Cancer

1. 0

   MP50posted 12 years ago

   Is it possible or impossible to cure all Cancers'......How?
   

   replyreport
   1. 60

      couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I have done moderately extensive layman's research into this subject for personal reasons.  What I've learned is probably only the tip of the iceberg but it seems that a medical cure is not reasonable to assume but a natural one is. 
      
      Cancer centers around oxidative stress, more oxidation than the body can handle because it is not given the tools (nutrition) it needs to do so.  Keeping the optimal ph balance (or within a healthy range) is critical.  Allegedly, we all have cancer cells running around in us but the immune system handles it.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         rmcrayneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I'm with you.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      MP50posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Some very impressive and intelligent answers' here thank you for participating.

      replyreport
   3. 62

      AngelArsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Actually there is a guy who invented a machine similar to an X-Ray machine that kills ALL cancers and does NOT kill healthy  living tissue. If I remember correctly it is a two step process. First they inject nano-dyes into your body. Then the next day they put you in front of this machine. The cancer (and only the cancer) attracts the nano-dyes and the machine heats them up, basically sterilizing the cancer cells. 60 Minutes did a story about it. The machine is probably locked away in some companies vault because as we all know, cancer is BIG business.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         AngelArsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Here's a link to a video which shows The Kanzius Machine working;
         
         http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= … ncol;lst;1
         
         Here's a link which describes other similar machines shown to kill cancer;
         
         http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scala … tech01.htm

         replyreport
2. 80

   GmaGoldieposted 12 years ago

   Great topic! I just wrote an article calling for more research dollars and scientific emphasis upon the type of cancer that Steve Jobs had. When I first starting working the early 1980's I worked with a women who died of breast cancer. She went through all the chemo, radiation, etc. but what stuck in my mind is her mother was sent home to die - at least she was given a fighting chance. Thankfully breast cancer while still severe is no longer an ultimatum. What this 30 years does tell me is IF we dedicate ourselves to the other forms of cancer, we can make an impact. Will it be a cure? Can it be preventative? Unknown. What is exciting is the preventative measures we have learned. I pray daily for the end to this insidious disease. Last month our family lost two close friend's relatives to cancer. This disease needs our efforts - this is the war we all should be fighting - end to disease worldwide.

   replyreport
3. 0

   icountthetimesposted 12 years ago

   Often it depends on how early the cancer is recognised. The likelyhood or curing the cancer falls the faller the diagnosis is left. Personally, I wouldn't advise people to opt for alternative therapies before recognised treatments. However, I would suggest that people make life choices to cut the chances of getting cancer to begin with.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Healthy Fat Guyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You can absolutely do both.  Most natural approaches are just foods or vitamins.  There's even some evidence that Noni juice can protect the body from the harmful effects of radiation based therapies.
      
      Read here too  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/88050

      replyreport
      1. 0

         icountthetimesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Well to me, if that's possible it sounds like the ideal approach.

         replyreport
4. 60

   nadejda13posted 12 years ago

   Catalytic Therapy of cancer can be used for all types of cancer because it is not type specific. See more about this modality in one of my hubs.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      bloggernotjoggerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      This is a very interesting topic.
      
      Eventually all cells becomes cancerous. Think of a cell as a city with ten giant defensive walls protecting it. Each time it becomes exposed to a danger, certain walls are at risk of becoming breached. For example, smoking can breach several of those walls. For some people, this can happen very quickly (second hand exposure). For others, it will take longer, but it will happen. Even 90yr old smokers will have suffered a breach to several of those protective walls. That does not mean that they will get cancer because they may still have other walls protecting the cells.
      
      Every time a healthy cell dies, it replaces itself with a new cell but, it carries forward all the previous breaches. After enough time, and enough exposure to different dangers, all the walls of protection are destroyed and the cell becomes cancerous. When a cancerous cell divides, all those breaches are carried forward. This is the beginning of a tumor.
      
      If we were to live to be 200 yrs, we would be suffering from many different cancers. When we talk about a cure, we are effectively talking about the prevention of premature cancer. That is, cancer before the age of 120 yrs. Even that, may not be considered premature. The best bet right now is to limit oneself to as few dangers as possible. However, we are constantly learning, what and where  these dangers are. It is becoming more difficult to avoid exposure to risk elements.
      
