1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Not phonics: cancer, cures and corruption

Discussion in 'Early Years' started by debbiehep, Jun 15, 2011.

  1. It's the age old problem of how one actually holds people in big business and government to account.

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/06/11/burzynski-the-movie.aspx

    Watching this video will take some time but so revealing....

    There is a limited opportunity to watch this video.

    I have seen a documentary about other cases of the hounding of people with natural cures for cancer.

    The older I get, the less I trust mainstream news, television and powerful people. The internet has various downsides - but oh how it can inform and open up minds.
     
  2. Well that was thought-provoking. I have been reading the comments as well. If this is true, well, I don't know what to say.
     
  3. Extremely thought provoking!! Really don't know what to think!!
     
  4. It is only through the internet that people can start to get this kind of information out.
    I will try to find links to the information about the other people who have had similar experiences with their remarkable cancer-cure successes - all documented with huge numbers of patients providing witness statements - and their medical records confirming that they did indeed have cancer of various descriptions.
    At one time, there were large numbers of specialist clinics in these natural cures but when those in charge of the cure/approach would not sign over the patents unless the medical institutions agreed not to charge for the cures, they got hounded out of existence.
    At all times, according to the information I have heard, these people were highly professional and ethical and were more than happy for their solutions to be properly trialled etc. There was no shrinking away from this.
    But it is clear that the medical companies and massively rich and powerful companies - it is in their interests to keep us vaccinated and drugged up for every last thing. We have a self-fulfilling scenario.
    What I do urge is that people who are sufficiently interested to watch the clip keep an open mind.
    There are growing bodies of information on the internet with attempts to provide verifiable evidence at all times to question a great deal about our governments, big business, corruption.
    I find it very dismaying but in the last twelve years or so of my life, I have become extremely distrusting - definitely less naive - and definitely more open minded.

     
  5. Doitforfree

    Doitforfree Established commenter

    Presumably you also believe that Elvis is alive and that the FBI brought down the twin towers.
     
  6. I don't believe Elvis is still alive.
    I don't believe the twin towers official explanation.
     
  7. breadmaker

    breadmaker New commenter

    have watched the link, but after also watching 2 of my siblings and my father die from cancer in the last 15 years, I am rather spectical about anyone claiming to be able to cure what is imho, a totally random event- cancer just puts a pin in a map and that is how it selects it's victims.
     
  8. Maybe there is something in the claims, but we can only know through the results of proper peer-reviewed trials. It is so easy to select supporting evidence, read it in a way favourable to the treatment, and ignore the evidence that goes against the hypothesis. So I, for one, would want a whole picture, and, as I am not a scientist, that picture analysed and interrogated by someone with a cool head, who is not desperately hoping that they have discovered the ultimate cure and got their name into the history books.
     
  9. Leapyearbaby64

    Leapyearbaby64 New commenter

    I couldn't get the film to play, so I don't know what its contents are, but I do think that because of the urgency placed on cancer treatments, patients do not generally get a chance to question what is being offered. I had breast cancer 8 years ago and was not able to find anybody who had refused the chemo treatment that I was being offered. I was shocked at how hand-in-hand the cancer charities seemed to be with the drug companies. And the whole while I couldn't help wondering why there is no much emphasis on cure rather than prevention. Unusually for my age, I had a very slow-growing hormone related cancer, and circumstances meant that I had about 4 weeks to think about treatment. There were 3 things that affected me wanting to question the traditional route. First, I knew that I had been lied to by doctors before when they told me "it's much safter to have a baby in hospital" (statistically, for a low-risk mother, the opposite is true ... but that's another story). Second, my father died of cancer at the age of 58 and one of the things I overheard the oncolgist saying was "on reflection that last course of chemo did him more harm than good". Finally, a few months before I was diagnosed, I was at the funeral of my best friend's sister. She'd had breast cancer and gone down the chemo/radio route and got a lung tumour right behind where her breast tumour had been. So, I'm sitting there in the surgeon's office being told what the usual path of treatment is. I ask what the chances are of being cured by the surgery alone and am told about 95%. That's pretty good odds. I then ask what difference having chemo will make. Improves chances of survival by 30%. So that's 30% of the remaining 5% then? Yes. So, in my case, that's actually 1.5%. Interestingly, at the time, there had been a report in the Lancet that the power of prayer had a success rate higher than 1.5%. So. having wheedled out of the surgeon that chemo will actually kill some people, I took my chances with my Catholic mother-in-law and prayer. I did agree to Tamoxifen. It's been around for ages, they must know pretty much all there is to know about it. That's a 5 year course. Why 5 years? Not because it cures you, but because after that, statistically, it does you more harm than good. Smashing. Thinking back to how I was at the time, I'm sure they all thought I was an arrogant control freak (true ...) but like all other people in all other walks of life, cancer doctors don't know it all and don't have all the answers.
     
