jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (132 posts)

Hitting two big visitor milestones

  1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
    Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago

    One of my articles is approaching 500,000 visits with 497,778 visits as this is written!

    It also recently hit 7,500 comments a couple weeks ago.

    Yay!

    It was first published six years ago. It usually gets about 200 visits a day.
    Occasionally there will be 500 visits or, rarely, 800 hits in a single 24 period.

    1. zsobig profile image88
      zsobigposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Congratulations! smile
      Your numbers seem very motivating - at least this is the effect they have on me smile

    2. Patty Inglish, MS profile image91
      Patty Inglish, MSposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Kudos to you for quite an accomplishment!

      1. ruthwalker profile image79
        ruthwalkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Wow, congratulations, that's pretty amazing smile

    3. 58
      ClassAct2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Congratulations, Kelly!  Those numbers are very impressive!
      You give me HOPE!!!!!!!

    4. isaacasante profile image88
      isaacasanteposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Huh??? Wow, that's awesome!!

      1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
        Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks, Isaac. :-)

    5. ChitrangadaSharan profile image85
      ChitrangadaSharanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      These figures sound amazing! Congratulations!

      1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
        Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you, Chitrangada. :-)

    6. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image94
      TIMETRAVELER2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      To say I am green with envy is an understatement.  That must be some article you wrote to be able to garner that many views.  Do you market your work on G+, FB, etc?  That number just astounds me!

      1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
        Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I've dabbled with YouTube, creating a crappy video that gets a lot of views. That might be the biggest source of viewers.

        According to the stats, most of my readers come from Google searches. The video might come up pretty high for certain searches.

        But Hubpages itself comes up high in Google searches. My article probably ranks high because Google puts a lot of emphasis on the amount of time a reader spends on a page. My page no doubt keeps people there reading and rereading.

        Google wants to give its searchers content that people find worthwhile. Apparently they find my article to be good enough to keep them on the page.

        I don't use Facebook too much. A little off and on. That's about it.

  2. 0
    spahi992posted 2 years ago

    Congratulations man.

  3. Kelley Eidem profile image81
    Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago

    Thank you to each of you for your kind remarks. :-)

    For an update, the hubpage has just hit 500,001 (and over 7,500 comments.)

    Yay!

    1. tony55 profile image81
      tony55posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      500,00 views that's amazing

    2. AliciaC profile image95
      AliciaCposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The number of comments and the number of views are both amazing. Congratulations!

      1. cfin profile image77
        cfinposted 2 years ago in reply to this
        1. AliciaC profile image95
          AliciaCposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you for this information, cfin.

  4. 60
    irmisolposted 2 years ago

    Those congratulating this "author" might want to see the article in question before showering praise on this "accomplishment."

    How I cured my stage 4 cancer in 2 weeks
    http://kelleyeidem.hubpages.com/hub/How … The-Movies

    Frankly, the author should be ashamed of this hub, preying on people by offering a quack medicine cancer cure.  Eidem's "cure" is habanero peppers, garlic, cod liver oil and butter.  Talk about irresponsible journalism! Personally I have flagged this article, and if you care about the integrity of this site and want to take a stand against quacks offering dangerous medical advice, I encourage you to do the same.

    1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
      Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Here is what some researchers from Nottingham University had to say about one of the ingredients in my recipe:

      "As these compounds attack the very heart of the tumour cells, we believe that we have in effect discovered a fundamental 'Achilles heel' for all cancers." 
      - Dr Timothy Bates

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6244715.stm

      Perhaps irmisol might want to keep up with the literature before making such vituperative comments.

      1. 60
        irmisolposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Clearly Eidem is no doctor if he thinks

        compound found in certain food item inhibits tumor cells = eating said food item cures cancer

        I stand by my comment. You are a fraud. Perhaps Eidem might want to stop contributing to the body of quack medical literature before bragging about getting 500,000 hits.

        1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
          Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          So now researchers at Nottingham University are part of the "quack medical literature."

          My experience using my recipe are in congruence with what the researchers also found.

          1. cfin profile image77
            cfinposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6244715.stm

            This article was written 7 years ago. I, myself, would like to know why, if your cure for cancer works, have I known many people who have died from cancer since this discovery yet I have lived in 2 of the most advanced countries in the world, yet no doctors knew of this? A few of these people tried only natural medicine in the later stages and still passed away.

            Don't you think in the internet age, if this cured cancer, then cancer would no longer be a huge worry for people? You will probably reply that it's because of medical companies. A comparison would be the spike in the use of vinegar for cleaning since the rise of the internet. All the marketing in the world won't prevent those people from using home remedies for cleaning their houses. Now why do you think people are so stupid as to not be aware of a LIFE SAVING natural remedy? Saying that big companies are blocking the truth simply isn't enough in my opinion.

            1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
              Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              There aren't a bunch of 'true believers' who come out of the woodwork disparaging vinegar for household cleaning.

              Folks like you come along trying to scare people off from recipes like mine and you probably have some success because you have a lot of supporters who think like you do. Yet you turn around and ask with a straight face why haven''t more people tried it.

              When the cure for scurvy was first discovered it was based on success with two sailors. I took another five decades or so before the cure became more widely used.

              The cure was pooh poohed during those five decades. A lot of folks were sure lemons and oranges couldn't stop a dreadful disease like scurvy. Scurvy is a far worse disease than cancer, so it should be even harder to treat.

              But the simple citrus did in fact stop scurvy in its tracks.

              No doctor today will deny it. They accept the findings regarding the two patients.

              1. cfin profile image77
                cfinposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Folks like me? Hmmm? All I did was bring about some good points. Psychology 101? Trying to play the victim?

          2. cfin profile image77
            cfinposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I also might add, that researchers in the University I work at make many theoretical discoveries. If they could turn their theoretical discoveries into a reality, they surely would, as would the researchers at the Uni of Nottingham. I doubt your butter knife and pickle jar did what these men could not.

            1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
              Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Despite your doubts, my recipe has produced the desired results many times.

              It's not my responsibility to give you answers as to why something did not happen in the time frame you set up in your own mind.

              The researchers said they were looking for a drug to replace the capsaicin. That was a BIG mistake when the capsaicin was already producing the desired results. Probably they were seeking the big payday.

              By way of comparison, for many decades scientists have attempted to replicate chocolate and have failed miserably. Meanwhile, chocolate tastes and feels like chocolate with the same feeling of well being that it produces just as well as it ever has.

      2. aa lite profile image91
        aa liteposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Ahhh....that old trick of all purveyors of quack medication....a substance in food is found to kill cancer cells IN VITRO, therefore eating that food must cure cancer........It's funny that you are quoting scientists here, whereas in another of your hubs you disparage them.

        For people who are interested.....here's the original research article quoted by that very badly written BBC piece: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17214968

        but then here's another article suggesting that capsaicin at low concentrations, can, in fact, stimulate metastasis of colorectal cancer:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23581408

        So.......cells, human body etc. this stuff is kinda complicated. Lotsa things kill cancer cells in culture, but don't just work when we eat em.

        1. cfin profile image77
          cfinposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          but ...... but....... blueberries are good for us..........so therefore blue paint......my house is healthy.....home depot promised.

          1. Kiss andTales profile image21
            Kiss andTalesposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            If it make you happy you have a winner!