      This is where we are right now, but the future looks very exciting.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         nadejda13posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         actually  as biology states our bodies designed to live 200 years.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            calpol25posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I did not know that our bodies are designed to live 200yrs, you learn something new everyday

            replyreport
            1. 83

               psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               If it is true.  Because telomere shortening and a vulnerability to free radicals suggest otherwise. Evolution doesn't care much how long you live after menopause.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  nadejda13posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  i think that menopause was not designed to start so early as well.  Free radicals are the threat only in conditions of body which we have nowadays. Before when the evolution started there were not as much them as now and all prevention mechanism in the body worked better.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     nadejda13posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 … -live.html
                     Cambridge University geneticist Aubrey de Grey has famously stated, “The first person to live to be 1,000 years old is certainly alive today …whether they realize it or not, barring accidents and suicide, most people now 40 years or younger can expect to live for centuries.”

                     replyreport
                     1. 62

                        AngelArsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        You forgot to mention that he also said that he gives it only a 30% or 40% chance of ever happening.

                        replyreport
               2. 60

                  bloggernotjoggerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Whatever happened to all the hype with telomeres? I haven´t heard anything about it in years. Wasn´t there an idea to develop a gene therapy that would create an enzyme to relengthen the telomeres?

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     TFScientistposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     telomerase is present in many, if not most, cell lines, but we do NOT want to play around with this. Cells that bypass the Hayflick limit (no. of times a cell can divide before senescence and permanent death) tend to be cancerous and have upregulated telomerase.
                     
                     The reasons telomeres shorten is that telomerase does not quite replace the TTAGGG repeats in the same quantity that are lost during DNA replication

                     replyreport
                  2. 62

                     AngelArsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Recent studies have shown that once a person is older than 60, their risk of death doubles with every 8 years of age. So a 68-year-old has twice the chance of dying within a year compared with a 60-year-old.
                     
                     Telomeres alone do not dictate lifespan. A major cause of aging is "oxidative stress." Another factor in aging is "glycation." caused from when glucose sugar from what we eat binds to some of our DNA.

                     replyreport
               3. 77

                  TFScientistposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Evidence suggests that menopause has been selected for. Groups with menopause females have a higher success rate of rearing newborns to maturity than those without these sexually inactive females. It is known as the Grandmother hypothesis, proposed in 1966...although new information is testing this.

                  replyreport
         2. 77

            TFScientistposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Could you give me a source for this information please?

            replyreport
5. 60

   Lovely 7posted 12 years ago

   "Prevention is Better Than Cure"
   
   Don’t use tobacco
   
   Don’t use alcohol
   
   Eat healthy & balanced diet:Include more fresh fruits and vegetables.
   
   Include fiber containing foods (eg: legumes)
   
   Include anti-cancerous foods(Citrus fruits-orange,tomatoes)
   
   Include flavanoid contain fruits (berries, grapes)
   
   Include antioxidants rich foods: Antioxidants boost your immune system
   
   Foods like processed meat, sweets, oily and junk foods: Increase your cancer risk.
   Avoid coloring agents & preservatives 
   
   Reduce use of cosmetics.
   
   Obesity/Over weight may increase risk of cancer.
   
   Spent at least half an hour:Body fitness (Maintain optimal weight).

   replyreport
6. 58

   Brie Hoffmanposted 12 years ago

   Google and watch Dr. Burzynski, the Movie.  Let me know what you think.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      AngelArsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I just ordered the movie. Can't wait to see it but I already know that 'bog money' is going to give it a sad ending.
      
      Dr. Oz interviews him here:
      
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVejUrKn … re=related

      replyreport
7. 70

   BlissfulWriterposted 12 years ago

   There is nothing that can 100% prevent cancer.  But proper nutrition can help decrease the risk of cancer.  There is a great video about it.  Google "dr donald abrams nutrition and cancer".
   
   That is why I eat kale, brussel sprouts, brocolli, salmon, blueberries, etc.

   replyreport
8. 77

   TFScientistposted 12 years ago

   It does confuse me that people make a distinction between natural and conventional therapies. As I pointed out at extreme length in my phytomedicine hub, most 'conventional' therapies are drawn from natural sources. And enough with the conventional bashing - it has been proven to work, proven to send cancer into remission, proven to lengthen life.
   
