Date:   6/22/2009 11:55:28 PM ( 15 y ago)
Hits:   17,537
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1442635

4 of 5 (80%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

MUCH HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT CESIUM CHLORIDE!

I wish to stress one point first and foremost:

Do not undertake cesium therapy without ongoing supervision from medical professional.

Basic medical facts:

Any heavy cat ion can interfere with cardiac electrical activity causing more than one kind of arrythmia.

If you research elongated QT intervals there are many things that cause this including accepted and widely used antibiotics, hormones, COX II's, and on and on!

These instances are rare events whether it is perscription or alternative.

Many things can go wrong with almost all alternative therapies including peroxide, MMS, ALOE extracts, quinones, ozone, and even traditionals.

One major component not mentioned is hepatitis as far more common side affect of these treatments than any arrythmias ever will be. (as with traditionals)

The cesium issue is disturbing for me as people buy it, use it without supervision.

If you take cesium with potassium at the same time it can cause cardiac arrythmias. The question is,... why is this cesium's fault?

If you take cesium for too long and have daily loose stools, the loose stools can cause cardiac arrythmias. Loose stools should be addressed during cesium therapy!

Many patients fear the cancer more than the  diarrhea and then become metabolically unstable when they don't manage their diarrhea.

Is this cesiums fault?

One again these events are rare! Som let's be careful about the number and rate of these adverse events. They are rare! 

How rare is death in stage IV lung cancer? Oh, it's not rare, what is rare in stage IV lung cancer is surviving! Why haven't the detractors of cesium ever expressed as much concern over the disease as they do over cesium?

Also several anti-cesium articles refer to animal studies. Dogs, mice! Since when does the AMA cite animal studies that support alternatives?  

Let's not characterize animal studies and the one adverse event posted here as something more dangerous, more horriffic than metastatic cancer!

Several writers on this web site have dealt more energy, time, and effort into writing about the dangers of cesium as opposed to the dangers of metastatic diseases and dangers of delaying treatments.

Anyone who follows these postings can see that people on this website have discreditted one Pubmed study here, one AMA study there by claiming these entitities have mischaracterized results in the past.

This is true, they have mis-stated and poorly replicated studies! I mistrust them too! But then to discredit potentially life saving therapies by quoting and linking to same publications is troubling to me! 

The contradiction wreaks of subjective or hidden agenda's, and serves only on purpose. To steer patients away from one therapy and towards another.

ALso, let's be accurrate,  if cesium works too well and there is massive cancer cell die-offs, the phosphates alone will hurt kidneys, liver, and can cause arrythmias,... once again is this cesiums fault that it worked too well? Tumor lysis syndrom can be treated but not if an oncologist has never seen it in 20 years!

There are very few human cases to discredit using cesium.

One case to discredit cesium was just linked and posted here, this is just one cancer, in one patient where cesium produced no results supposedly; not knowing much about the case history and how damaged the patient was, is it fair to characterize cesiums success or failure as relevant to all cancers using this single patient as the proof? Characterizing cesium now in all stages of cancers all types of cancer just from one case history? How about pre-chemo patients as well as post chemo patients? What a stretch this would seem to be.

Cesium is also supported in a larger cesium protocol involving electron donors to help with membrane permiablitiy, anti oxidants, and large dose ascorbates,and potassium,(never at same time.)

Well, did the one patient who supposedly tried cesium use the entire protocol? What lenght of dosing? 

You see, one patient as the example, one time, no facts, only the ones they wanted you to read! How valuable is this example. Why then aren't all the other examples of cesium working proof that it is legit?

The notion that there are no cesium studies supporting its use is completely and totally false. Someone who makes this claim has put way too much energy in finding negative cesium studies and not nearly enough energy into possitve cesium studies.

CONCLUSION

So, most of the anti-cesium literature I have reviewed on this site comes from traditional establishments where animal studies, single case events are mischaracterized to scare people away from one of the simplest, easiest, most effective cancer strategies of our day.

These studies articles or examples are also ironically posted by people who in the past have discreditted the very same publication they are now using.

Finally,  LET"S ALL GET REAL!

What greater risk  is there than of dying than from stage III and stage IV metastatic disease?

Is there really anybody out there that will stand up and claim that taking cesium correctly and under supervision is more dangerous than cancer itself?

If so, come on here and state,

Cesium chloride is more dangerous than stage IV lung cancer!

Also, as to those people who have claimed there is no cesium data or studies; they forgot to look at the very first links you come to when you type 'CESIUM' into the browser and click enter! (Never mind the dozens of other links they also missed.)

Cancer Cover-Up (Cesium Science): Cesium - A High Ph Therapy For ...

Stop Cancer cells with Cesium using pH Therapy

 Brewer Science Library--Brewer Articles

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.02 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=1442635