            1. cfin profile image77
              cfinposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I shouldn't joke though. This whole thing is really sad and I have lost ALOT of respect for hubpages. I'm embarrassed for them and for myself for being on here now!
              Imagine  the hurt this has caused.

          2. aa lite profile image91
            aa liteposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Ahhh, the good old blue paint for the house....I hope you got one with a purple accent to get the full benefit of those blueberry antioxidants that prevent ageing!

            Although I must say I prefer the avocado paint, lots of bioactive phytochemicals under the skin, plus all the heart heath benefits of omega-9 fatty acids big_smile

            1. cfin profile image77
              cfinposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              My cucumber toilet gives me hives.

        2. HollieT profile image89
          HollieTposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks, aa!

  5. SmartAndFun profile image92
    SmartAndFunposted 2 years ago

    But guize, he can cure cancer in two weeks. Heez an HERO!!!!

    1. 60
      irmisolposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Sadly, SmartAndFun, he does consider himself a hero in his own mind.  There is no hint of embarrassment or shame in what he writes and he sincerely believes his butter sandwich recipe cures cancer.  In two weeks no less.

      I guess if you had only two weeks to live, you could say eating butter sandwiches is positively correlated with having no cancer.

      1. HollieT profile image89
        HollieTposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        There is no hint of embarrassment or shame in what he writes and he sincerely believes his butter sandwich recipe cures cancer.

        I'm not so sure he does, he begins the thread talking about how many hits (and therefore revenue?) his hub receives. Doesn't sound altruistic to me!

        1. cfin profile image77
          cfinposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          My first thought! And the fact that his hub picture is of his book. A free book??

  6. 60
    irmisolposted 2 years ago

    The Nottingham researchers did NOT find that a spicy butter sandwich cures stage 4 cancer, as your article claims.  Therefore, not only are you a fraud Eidem, but also sorely lacking in basic reading comprehension. 

    As cfin asked, if this is such a miraculous cure, why aren't stage 4 cancer patients all over the world suddenly healing?

    On the whole, HubPages is not a bad resource, but I question their quality standards in allowing articles like this to remain on the site.  Articles about curing cancer with butter sandwiches are in a whole other quackery league than articles about home remedies for pimples and bruises and the like.

    1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
      Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      My sandwich puts the active ingredients in a form that makes them tolerable to eat.

      My results match those of the researchers.

      The researchers sought a big payoff by trying to find a drug substitute for capsaicin, just like researchers have attempted to find a substitute for chocolate (cocoa) and failed miserably.

      The original can't be beat.

      PS. Thanks for unwittingly recognizing that I have been way ahead of the researchers in finding a successful treatment for stage 4 cancer when you say they hadn't found a cure for stage 4 cancer.

      But as a reminder, they DID say they had found the Achilles heel for ALL cancers. That would include stage 4 cancers. But then the blew it looking for the pot of gold. I sought no gold. I put the recipe up for all to see for free and it's been up there for 6 years and it's still free.

      Folks like you come along trying to scare people off and you probably have some success because you have a lot of supporters who think like you do. Yet you turn around and ask with a straight face why haven''t more people tried it.

      1. 60
        irmisolposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Many people have tried your butter sandwich cure, as evidenced by the huge number of sad and depressing comments on that article.  No one has been cured by it though. 

        Quack.

        1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
          Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, they have been cured by it.

          I even wrote a Hubpage regarding the people who had been cured so far up to that point.

          Once again your comments simply aren't reliable.

      2. HollieT profile image89
        HollieTposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Post the link to the study, please! A quote means nought to me.

        1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
          Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I've already posted a link to the article.

          Here it is again.

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6244715.stm

  7. Kiss andTales profile image21
    Kiss andTalesposted 2 years ago

    How interesting , I think what might work for some will not work for others , but you will never know until you Investigate the subject.

  8. IzzyM profile image86
    IzzyMposted 2 years ago

    Dear God.
    It is articles like this, highlighted in forums by people who are proud of their online 'success', that make me want to creep quietly away. Wash my hands. Back off from writing online. Find another outlet for any creative skills I may harbour.
    Here's a fact,
    PEOPLE WHO ARE DYING ARE DESPERATE.
    Jalapeno sandwiches (or whatever you promoted) probably made their last days more miserable.
    Feel good now?

    1. Kiss andTales profile image21
      Kiss andTalesposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I remember years ago the pharmacist used to have these large glass containers with hundreds of pills it was years later I heard the most interesting story about those pills, and that was they were sugar pills. Pills that they gave  people  to heal the soul !  or your frame of mind. Which has a lot to do with the body healing itself. We must admit someone cared enough to share ,like the doctor with the sugar pills.

    2. cfin profile image77
      cfinposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Read his articles. They are master manipulation too.

      1. He relates to the obvious audience, the vulnerable
      2. He makes you pity him, thus taking away all feelings of a threat
      3. He uses a "theory" and tries to make it into a "fact" by quoting a theory.
      4. He quotes from reputable peoples research to make his irrelevant "findings" become "facts". i.e Blueberries are blue and are good for you, thus, if you paint your home blue, it is good for you.
      5. He uses numerous instances of psychological manipulation throughout his articles.
      6. If you accuse him of anything or question him, he attempts to demonize you and says "people like you" or "your kind and your followers. This is a classic attempt to once again play the victim and make it look like the questioner is ganging up on him. It also appeals to the vulnerable, as they are the minority and can relate.

      1. SmartAndFun profile image92
        SmartAndFunposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Yup, yup, yup. That's the ticket. Snake oil 101.

  9. AliciaC profile image95
    AliciaCposted 2 years ago

    Kelley Eidem - I've read your hub about cancer treatment carefully. The first thing that worries me about the hub is that there was apparently no medical confirmation that you did in fact have Stage 4 cancer. You say that you didn't visit a doctor. This suggests that you were never medically tested and diagnosed. Your skin lesions and an elevated HCG level may have resulted from cancer, but these symptoms can both be caused by other conditions.

    According to the Canadian Cancer Society, HCG (Human Chorionic Gonadotropin or Gonadotrophin) can be elevated in some types of intestinal (bowel) problems, duodenal ulcers and liver disease as well as in some cancers. Intestinal problems can cause skin lesions and bumps.

    I'm not saying that you didn't have cancer. It just seems to me that without medical evidence that you had the disease, your claim that your recipe destroyed cancer cells in your body can't be validated. I'm glad that the recipe helped you, but now that you are better there is no way to know what disorder in your body it was helping.

    The UCLA research that you mention in your hub was done on mice, not humans. The University of Nottingham study that you quote in this thread said that habanero peppers killed isolated cancer cells in lab equipment. The results of test tube discoveries may be very different when a substance gets into the human body, since the body may break the test substance down, inactivate it or dilute it so much that it's ineffective. Clinical tests on humans are needed to show that a substance works and to determine a safe and effective dose.

    The fact that you suspected that you had cancer and didn't visit your doctor is a worrying example to publicize. In my opinion, if you had written an article saying that people who have or may have cancer should seek their doctor's advice - which they are free to accept or reject - and in addition consider eating habanero peppers or your recipe because the food may possibly help their condition, quoting scientific studies to back up your suggestion, there would be no problem with your hub. As it is, the hub is very problematic.