   People with an over-reliance on just diet to cure cancer end up with much less satisfactory conclusions - just look at Steve Jobs. I spent several years at a lab researching cancer cures - I know they work, and I have papers I can point you towards to prove this

   replyreport
9. 0

   MP50posted 12 years ago

   Constructive comment Thank You TF Scientist.

   replyreport
10. 0

    Muldaniaposted 12 years ago

    There are so many different cancers, which have different causes, so treatment for one type will not necessarily work for another.  Treatments though are improving.  For instance 30 years ago, 80% of breast cancer patients were dead withn five years.  Now, 80% are still living after five years.

    replyreport
11. 59

    cancerguruposted 12 years ago

    Breast cancer has been an issue of screening.  Screening allows us to catch breast cancers earlier.  If we were to screen for bladder cancer, we could certainly catch it earlier and cure it more often, but the entire healthcare system would be broke due to the relative infrequency of this disease.  Cures for truly metastatic cancers are unheard of, even given our "advancement."  However, in most cases, the curability of a cancer is directly related to its stage, and thus how it was detected.  Screening is the best way to detect early cancers and make them curable, but is expensive.

    replyreport
12. 60

    Eliminate Cancerposted 12 years ago

    Although there has been recent news of a "cancer vaccine" I don't believe there is going to be a (one) cure for cancer.  Cancer will eventually be cured, but it will take time, and it's going to be something like 200 individual, very targeted cures. 
    
    Cancer is too complicated.  Different cancers behave differently.  Take, for example, that cancer doesn't spread locally - a breast cancer doesn't spread to the lungs, or throat, it is more likely to spread to the liver or bones.  Blood cancers behave differently than solid tumors.  Different cancers harness different parts of our body (redirecting blood, or manipulating microphages) etc. 
    
    Even drug companies, who would LOVE to sell their drugs to every cancer patient out there, find they get FDA approval based on specific benefits for specific cancers.  Clinical trials confirm this.  Different results are shown for different cancers.
    
    So, while as a society we like a one-size-fits-all approach, the reality is that it's going to take a lot of research and a lot of investment to find our cures for cancer.
    
    In the meantime... let's work toward prevention - that's the best cure I can think of

    replyreport
13. 52

    haparnumelaposted 12 years ago

    Cancer is not just one disease, but a large group of almost 100 diseases. Its two main characteristics are uncontrolled growth of the cells in the human body and the ability of these cells to migrate from the original site.Cancer, also called malignancy, is characterized by an abnormal growth of cells. There are more than 100 types of cancer, including breast cancer, skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, and lymphoma.
    
    
    cost of tummy tucks
    body contouring
    liposuction pricing

    replyreport
14. 61

    AngelTraderposted 12 years ago

    Vitamin B17 commonly known as Amygdalin or Laetrile was claimed 18 years ago to both prevent cancer developing and killing existing cancers. Commonly found in apricot kernels but it isn't in the big pharmaceutical companies interests to promote that!

    replyreport
    1. 62

       AngelArsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Laetrile is not a vitamin. It is also extremely dangerous as it contains cyanide.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          AngelTraderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          You are quite right, it does contain cyanide...as do Garbanzo and Lima beans, the sprouts of Lentils and Mung beans, Cashew and Macadamia nuts, Blackberries, Cranberries, Raspberries, Strawberries, Flax and Sesame Seeds, Alfalfa and Bamboo sprouts also! As do the following grains, Barley, Brown Rice, Flax, Millet, Rye, Oat and Buckwheat!
          
          And not forgetting cigarette smoke also contains cyanide.
          
          The ironic thing is the drugs used in Chemo are hundreds of times more toxic, milligram for milligram than laetrile. Laetrile, like anything, is dangerous if over consumed. But the general daily dose of 1 kernel for every 5kgs (10 pounds) of body weight at any one time is safe.

          replyreport
          1. 62

             AngelArsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             I think most people understand how toxic chemo is. No one is talking about, or ranking, the toxicity of consumable products. We’re talking about Laetrile, which is NOT safe to consume in any amount. It has been described in the medical journals as modern day quackery.
             
