditary, which meant that they were knowingly conducting unnecessary testing on people because they had a family history of cancer.  This would also leave major legal implications on doctors performing these unnecessary tests, but also for the doctors scaring women in to getting prophylactic mastectomies and men in to getting prophylactic prostectomies.  What this means is that the doctors were convincing these women and men to have their HEALTHY tissues surgically removed to prevent the possible formation of cancer in these tissues in the future.

They also repeat the common myth that everyone has cancer cells and that our immune systems just fight them off.  I think whoever started this myth was mistaking non-malignant tumor cells for malignant (cancerous cells).  Even though they share some properties there are still very big differences.  A simple way to prove this myth is with a little common sense.  Everyone will suffer immune suppression at various times throughout their lives.  Think about it. Why doesn't everyone get sick from let's say cold or flu viruses they are exposed to? If your immune system is intact and strong then your immunity can help fend off the infection.  This is why we rarely see hospital personnel getting sick from the constant barrage of microbes they are exposed to.  When your defenses are down you are more susceptible to these microbes.  So if we all had cancer cells all the time the cancer cells would take hold, just like a cold or flu virus, when our defenses are down.  And once they take hod they can further weaken our system.  Therefore, if their claim was true then we should all have been dead a long time ago.

Another thing I disagree with is under their goal claim.  They claim the goal is to kill every microbe in every cancer cell.  Not all cancer cells contain microbes.  First of all not all cancers are microbial in origin.  As I mentioned earlier radiation is one thing that can cause DNA breakage.  A few rare leukemias for example have been linked to DNA damage from radiation.  Thyroid cancer is common around nuclear power plants, such as Hanford, where radioactive iodine has been released.  Radon gas can lead to lung cancer....  Furthermore, it is only some cells that get infected with viruses leading to the cancer.  These cells (mother cells) create an excess of cellular division hormones, known as trephones in Europe.  When the level of trephones exceed the level of trephone inhibitors the excess trephones lead to a higher than normal level of abnormal cell (daughter cell) growth.  This is the malignant tumor.  The reason we develop chem resistant tumors is because mother cells are not destroyed by the chemo due to the extra genetic material they contain.  The daughter cells are killed though since they do not contain the extra viral genetic material. So the cancer goes in to "remission" since the mass of mother cells is too small to be detected. When they grow though they create clones of themselves leading to the development of a chemo-resistant tumor. This is just a quick simplified explanation so I am not sitting here all night typing.  Look in to the research of Gaston Naesson for pieces of what I just explained.

There are some other minor things I disagree with.  My biggest problem with this protocol is a lack of any evidence of efficacy or even a demonstration that it really reverts cancer cells to normal.  I also have a problem with the mixture since it is unknown how these different chemicals are going to interact with each other.  For example will the colloidal silver react with the DMSO or MSM forming silver sulfate, or with the sodium chlorite and hypochlorite (the breakdown products of the highly unstable chlorine dioxide) forming toxic silver chloride?  Just too many safety issues to be answered.

I also have to admit that it really bothers me that they keep referring to the MMS as chlorine dioxide when it is not chlorine dioxide.  Chlorine dioxide is a toxic and unstable gas.  It reacts with water yielding the sodium chlorite and hypochlorite.  I have a problem with companies repeatedly making misleading claims, especially when they have been told over and over that the claim is misleading.  Do they feel that chlorine dioxide somehow sounds more healthy or scientific?  Or are they trying to distance themselves from the relationship of MMS to common household bleach?  Regardless of the reason, being deliberately misleading is being deliberately misleading.  And this makes me wonder what else they are being misleading about in order to sell product.  Network marketing companies are notorious for making up false claims about their products, hyping them up to justify the ridiculous prices.  And I cannot stand networking marketing companies for this reason.  So when I see MMS promoters deliberately claiming that it is something it is not I am going to take ALL of their other claims with a grain of salt until I see some solid evidence to the contrary.

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.02 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=1442141