    1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
      Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Pregnancy tests are accurate when the results are positive for men. But it isn't simply the pregnancy test,. It must be combined with the lesions that were present and the testicular pain I was experiencing.

      Many urologists won't biopsy testicular cancer because the outcome from the biopsy can harm the patient and spread the disease.

      Two physicians told me I had testicular cancer.

      More importantly, since then others have used my recipe and achieved spectacular results. How spectacular? One pathologist wrote the word "Wow!" on the pathology report for a patient who used my recipe.

      Ask yourself, "How many times has a pathologist handwritten that on a report he has filed? My guess would be zero other than the case I just told you about. That means the results were FAR beyond anything he had ever seen in his entire career.

      Since then Don Imus, the radio personality, started using my recipe. Once he started following it correctly, his lab work dropped from being extremely high to zero for two markers and his PSA-3 test dropped from 199 to 59. This happened in 19 days.

      He had a Gleason 7 and looked like death warmed over before he began my recipe. The change in his appearance and vitality has been pretty remarkable. A Gleason 7 is normally not a good sign and his appearance confirmed it.

      It's fine with me if there are doubters. If you doubt, go use whatever method for treating cancer you desire. Lots of sailors did that when it came to eating citrus and they died of scurvy. Today a lot of folks doubt, and they die from radiation or chemo - thousands of them a day in fact.

      Many sailors made fun of the "limeys" for eating citrus or grog with a little citrus in it. The limeys lived and the non-limeys died.

      It's clear that not even thousands of deaths from radiation and chemo each and every day will convince some that those death traps are the way to a worse death.

      So it's unlikely if I had a thousand cases those folks would be persuaded. They have failed to see the obvious when the numbers are massive and the outward results so stark. They are wedded to their superstition - it is superstition because plain evidence has no impact on their beliefs.

      But for the ones with their eyes open, they can see what is obvious.

      Walk into an oncology office and ask the folks how long they have been in treatment. You will see that the ones who have been there more than a couple months look like they are sick. The new patients don't look like the other patients until they, too, have fallen into the trap.

  10. Kelley Eidem profile image81
    Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago

    It's fascinating how the cynics come out in droves all at once.

    This article received about four replies over the space of a couple days. But then one cynic arrives and the others follow like scavenger birds in a flock.

    I've seen this same pattern time and again from cynics. This time is no exception. There is no shortage of name calling, falsehoods and a general mess of fanciful accusations.

    I came here to share the good news and to offer a little inspiration with no link to any of my hubpages.

    The number of visits to my hubpage has climbed even further than the 500,001. The good news keeps spreading.

  11. LongTimeMother profile image95
    LongTimeMotherposted 2 years ago

    Hi Kelley Eidem.

    There will always be people who claim that nature couldn't possibly provide what's needed to restore health in a dying person. They fail to see that most pharmaceutical products began as an attempt to extract or replicate one of nature's healing components.

    I will go and read your hub in a moment. First, however, I will mention that my husband had an overwhelming urge to eat chillies for years while he was fighting a brain tumour. It used to annoy me immensely when he added chillies to everything he ate, including his buttered toast in the mornings.

    We tried a myriad of alternative therapies (and yes, we have a mountain of evidence that he had a brain tumour). It was only days after he had the all-clear that all remaining tumour had disappeared that we saw on the news that research by John Hopkins and a US university (can't remember which) showed that the size of a tumour can be shrunk by up to 80% using chillies alone.

    I'm sure the cynics won't believe it, but his appetite for chilli subsided. Would his approach work for everyone? Probably not. I doubt I could ever eat as much chilli as he did.

    I don't condemn people who pray for a cure to their cancer, despite the fact that it doesn't work for most. Funny how so many of those who would choose prayer are quick to condemn those who choose mother nature.

    I'm off to read your hub. smile

    1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
      Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Very well said, Longtimemother.

      I'd heard a similar story of a man who had an incurable brain tumor. He decided that for his final days he would eat what he loved which was steak smothered in hot peppers.

      In two months his brain tumor was gone.

      1. LongTimeMother profile image95
        LongTimeMotherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        My husband had surgery. They didn't get it all. It was in the 1990s and he still has to go for annual checkups and MRI scans because for some reason they seem convinced it will return. lol.

        His specialists (and he's seen a few of them over the years as we've moved to different countries and states) are always amazed and in awe of his extremely good health - but I doubt they are telling their other patients to eat chilli and garlic (still two of his most regular diet ingredients).

        1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
          Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          That's a great testimonial!

          What is also truly fascinating is how his desire for hot peppers increased while his tumor was still there and lessened after the tumor was gone.

          Animals, such as horses and cats - probably dogs, too -  will eat certain grasses when they are sick and leave them alone when the are not.

          1. LongTimeMother profile image95
            LongTimeMotherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I felt like an absolute idiot after complaining (not always, but often enough) that he was ruining my culinary delights by adding chillies to everything. We also use a lot of garlic. Ever since that study was released, I have happily chopped up half a dozen hot chillies (hotter than jalapenos) and cooked his meal separately to ours at least once a week.

            So pleased he doesn't feel the need to eat them all the time anymore though.

            We grow lots of organic herbs on our small farm and use them in all kinds of medicinal ways. I grow more chillies, garlic, comfrey and other herbs than anyone else I know. I'm forever providing herbs to people who are sick, yet only a few of them bother to set up their own gardens.

            I seriously considered writing a hub about chillies and cancer years ago, but didn't because I thought I'd just get branded a quack. lol. I write about a few natural remedies, but the most 'out there' ones I just share face to face with friends.

            What a shame drug companies are allowed to sell products that come with warnings of side effects including death, and have sadly abysmal success rates yet remain accepted by the masses as a good thing.

            Then, as soon as a suggestion is made that you can heal yourself with cheap products from a grocery store, people become outraged. I would understand it if pharmaceuticals could heal every ailment ... but they can't, they don't, and they often make a bad situation even worse.
            smile

          2. Melissa A Smith profile image94
            Melissa A Smithposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Isn't it amazing how only one man out of millions happened to crave the food that would magically cure him! I'm shocked anyone still gets cancer.

            1. LongTimeMother profile image95
              LongTimeMotherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Melissa, you wouldn't have learned of my husband's experience if I hadn't written it here. You'd have been of the opinion there's not even one man who had that experience.

              I suspect there's more people just like him, who we will never know about. In all the years since that happened, I've not written about it until now. I'm not sure why you are being so cynical. If you have someone in your life who is dying, don't sit back thinking there's nothing you can do.

              Do something. Whatever it is, you may or may not be successful. But at least you will have tried.

              1. Melissa A Smith profile image94
                Melissa A Smithposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not being cynical, this is just logic. You don't know what cured your husband...or even if he had the disease. What you are advocating is really bad science.

                1. LongTimeMother profile image95
                  LongTimeMotherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  You are incorrect there, Melissa. I absolutely know he had a brain tumour. That's what showed on his original MRI, that's why they operated, and that's what professional neurosurgeons said still remained when they failed to get it all. It showed up on his MRI after surgery until an MRI showed it was gone.

                  I certainly don't know exactly what helped my husband heal, but I certainly do know that chillies were a big part of his diet in the time preceding its absence. The remaining tumour 'vanished' quite quickly and unexpectedly, but it took years after the tumour was gone before he was given the all clear by the doctors because they kept expecting it would return.