             Moss, M. ; Khalil, N. ; Gray, J. "Deliberate self-poisoning with Laetrile"; CMA JOURNAL/NOVEMBER 15, 1981/VOL. 125 pp.1126-1127
             
             Herbert V (May 1979). "Laetrile: the cult of cyanide. Promoting poison for profit". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 32 (5): 1121–58. PMID 219680.
             
             Moertel CG, Ames MM, Kovach JS, Moyer TP, Rubin JR, Tinker JH (February 1981). "A pharmacologic and toxicological study of amygdalin". JAMA 245 (6): 591–4. doi:10.1001/jama.245.6.591. PMID 7005480.
             
             Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Rubin J (January 1982). "A clinical trial of amygdalin (Laetrile) in the treatment of human cancer". N. Engl. J. Med. 306 (4): 201–6. doi:10.1007/s00520-006-0168-9. PMID 7033783.

             replyreport
             1. 61

                AngelTraderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                So I take it you never eat any of the foods that contain cyanide? How about B12, that contains cyanide.
                
                The bottom line is it isn't in the interests of big pharmaceutical companies to create a cure for cancer. Cancer is a multi billion dollar industry. Why on earth would they want to destroy their profit stream!
                
                Why haven't there been any new studies in this area? If the stuff is so bad why don't they conduct clear clinical trials to totally debunk it?

                replyreport
                1. 62

                   AngelArsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   You need to learn that there is not just one type of B12. There are in fact 6 types, Cyanocobalamin, Cobalamin, Methylcobalamin, Adenosylcobalamin, Hydroxocobalamin, and Hydroxycyanocobalamin. Only Cyanocobalamin is associated with a cyanide molecule. Hydroxocobalamin can even be used as a treatment for cyanide poisoning.
                   
                   You are correct that cancer is big business. I stated this earlier in another post. To answer your other questions they have studied laetrile, but they do not make a habit of giving people known poisons. That would be blatantly unethical, especially when they already know it is so harmful.

                   replyreport
15. 61

    Chuck Bluesteinposted 12 years ago

    Here is the very latest. In 2007 Time Magazine chose vitamin D as of the top 10 medical breakthroughs of the year. In the last 3 years 7 MDs have written 7 books on vitamin D. The issue is the amount. In Nov. 2010 the RDA of vitamin D was tripled. Vitamin D is a hormone not a vitamin.
    
    Doctor of Public Health, Cedric Garland, said that enough vitamin D (lifeguard levels) will virtually eradicate breast cancer. Moores Cancer Center is proposing that cancer is a vitamin D deficiency. Harvard has an article about breast cancer and vitamin D. They say that it can reduce all cancers by 77% according to a study done.
    
    Dr Oz has a video about vitamin D and breast, colon and uterine cancer. Christaine Northrup MD has an article on Oprah site about vitamin D preventing breast cancer. Vitamin D cured the terrible childhood disease known as rickets but it is coming back. Many MDs talk about vitamin D and cancer.
    
    Andrew Weil MD says "Increasing the amount of vitamin D in the body can prevent or help treat a remarkable number of ailments, from obesity to arthritis, from high blood pressure to back pain, from diabetes to muscle cramps, from upper respiratory tract infections to infectious disease, and from fibromyalgia to cancers of the breast, colon, pancreas, prostate and ovaries."

    replyreport
    1. 62

       AngelArsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       They have known about the need for more vitamin D for a while now. The problem with adding it to your vitamin regiment is that most drug companies use synthetic vitamin D because they can patent it, and synthetic vitamin D is NOT as good for you as natural vitamin D. The label should say “D3 (as cholecalciferol)”. You should also not pay attention to the “percent daily values” because those are grossly outdated and were set a long time ago and are outdated for the typical American diet. I take 1200UI and that is considered to be on the low side, BUT there are so many factors involved when determining the correct amount that it’s really hard to recommend any number. Doing a lot of research is probably the best way to determine your correct amount, as everyone will need something different. Also it is a myth that you get vitamin D from the sun, unless you live by the equator. Those who live in mid or upper northern areas will only get adequate vitamin D from the sun a few weeks out of the year. There are so many benefits to taking vitamin D3 that you could write a book on it, and many people have…. just make sure the book was written recently.

       replyreport