  10. Leapyearbaby
    I really appreciate you sharing that with us. Thank you very much.
    I suggest that we are actually brainwashed to be sceptical of claims because the medical 'institutions' seem only to offer surgery, radition, chemo.
    I was shocked to watch a recent item of mainstream news of a "breakthrough" for skin cancer - and the two drugs were something like £73,000 per treatment and might extend life by some months.
    Hmm....what makes up that cost?
    I was struck by the common theme of the documentary I saw on 'alternative' television of hounding, discrediting, trying to imprison, close down, defame etc. all the people who had treatment - in some cases which 'cured' (a lot of cases apparently) adults and children in non-harmful ways.
    The irony is that all these people were up for proper testing, to all intents and purposes were running clinics with proper records and procedures and certainly plenty of people testifying for the results, and at the core of their work was not charging people.
    There is a case now, I believe, in Italy. I really must watch the documentary again to get the names of these people - people over the last century and in the modern context.
    I wish I could find an internet link to the video.
    It is in the medical 'institutions' interests to discredit those who have found, to all intents and purposes, cures which are not harmful and which have a good success rate - and which doesn't cost much.
    Why?
    Maybe because the very rich and powerful medical institutions want to charge £73,000 for their treatments.
    I am very clear that I do not want to be treated through surgery, chemo or radiotherapy - and I certainly would be prepared to seek out healthy alternatives, travelling if necessary to the few clinics around the world where there is such an alternative.
    I, too, would want the time to do some investigating.
    I myself have challenged the establishment. It's not easy.
    But I now pride myself on my open mind. I'm not so quick to be cynical as I might have been a decade ago.

     
  11. Hope you don't mind me asking, why would you not want to be treated by surgery ?
     
  12. Thanks for that.
    I have been looking at the clinic website as well.
    www.burzynskiclinic.com
    Lots of information there and an apparently open policy (they are even asking for volunteers to work there, greeting patients) - not what you'd expect if they had anything to hide.

     
  13. http://www.essiac-canada-intl.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2&Itemid=3
    "In 1922, a patient spoke to Nurse Rene M. Caisse of a Canadian Ojibwa Indian herbal formula. Nurse Caisse prepared her original herbal formula into a drink named Essiac, which is Nurse Caisse's name spelled backwards."
    Part of the documentary I saw about natural remedies to cancer was some very interesting footage of Rene Caisse's story including her own testimony and many 'patients' testifying to the results of this treatment.
     
  14. NellyFUF

    NellyFUF Senior commenter

    It was a thought provoking film thanks for linking it
    It did need more research I noted that the chances of full recovery were excellent- but only for - in one case 25% - so 75% of people would die (and would die in conventional toxic drug mix treatments too)
    Along the same lines of thinking I read recently that the sun creams we slather over chidlren to prevent skin cancer are also carcinogenic. Don't know what to make of that I am sure.
    We are living in toxic times today. That maybe why cancer flourishes.
    Breast cancer has been linked to the use of some deodourants too. But I can't spell deeowdurants.
     
  15. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Purely anecdotal ... my father was diagnosed with cancer, six moths after my mum died from cancer and given 3 months to live. Having seen my mum suffer from the treatment he refused any drugs other than pain relief. His doctor took me to one side and said he felt it was the right decision, which it proved to be because he lived a further 5 years able to enjoy life and his grandchildren without the side effects of the treatment.
     