                  I find it interesting that you would insist I don't even know if he had the disease. Why would you feel the need to say that?

                  1. Melissa A Smith profile image94
                    Melissa A Smithposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Because you wrote "we have a mountain of evidence" which suggested to me that the diagnosis was unclear. Anyway, the OP's article was about cancer, and a tumor doesn't necessarily need to be cancerous. Cancer is not one disease. Once again, people like the OP make money (and apparently, get views) from the prevalency of cancer and its seriousness, no different from the many claims of 'rapid weight loss' magic pill products (obviously this is more resolvable). The OP did not even have a confirmation of his cancer. I'm glad your husband was OK in the end, but we don't know what happened. There's only one way to confirm the effectiveness of chills, strenuous testing...then the 'cancer cure' will be sold in refined extracts at the vitamin shoppe in the future.

  12. Kiss andTales profile image21
    Kiss andTalesposted 2 years ago

    Sorry KE for your bad experience perhaps people will not understand what you understand,and I do not doubt that certain combination of elements can create a new substance. The problem is for some people the subject of a serious illness as cancer is not something people take lightly, many have died and many have this disease as we speak, it is a very serious and a touchy subject. And some people will feel offended by the the hub as a get quick scheme, as in some cases ,there is a price involved. Jesus healed and gave free . What is real and true is free. If this is a real solution to the problem then I am happy for you and anybody that will experience the truth of the subject.

    1. LongTimeMother profile image95
      LongTimeMotherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The last thing any of us should want is to silence voices that offer alternatives other than mainstream medicine's options.

      I don't see oncologists offering their services for free. And I certainly don't see them getting positive outcomes with every patient.

      Sadly, even those who turn to Jesus for healing can't be sure they'll get rid of their cancer ... in this life, anyway.

      I don't understand why anyone would be offended by the hub.

      1. Melissa A Smith profile image94
        Melissa A Smithposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        How should a dying person decide, out of maybe hundreds of thousands of alternative remedies that their inventors swear up and down have a 100% success rate, which one to gamble on with their single life?

        1. LongTimeMother profile image95
          LongTimeMotherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, Melissa. Surely you're not suggesting it is wiser to do nothing and choose none of them? When my husband was dying I looked at absolutely every option I could learn about and tried what I thought was within my reach.

          I had never heard about chillies being suggested to battle cancer at the time my husband was battling his brain tumour (the internet was not then, what it is now). He just had a natural 'craving' for them.

          One of my children was told she was dying earlier this year. I took her to specialists, none of whom had anything to offer her.  She is currently having encouraging results from a different 'natural' option. Too early to say if we'll be successful or not.

          However, if we did nothing, there was a 100% chance she'd be dead by now.

          1. Melissa A Smith profile image94
            Melissa A Smithposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            No that is not anywhere near what I was suggesting. I would opt toward methods that research backs, not shot in the dark hunches from anecdotal evidence. I've experimented with alternative medicine, sometimes it seems to work, but most of the time not. I would never experiment with a fatal illness. I don't think it's ethical for people like the OP to saturate the internet with bad science. As others have said here, it can be fatal.

            1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
              Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              When people are skeptics or cynics, they have a tendency to isolate one bit of information to the exclusion of all others and then claim the one piece of information isn't scientific.

              The researchers at Nottingham have said they believed capsaicin is the Achilles heel of cancer cells. That's one bit of information.

              LongtimeMother provided another piece of information that supports the first piece of information.

              Then I related another story of another man who had a similar experience after being diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor. So that's three.

              There is yet another man who also had a terminal brain tumor who was unwilling to follow Dr. Richard Schulze's intensive dietary regimen. So he asked if there was just one thing he could do that would help. Schulze said he should eat one tablespoon of habanero tincture three times a day.

              The man's brain tumor went away in two months.

              Thus we have four pieces of information that support each other.

              The cure for scurvy was made from the results following TWO patients who were given citrus six days because the researcher ran out of fruit in England in 1753, not FOUR examples like I've just given you.

              There is not one doctor in the world who doesn't agree that citrus reverses scurvy based on those TWO patients. Are ALL the doctors worldwide being unscientific?

              If the cure for scurvy had not yet been discovered today, doctors would be giving scurvy patients chemo and scratching their heads as to why it didn't work.

              Meanwhile, someone would come along and tell the patients to eat a hot pepper (it contains vitamin C) but today's cynics would cry foul: "You're not being scientific!" Yet the patients would be reversing their scurvy.

              How many times do you need to touch a hot stove to know you can get burned? How many times do you need to turn left into oncoming traffic to learn that it causes collisions? The answer in both cases is "Once."

              Science requires observation. A mediocre scientist ignores the anecdotal - the single case - whereas the greatest discoveries are made by observing the single case. Semmelweis did and so did Fleming. Both men saw a single example and made huge discoveries as a result.

              Open your eyes to the single case. Do that and you'll discover things, perhaps even great things.

        2. Kelley Eidem profile image81
          Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Then go do radiation and chemo. Those options are there and have been there. Lots of doctors would be more than happy to oblige.

          There ARE many ways to cure cancer. That's the good news.

          The bad news is that radiation and chemo aren't among them.

          Scurvy is one disease, yet there are many foods that will reverse it: oranges, lemons, limes, or pine needles just to name a few. Pick any one and a person can reverse their scurvy.

          We shouldn't complain that there is a cornucopia of remedies that'll makes us better, but be grateful for them.

  13. HollieT profile image89
    HollieTposted 2 years ago

    @writerfox. Ah, so it is all about views and revenue? To you at least. That's interesting.

    You see, I would never pretend to be an expert. I have been diagnosed with stage IB1 cervical cancer, seven years ago to be exact and had lazer surgery to 'treat' my condition, but that doesn't make me an expert. Nor should it.

    Possibly you know more about my condition and how people might feel once they've been diagnosed. Personally, and from experience, I reckon most people who've been in my position (and far worse) just want the truth and not speculation. I do, however, find it a bit disgusting that there are some who want to profit from other people's desperation. But that's just me.

    The safest bet is probably to write about rats and SEO, that may perhaps bring in a lot of views without 'hurting' people too much!

    1. Writer Fox profile image80
      Writer Foxposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Why do you falsely accuse this man of hurting people?  He's not attacking anyone; you are. He's offering help based upon his experience and his research and hundreds of thousands of people are interested in his articles.     

      And, yes, people do like my Hubs, too.  I just reached 727,000 views, starting with only two Hubs in May, 2013. Views come from writing the best answers to queries people have.  Traffic numbers reflect the importance of what you have to say.

      Again, if you disagree with someone's Hub, you can always go write your own instead of making unsubstantiated claims on a forum that his Hub "might also cost someone their life, in the long run" and that his Hub is somehow "hurting people."

      1. HollieT profile image89
        HollieTposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Because he's not giving them all the information, his bias *might* hurt someone. It speaks volumes, WF, that you consider my challenges to the author as an attack. I have consistently stated that his recipe *might* help, but that's the point, it *might* not that it *will*. See the difference?

        Hundreds of thousands of people are desperate, scared and hoping for a miracle cure. And he's not offering honest help, he's offering a 'cure' for end stage cancer. Surely even you can see how this might be considered exploitative and unethical?

        Traffic numbers reflect the number of people searching for a particular answer to a particular problem, not how authoritative (or important) the writer and his works may be. You are really bigging yourself up tonight, WF!

        And there you go again, I'm not making any claims (duh) The author is, and they are unsubstantiated! I'm suggesting that his unqualified claims *may* hurt someone, *may* cost someone their lives. Not a claim, but a possibility!

        I might be many things, but I would never write a hub about how to cure cancer because so far I've survived it. I don't see myself as a teacher purely because of my experiences and research. That's dangerous territory, and besides, there are enough morons who seek nothing more than traffic and revenue doing exactly the same thing!

        1. Writer Fox profile image80
          Writer Foxposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I understand that you do not understand how traffic comes to a webpage from Google.  The article in question doesn't get that kind of traffic in an extremely competitive topic unless viewers really like the information, link to it, share it, read it from start to finish, etc. Traffic numbers don't come from people searching; they come from people finding. Searchers could not find his Hub if it weren't one of the best on the Web.

          And, yes, you are attacking him. You have accused him of being "exploitative and unethical."  He's not obligated to write a 20,000-word Hub to cover all points.  He wrote a book for that.  And you accuse me of being arrogant?  Well, look who is talking!   And, of course you won't write your own Hub about it because you really don't have anything valuable to contribute.  But, just for your information, eating peppers is hardly a dangerous activity and is unlikely to harm anyone. But your attacks are harmful and that is why Internet bullying is a crime in the U.S.  If his work upsets you so much, why don't you just find something else to read for a while?

          1. Melissa A Smith profile image94
            Melissa A Smithposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Viewers may 'like' the information, that in no way reflects the quality of the information and certainly does not reflect the effectiveness of the treatment. Anyone who believes success is intermixed with 'being the best' is kidding themselves. The reason articles like these do well is because, and I'm sure the OP is aware of this, that many people are desperate for some miraculous alternative therapy with an alleged higher success rate than conventional therapy, which many are convinced are 'evil big business'. Writing an article about why an exciting alternative method does NOT work is not likely to illicit excitement.
            Sure he's not obligated to tell people the truth. He's not 'obligated' to be ethical. That is not a proper defense of his article.

            1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
              Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              While I'm not obligated to tell the truth, I do tell the truth.

              I've seen several lies about me in this thread.

              That's life. If you're doing anything worthwhile, people will stand on the sidelines and lie about you all day long.

              Meanwhile, people try my recipe because they are adults and they have the right to. This freedom pisses some people off.

              They want everyone to march in lockstep to get cut and cooked even though those approaches have failed miserably for 100 years.

              People have a better chance of getting rid of their cancer if they do nothing than if they fall into the cook's traps. Autopsies were done and the autopsies showed that most people had cancer that stopped growing several times but didn't know it. So they cured themselves without knowing it.

              But if you go to a doctor for cancer you have only a 50/50 chance of lasting 5 years at best. So the person is better off not going to the doctor for cancer because even by mistake, the person will stop the cancer all by themselves.

              1. HollieT profile image89
                HollieTposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Meanwhile, people try my recipe because they are adults hand they have the right to. This freedom pisses some people off.

                Erm, don't think so. People have the right to choose whatever they want, I would never attempt to TELL people what treatment they should opt for, I believe that's your territory, as you keep waffling on about being 'cooked'

                But those who preach, such as yourself, have a responsibility to be completely honest!!

                And there we have it; the admission!

                So the person is better off not going to the doctor for cancer because even by mistake, the person will stop the cancer all by themselves.

                And with the miraculous and amazing spicy cures from the Doctor who cures cancer, all for $55 dollars a throw and less than $6, the average price of a McDonalds, for his revolutionary book!

                You are a dangerous and irresponsible man!

                1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
                  Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks for letting us know that you consider the truth to be dangerous.

                  Sorry you don't like it that I call radiation and chemo what it is, which is cooking the patients, burning out their insides either radioactively or chemically. There's no point in mincing words when it comes to the organized killing of 1.5 million people in the US each year.

                  I've been completely honest: cutting and cooking is stupid and dangerous, and To get well, do things to make yourself healthier.

                  If I person cures themselves 5 times without even knowing it - as most of us apparently do -  that's have a success rate of 100% over five different cancers.

                  But if you go to the doctor to get treated, you're chances of surviving 5 years just once is now down to 50%.

                  But let's say we give the doctor a chance to cure you up times five times, then out of a hundred or a thousand people the chances of his success is .5 x .5 x .5 x .5 x .5 which equals = .03.

                  And in fact we know this to be true because when a person gets treated for cancer by a doctor even two times, they rarely survive even the second attempt. So in fact the mathematical calculation is overly generous. You have almost zero chance when it's the second or third cooking.

                  UCLA recently reported that radiation makes the healthy cells thirty times more malignant!

                  Researchers from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center reported about a month or so ago that chemo makes cancer spread FASTER!

                  1. HollieT profile image89
                    HollieTposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    And the truth is, according to you, that people who have cancer should not bother to consult their doctor because they'll probably cure cancer, by mistake, themselves.

                    I rest my case.

                    Quack.

          2. HollieT profile image89
            HollieTposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I understand that you misunderstand how traffic arrives at a web page. Noting to do with authority, oh superior rat catcher and SEO expert!

            Traffic numbers don't come from people searching; they come from people finding. Searchers could not find his Hub if it weren't one of the best on the Web.

            Lol! Have you even looked at the SERPS lately?

            I hadn't accused him of being exploitative and unethical until you accused me of attacking him. Another LOL!, you hadn't worked that out until I SPELLED it out!

            He wrote a book for that. Yep, at more than five dollars a throw.

            Funny how you freedom of speech only applies to your Doctor friend, but when anyone critiques what he had to say they are attacking him, and it's a  CRIME! You're such a joker, WF!

            Eating peppers is not a crime or harmful, but promising cancer sufferers that eating peppers will most CERTAINLY CURE their cancer should be. Because it's dishonest.

            Why don't you just find something else to read, or perhaps you could contribute when it comes to how you dealt with your cancer!

            1. Writer Fox profile image80
              Writer Foxposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              What is that supposed to mean, Hollie?  That's twice you've brought up those two Hubs of mine in this forum thread. My Hub about solving a rats problem is highly ranked on Google and addresses diseases transmitted by rats that kill millions of people every year. It's an especially difficult problem where you live because your municipality is trying to solve the problem with poisons which are creating mutant rats more than two feet long:  http://goo.gl/lhWdhK      http://goo.gl/TjdO1q 
              And I've been thanked countless times on this forum for the information I give in my SEO Tutorial Hub.  Why does that bother you so much that you bring it up twice, out of the blue, on this forum thread?

              It's because you're jealous of someone else's success. The only reason you posted on this thread is because the OP has over 500,000 visits to a single Hub and that's what makes you so angry. You don't have any evidence to refute his theories or his experience so, like most schoolyard bullies, you resort to name-calling. Freedom of speech doesn't protect against libel, which is what you have committed here by calling him dishonest and a quack.   That's the <personal information snipped> syndrome, also known as the green-eyed monster.