  16. Up until very recently, I had always perceived of cancer as the Big C, totally doom and gloom - and the generally recommended treatments of surgery, radiotherapy and chemo as inevitable, very painful and down to chance as to whether one would survive or not.
    I had a family friend of my age who had a couple of years of miserable existence, treatment with terrible effects who lost the battle anyway after untold family angst.
    I had a very close colleague who went down the standard treatment route for a breast lump - which utterly traumatised her to the extent that she said, "Never again" if it recurred. Before long cancer sprang up everywhere and within a few weeks she was dead. There was a general feeling that this particular lady would rather this have happened than go through the protracted treatment and its associated fear of the unknowing for a second time.
    My father was discovered with advanced cancer which had spread to his bones and still the medical profession persisted that he had these painful injections into his stomach and yet he also had advanced Parkensonism (or something like that) and could barely walk - and I'm convinced this treatment was not at all right for my father at this point - but we were guided by the doctor with his expected sense of urgency (and suggested 'hope') despite our better judgement. Surely he did not need to be put through that treatment at that stage.
    But now I am feeling much more proactive about 'finding out' and much more optimistic about the Big C.
    I like the notion that cancer is about optimum conditions of 'health' and 'nutrition' rather than just a chance 'statistic' that a certain percentage of people will inevitable succumb in some way.
    I am very interested to learn from one of the clips above that certain populations (with different diets from more typical western diets and different diets from one another) have zero cancer cases. This speaks for itself.
    It certainly suggests strongly that diet/nutrition - perhaps with accompanying lifestyle (for example, minimised chemical products, electrical products, pollution etc) make a HUGE difference.
    I have read a couple of books and articles which note that different populations have markedly different figures for diabetes, cancer etc.
    This suggests that we really should take far more note of the diet/healthy living signposts and do something about it. Ill-advised living sets up the conditions to get cancer, that certain nutritional living conditions massively reduce the incidence of cancer and diabetes (and heart disease etc).
    But what really, really, really strikes me is the suggestion that once cancer is discovered, that diet and nutrition etc, can actually reverse, reduce and irradicate cancer - in good percentages of people at least.
    I did not fully appreciate that there are a number of alternative routes which are far more on record than I have ever been led to believe by mainstream television and the orthodox medical institutions.
    And I was not aware of the historical and current cases of big government, and big companies apparently working very hard to suppress, ridicule and even imprison people in corrupt and unjust ways to diminish their work - or even to go on to acquire (even steal) the patents from various figures.
    I had not fully appreciated that those orthodox doctors who through their experience and professionalism have judged that some, at least, of the 'alternative' treatments were tied up by the FDA, the law - or sheer corruption - to prevent them from recommending alternative treatments.
    But, eventually, the fuller story will out. The internet helps information to reach the wider domain.
    Surely, we as educationalists, should be less quick to make judgements based on the 'quackery' notion.
    It makes a lot of common sense to me that nature's dietry/nutritional route would be beneficial both for prevention and for cure or easing the symptoms.
    So, how open-minded and enquiring are our early years forum contributors?
    Thank you very much to Msz for sharing this information about her father.
    I wouldn't be surprised if there are many more of us who, privately, have a personal story to tell which does not promote the drastic surgery, chemo, radiotherapy solution.

     
  17. Re the deodorants thing:
    I read only recently that use of deodorants may increase the more likely conditions for cancer.
    This was particularly the case for the anti-perspirant types.
    I certainly feel, as a mother and grandmother, that this type of information needs to reach my family.
    I have found myself not stopping using deodorants altogether - but actually reducing use - and I can't abide those spray anti-perspirants anyway!
    Following a conversation about this thread with my husband this morning, he asked me to produce a list with the foods on the video above (and there are other videos which include foods such as tomatoes, avocados etc). We already eat a number of these - but it wouldn't take that much to include, for example, a brazil nut a day and so on.
    We're already cutting back drastically on carbs because all of us are finding it hard to prevent our weight going up. This cannot be the natural state of affairs.
    I need to spend less time on the computer - and far more time in the open air stretching my legs!
    When I'm on the computer (for long hours), I feel as if I am being 'zapped' by all the electrical stuff going on. I don't like it but I keep on doing it.
    I could at least reduce time spent on the computer.
    I will.
     
  18. Re 9/11 as someone mentioned this earlier:
    http://www.ae911truth.org/

    For those of you who are interested in transparency:
    I suggest that there is masses and masses of evidence of every description to suggest that 9/11 was a controlled demolition scenario and that those in authority need to be held to account for this wide-reaching evidence.
    If people want to ridicule the conspiracy theorists regarding 9/11, they need to make sure that they have watched the considerable evidence and understand the many complicated issues.
    There are SO MANY issues surrounding this event, that one has to spend some considerable time watching, reading and absorbing all the implications.
    So, how do people hold to account those in authority with the very questionable investigations and reports?

     

Share This Page