              And if that weren't enough, because you don't agree with his opinions, you cry for censorship and want his article banned from HubPages. There are hundreds of Hubs about alternative treatments (including Voodoo) which don't seem to bother you at all, but because this Hub has so much traffic, you want it banned. I would say that his 500,000 visits, 7,500 comments and 2,900 likes on Facebook far outvote you, your ilk and pseudo personae.

              You even insulted his Hubber Score, as if your own is such a shinning example. LOL. Hubber Scores have nothing to do with high traffic, high earnings or quality content.   The Hubber Score is based on a poor algorithm that gives a 100 to Hubbers who barely get a few hundred views a day. Everyone but you seems to know that.

              Why do you have this overpowering need to insult and denigrate others? Cancer of the body is one thing; cancer of the soul is quite another.

              1. aa lite profile image91
                aa liteposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                It ain't libel if it's true.

              2. Melissa A Smith profile image94
                Melissa A Smithposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                So me, Holly, and about 8 other posters here who've made valid points are all just secretly jealous of the OP--is what you need to tell yourself?

              3. HollieT profile image89
                HollieTposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, you're absolutely right, WF. I'm really jealous, I'm always popping up in the forums and denigrating people who've reached a milestone, not! Lol!

                I wonder which one of us takes the biscuit for pernicious debate on these forums?

                Interesting that you've used my real name on the forums and my hometown in the same context as the "Green eyed monster"! Are you trying to smear me? Lol! if you had an ounce of sense you'd know that Manchester is full of Divers and Lisas! Many an Irish immigrant resides in this huge city! Nice try though!

                Why would you never use your real name, or gender for that matter, on these pages, WF? And why do you feel the need to jump and speak on behalf of the Dr? I think you should credit him with the intelligence to debate for himself, I do!

                You even insulted his Hubber Score, as if your own is such a shinning example. LOL. Hubber Scores have nothing to do with high traffic, high earnings or quality content.   The Hubber Score is based on a poor algorithm that gives a 100 to Hubbers who barely get a few hundred views a day. Everyone but you seems to know that.

                Erm, I was referring to my hubberscore, get a grip! 'Twas a joke! But thanks for laying the 'authoritative' (or importance, to you) argument out for me.

                You still make me laugh, WF! That's a compliment Lol!

                1. Melissa A Smith profile image94
                  Melissa A Smithposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I think WF is ganging up on you because of her perceived superiority over you due to your hub statistics. She believes that popularity equates with respect deserved. It's sad to see.

                  1. HollieT profile image89
                    HollieTposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Melissa, if he/she really deemed themselves superior they would be less defensive, in my view. I do not earn my living here, it must be tough for the people who do! I write about the things which interest me after I've finished work, traffic, although great when it gets a boost, is a minor consideration in my life. So is hubberscore unless it's below 85 because of back links to my Zazzle store, but it's still pretty insignificant in the scheme of things.

                    WF has been discredited many times on this thread and others, sadly, WF is the last one to realise this!

                  2. Writer Fox profile image80
                    Writer Foxposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    <personal information snipped> has more than one account on HP and I'm not sure what she believes.  But, personal attacks are not acceptable on the forum.  She has called Kelley "dishonest, exploitative, unethical, dangerous, irresponsible and a quack."  If that weren't enough, she has asked the HP staff to remove his 6-year-old Hub from this site.  I find that kind of censorship to be outrageous.

                    She has an adverse reaction to the fact that authors write books and – imagine this  –  actually sell them for as much as $5! (Kelley posted his recipe on his Hub and it is there for free.)

        2. Kelley Eidem profile image81
          Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          If you're so worried about people who might get hurt, go to the cemetery. The place is filled with people who were killed by their doctors. The deceased could use your prayers.

          First, the doctor gives them drugs that promote cancer and heart disease, and then other doctors follow up by cutting and cooking them to death.

          I must have missed your campaign to stop them from what they are doing daily.

          PS. The initial claim I made for this thread is that one of my Hubpages was about to hit 500,000 and that it did.

          But the cynics work in packs. They notify each other whenever there is someone who talks or writes about natural cures.

          They succeed in more people suffering and dying, but they have never found a cure for anyone because their entire focus is searching for flaws.

    2. Melissa A Smith profile image94
      Melissa A Smithposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You beat me to it Hollie. What an absurd proposition. I suppose the cancer cure effectiveness correlates with comments and views.

      1. HollieT profile image89
        HollieTposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Absolutely, Melissa, and hubber score!

    3. Writer Fox profile image80
      Writer Foxposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      His views come from people who find his article to be valuable.  That's what you should find interesting.

      You want to know the truth about your condition?  Cervical cancer is caused by promiscuity and a sexually transmitted disease (STD). The HPV virus still lives in your body even if no signs of cancer can be found right now.  You harbor a contagious disease. You can transmit this virus to others just by hand contact.  If I were you, I would be all over the Internet looking for a way of eradicating the virus from your system.  If you don't care about yourself, you should care about the other people you come into contact with because you can infect them.

      You seem to have no basic understanding about how scientific discoveries are made. About 140 years ago, a doctor named Ignaz Semmelweis observed that babies born in the streets were less likely to die during birth than those born in the hospital. He made the profound suggestion that doctors should wash their hands before delivering babies.  In his own experiments, he reduced infant mortality by 90% by implementing his simple idea.  But, because he could present no scientific evidence for the procedure, he was ridiculed, ostracized by the medical community, and lost his job at the hospital. He was vindicated after his death when Louis Pasteur presented evidence for the theory of germs.

      Too bad so many mothers and babies died in the meantime because their doctors were too proud to try the new theory of disinfecting their hands before assisting in childbirth.

      And then there is the case of Ron Woodroof, a heterosexual who contracted AIDS in 1986 and was told he had one month to live.  Based upon his own experience and observations, he concluded that treatments with AZT were actually poisoning patients and shortening their life spans.  He went all over the world in search of alternative treatments, helped others obtain life-extending medications that were not FDA approved, and lived another seven years beyond his diagnosis. His story is told in the academy-award-winning movie 'Dallas Buyers Club.' He, too, was subjected to ridicule, harassment and many attempted to silence him.  Since you have stated on the forum that you are the mother of a homosexual son, it might interest you to know that 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24 are found in male homosexuals.  I'm sure most of the mothers of those young men are thankful that Ron Woodroof wasn't silenced and that the life expectancy of an AIDS patient is now the same as someone without the disease – just another example of yesterday's quackery becoming today's medicine.

  14. HollieT profile image89
    HollieTposted 2 years ago

    @Kelley Eidem, no, you are ignoring and isolating other research. I'm saying that there *might* be something in your claims, but there might not be too. Yet you fail to mention this every time. You write as if your claims are beyond any reasonable doubt, by your own admission mediocre scientists exclude other information which is exactly what you're doing here.

    People deserve better!

    1. Writer Fox profile image80
      Writer Foxposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      And we are all waiting for you to write that better Hub.

      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8904221.png

      1. HollieT profile image89
        HollieTposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Only if you're desperate and prepared to pay me $55 dollars for a consultation because so far I've survived cancer! Oh yeah, and then there's that study....

    2. Kelley Eidem profile image81
      Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      What I say on my hub page is this IS what I did and it IS why I'm cancer free 15+ years later. It's not a "MIGHT." I did it and it is a historical fact.

      Readers have taken that information and put it to good use for themselves.

      There are several places where I could go get chemo or radiation in this city of maybe 70,000 people. IOW, there is no shortage of places to go get cooked. Most likely you and your neighbors have several options for the same cooking where you live. These 'cooks' seem to have no shortage of people to cook.

      All those cooks think like you: Find the flaw instead of the cure. So you find flaws even as you stumble over and curse the cures before you.

      They train this flaw seeking into you in school. And it's practiced with abandon. Meanwhile, the practitioners of the flaw method write "Wow!" when they see results they've never seen before wHEN they continue to cut and cook.

      These doctors are actually trained to tell their patients, "I don't want to know what you are doing, but keep it up." The doctors are told that saying that protects them from lawsuits.

      Too bad the doctors can't protect them from cancer, too.

      THE DOCTORS DON'T WANT TO KNOW!!

      But the people who find my article do want to know. Some choose to try it, and some keep looking. Just like you have chosen your preferred method of treatment, my readers do the same. And many are grateful that they did.

      You made a comment about excluding studies. Everyone does that. If you don't, you're making a big mistake.

      Furthermore if there is ONE critical message that needs to go out there it is this: We don't need no steenkin' studies. The entire system was designed in part to entrap and to create an elite who decide what is good and what isn't.

      They've done worse than a terrible job sorting it all out. In the 1990's there were over 10,000 studies on nitric oxide's role in health particularly for relaxing blood vessels and lowering blood pressure. Science Magazine called it the molecule of the year. The discoverers won a Nobel Prize.

      Yet it's highly unlikely that you know a single doctor who prescribes its precursor to any of his patients with high blood pressure. Yet they prescribe blood pressure drugs that kill their patients. The peer review system is in large part a sham.

      You poisoned yourself and survived. That doesn't mean others want to do that. They believe it makes better sense to improve their health if they want to get well rather than destroy it.

      1. HollieT profile image89
        HollieTposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        What I say on my hub page is this IS what I did and it IS why I'm cancer free 15+ years later. It's not a "MIGHT." I did it and it is a historical fact.

        So therefore everybody else will experience the same? You ARE indeed a quack if you believe this to be the case.

        You poisoned yourself and survived. That doesn't mean others want to do that. They believe it makes better sense to improve their health if they want to get well rather than destroy it.

        I accepted the treatment on offer and I survived, but unlike you, I would never assume that what worked for me (so far) would work for everybody else. We are individuals with a unique genetic make-up and the outcomes, stages of the disease and response to treatment will vary wildly amongst us. I acknowledge these factors, why can't you? What are you afraid of?

        1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
          Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I've said it a hundred times. My article is an option. People decide which options they want to make JUST LIKE YOU DID.

          But you won't be happy unless everyone chooses your option. Some are and some aren't.

          You have ASSUMED that if they choose my option that dire things will happen. It's not a fact - it's just something you assume.

          What is a known fact is how disastrous cutting and cooking is if you have cancer. It's been proven tens of millions of times. That's why people are looking for something else. Their eyes are open. They have watched family members get cooked until they died. Not just once, but repeatedly with different relatives.

          So they wake up.

          You're not awake yet. You have the right to remain asleep for as long as you'd like to remain asleep. But it makes you angry that others are not as soggy headed.

          1. HollieT profile image89
            HollieTposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I've said it a hundred times. My article is an option. People decide which options they want to make JUST LIKE YOU DID.

            But you won't be happy unless everyone chooses your option. Some are and some aren't.

            That simply isn't true. I opted for treatment based on the information I was offered by my GP. There were no guarantees but lots of probabilities and obviously the disease was spotted in its very early stages. Without conventional medicine and the smear test results, however,  I would not even have known about the cancerous cells. Likewise, my journey into healthy eating, less stress and other options began. I believe that the two (conventional and alternative medicine) CAN co-exist and compliment each other! Had it not been for conventional testing and the medical model, nevertheless,  I would not have set out on this journey.

            I would view a GP who shunned and disparaged alternative therapies/medicines, as you do conventional medicine,  with the same cynicism that I view you. I'm not the one telling people that they should opt for one treatment over another, YOU ARE!!! But worse than that, you use your qualifications as a MD to garner trust, then, outrageously, pontificate about why individuals should mistrust the very profession you cling onto to hook your readers in (for your personal profit).

            Answer this question, Dr. How many customers (and how much money) would you have, if it wasn't for the very profession you sneer at?

            Just be honest about what you can and cannot offer. Think Karma!

            1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
              Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You have a tendency to leap to conclusions in so many ways.

              It should be clear to any and all that I am not an M.D. If I had been one, it's unlikely I would have made the discoveries that I've made.

              In that regard, it was Paul Winchell, the ventriloquist, who invented the first artificial heart.

              This carelessness on your part and your desire to place negative interpretations on anything I say spill over all of what you've written. They are too numerous to mention.

              Others here like LongtimeMom, Fiction Teller, and Writer Fox have explained it to you better than I can say. But you've not understood them either.

  15. sehrm profile image89
    sehrmposted 2 years ago

    While I agree with you in some ways, HollieT, I also think you are immensely wasting your time.  There is no right or wrong as far as our medical research can tell us at present, and Kelley Eidem found something that worked for him and he wants to share.  I don't believe that his recipes may hurt anyone, lest they have a food allergy.  All of the ingredients he uses are known to be extremely healthy and have been used for centuries (even millennia) for beneficial properties.  I do agree that he does not seem to be a credible authority on the topic (though I don't know his background), no more than you are an authority on vegetarian cooking.  The internet is full of free speech, and there is no reason to get heated about a conflicting opinion on one subject, or about the credibility of a writer (on hubpages, no less).

    1. Melissa A Smith profile image94
      Melissa A Smithposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      No one suggested the ingredients are harmful, but the reliance on them could be.  And there certainly is a right and wrong. The OP's methods are undoubtedly the wrong way to go about science. The OP should have recommended his method of chillis and ginger as a supplement, meant to potentially aid healing. It's always fine to eat healthy food that may be correlated with cancer cures, as long as that doesn't decrease your quality of life.

      1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
        Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        But Melissa, the cutting and cooking you recommend makes people sicker which is not the way to get well.

        The ones who recover the quickest using my recipe are the ones who avoid cutting and cooking themselves. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out why that is the case.

        As I mentioned before UCLA researchers have found that radiation makes healthy cells 30 times more malignant!

        Researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research have found that chemo makes the patient's cancer grow FASTER!

        So it would be insane to suggest my recipe as something to follow while a person is hurting themselves.

        I often suggest to readers who ask questions to ask their doctor how many people they have cured in their career with a similar situation to their own. That would be an important question to have answered, wouldn't you agree?

        It's a fair question, too.

        Most of the time the answer is -0-. Would you take your car to a have the transmission fixed if the mechanic had NEVER successfully fixed a transmission before?

        If you answered no, then why would you trust your life to someone who can't fix a transmission or you? Approaching the answer from a scientific angle, if the success rate is zero, then it is irrational to partake of it. Isn't that what science is about - using numbers and percentages to make an informed choice?

        You say I'm not going about this scientifically, yet more people have been cured with my recipe than were cured by Dr. Lind from scurvy. You accept his science, as does every doctor in the world.

        Let me do a little scientific experiment for you right here using a fly. We take the fly and remove its wings to see if it can still fly.

        How many flies does it take to prove that flies can't fly without their wings?

        Do I need to do the same experiment with birds to prove it? How many birds?

    2. HollieT profile image89
      HollieTposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Sehrm, exactly. There are no right and wrongs but maybes and possibilities, which is why I believe it's unethical to offer guarantees (particularly to very sick people) 

      The OP has made clear that he believes that people with cancer shouldn't bother to consult their doctor because they'll probably cure the cancer by themselves, by mistake.

      He refers to treatment by the medical profession as being 'cooked' and clearly favours his method of treatment over and above conventional medicine. This, of course, is absolutely his individual right. However, he is advocating that others do the same without presenting the whole picture to them. I've written a few vegetarian recipes, not made guarantees to a sick individual that I can cure their cancer for a fee. Those guarantees could cost somebody their lives in the long run, surely you can see that.

  16. deecoleworld profile image82
    deecoleworldposted 2 years ago

    Congratz!!!! What is the title of the hub, so I can check it out?

    1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
      Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you, Dee. :-)

      Here you go:
      "How I Cured My Stage 4 Cancer In Two Weeks For Less Than The Cost Of A Night At The Movies"

      Or you could click on my name and find it that way.

      1. Treasuresofheaven profile image87
        Treasuresofheavenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Truly amazing!  Congratulations!!! Bravo!!!

  17. Fiction Teller profile image61
    Fiction Tellerposted 2 years ago

    I think the problem is that scientific discovery has been the territory of the educational, corporate, and governmental institutions for about a century, leading to the idea that they are the natural authority for medical discovery, and that any medical science coming from outside the loop is, perforce, quackery.

    It's even deemed dangerous - "could be fatal," as one poster here has put it.  To me, that suggests we are direly fearful of the territory of scientific discovery being in individual hands and much prefer it to be in the hands of the checks-and-balances we are familiar with.  In other words, we'd rather institutions be responsible for risking, and saving, our lives, not ourselves.

    But are those checks and balances really more committed to saving us, or even scientific verisimilitude?  I don't think so, because science as it should be ideally performed is unbelievably, hellishly expensive.  How often are studies repeated?  Hardly ever.  How often is methodology challenged? Not very.  How often are the interests of the researchers questionable?  Pretty often.  I don't actually see a lot of quality control there, and I do see a lot of conflicts of interest.    But there is some.  We cling to that idea - that some quality control is better than people randomly thinking they can help the human condition without the proper credentials and funds.

    It's interesting...I almost majored in the history and philosophy of science because it's so fascinating how we interpret scientific knowledge.  Anyone read Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolution?  Changed my world many years ago... smile

    Anyway, many folks - some of them scientists, but ironically mostly not - have strange ideas about the way science is actually done.  They believe that empirical science is based on objective thinking.  It's not actually about objective thinking at all.  Science has always been about subjective, not-disinterested thinking that is explored empirically (using a set methodology). 

    Thus, scientific discovery comes about not because of any logical reason, but because of creativity.  Guesses.  Anecdotal events.  Serendipity.  Desperation.  Whatever.

    Then experimentation happens - but only if it is seen in the resourcing society as worthwhile.  Science is limited by resources; since our resources are limited, we filter out many, many good ideas that are not resource-friendly.  Further, we use strongly subjective filtering criteria to judge worthiness - like educational certification (seems objective, but it's gone through its own filtering process), social status,  and commercial viability. 

    This helps with quality control, but it also delays the exploration of potentially revolutionary discoveries.

    I, personally, think that the Internet and the ability of the anecdote to be recorded forever and for people to spontaneously form "flash mob research" ("I'll try it too and report my results, 'kay?) are a huge data boon for science, if science will only stop competing with it and start acknowledging it.   

    But the war continues, because it is a war of territory - does scientific authority belong exclusively to the institutions, or also, possibly, to other social formations, like smaller, spontaneous groups (such as online forums and comment threads) and even individuals?  Would be nice if we could share..

    1. LongTimeMother profile image95
      LongTimeMotherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you, Fiction Teller, for making perfect sense. smile

  18. LongTimeMother profile image95
    LongTimeMotherposted 2 years ago

    Hollie, is this just another of your assumptions? That the author is a doctor? I haven't seen anything that indicates the author is claiming that. Only that the author wrote about a doctor.

    You wrote: "But worse than that, you use your qualifications as a MD to garner trust, then, outrageously, pontificate about why individuals should mistrust the very profession you cling onto to hook your readers in (for your personal profit).

    "Answer this question, Dr. How many customers (and how much money) would you have, if it wasn't for the very profession you sneer at?"

    I do wonder how much of your outrage is based on what was actually written, and whether you might have created a mountain out of a molehill.

    I have a question for you. It's the fourth post on the thread over here ... http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/121484.

    I look forward to reading your answer.

    1. HollieT profile image89
      HollieTposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The authors of the book are : William Kelley Eidem and Seymour Brenner M.D. FACR.

      So either one is or both are. Bit misleading either way, particularly when the book is entitled The Doctor who cured cancer.

      So, Dr Kelly is not even a Doctor after all? Or is he?

      Was this my assumption, or is the title misleading?

      1. Kelley Eidem profile image81
        Kelley Eidemposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        It just never ends with the errors you make.

        You don't even know the difference between an author and the person who pens the Foreword of a book??? (facepalm)

        Good grief.

        Dr. Seymour Brenner, M.D., FACR, is NOT the author of the book. I am.

        (shaking my head)

        PS. You didn't even get the title right. The correct title is "The Doctor Who Cures Cancer." There is a photo of the actual doctor on the front cover of the book.

        Do you need thick red arrows pointing out the different people and titles?

        Nowhere does my name have M.D. after it nor is there any claim anywhere by me that I am a doctor. If I'd been a doctor, it's unlikely that I would have made the discoveries that I made.

        Where it is appropriate, I often include the word 'author" after my name just like it says on the Hubpage with my picture where it says very clearly, "Kelley Eidem, author The Doctor Who Cures Cancer"

        That picture is quite different than the photo on the book cover.

        1. HollieT profile image89
          HollieTposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Your hub and comments on this thread are enough to ensure that I would never touch YOUR book with a barge pole. So your not a MD, you have little faith in the medical profession and would advise people not to consult a MD because they'll cure cancer themselves, but the foreword in your book is written by a MD. Whom, presumably, is standing up your claims. Emm.

          Do I need to point out the contradiction? Or should I draw a diagram with big red arrows?

    2. HollieT profile image89
      HollieTposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Good luck with that, LTM. Page does not exist, apparently!

    3. HollieT profile image89
      HollieTposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Apparently, the book had been written by : William Kelley Eidem and Seymour Brenner M.D. FACR

      So either one is or both are. A bit misleading either way, particularly when the book is entitled The Doctor who cured cancer.

      So, Dr Kelly isn't even a Dr?? Interesting! Or his he?

  19. LongTimeMother profile image95
    LongTimeMotherposted 2 years ago

    The hub author's last post appeared 33 seconds before mine. Seems I was right. No claim of being a doctor.

  20. HollieT profile image89
    HollieTposted 2 years ago

    @Dr Kelly, which is why I asked if you were ashamed of your quote.

    I didn't comment one way or another when it came to your comments about my hub, so I've no idea what you're talking about there.

 
working