Every time one of my pages is updated it gets turned off for public viewing!?!?
For example - please keep in mind that this is but one example out of many! - a change to the comment section either allowing or shutting down comments results in the page being taken down for a period of time!
There is no good reason for this happening because there is nothing to be reviewed. Having the page become unavailable is most likely highly detrimental to the page's SEO.
Please stop doing turning off the page for edits that don't require reviews. The policy has also resulted in delaying making needed changes because of the fact that the page would be taken down for a period of time.
The best to you.
Hello, I'm not really sure what you are referring to. Hubs that are featured stay indexed unless they are unfeatured or unpublished.
It's really simple. Here is the message from Hubpages on top of an article I where I changed the ability to leave comments: "This Hub has been submitted for publication, and will be published once it has been reviewed by the administrator."
If I make any changes whatsoever to one of my hubpages, including such things as either allowing comments or changing the number of comments shown on a page, my article is put in the sandbox so that no one can see it until it is approved for publication.
Changing the order of the comments from most recent on top to oldest on top is yet another example of this.
In another case, I removed a capsule. The result was that my article was unpublished until approval was given!
There is no legitimate reason for this, especially since it hurts the SEO of the article, and makes it impossible for potential readers to see the article.
In the latest example, viewership has dropped about 200 views for a single day for the article, not counting how Google treats "dead" pages.
Every time you update an article, it goes back through the QAP. That is standard procedure here, and it happens to all of us. Usually the lapse in time is short, so I don't see the problem.
It looks like your Hub was unfeatured due to spammy elements and not as a result of going through the QAP. You should have received an automated email explaining that your Hub was not featured.
You are wildly deflecting from the issue and not providing any useful information.
Regardless of whether an article is featured or not is irrelevant. There is no legitimate reason for putting an article on hold due to such things as changing the order of the comments or in allowing or disallowing comments.
BTW, the article has received 650,000 views thus far which is a great boon to Hubpages.
Maybe instead of focusing on things that are not germane to the issue, you'd take the information and improve the system.
Really? I took a look at your profile and I am amazed that HP even allows you to publish here at all, since you are totally using this site to promote a book you wrote in all but one article. The information I gave was valid, and as you can see from the response you received from Christy, you are totally in the wrong about this issue. Of course you're getting tons of views...you're talking about curing Cancer! Are you a doctor? If not, what makes you think that the book you wrote is more credible than info put out by the ACA. You're lucky I'm not the one in charge of banning...which apparently some of which has already been done on your profile. HP needs to finish the job and keep this site free of the type of problem that has gotten it into trouble with Google in the first place.
That's a bit strong. His hubs are thought-provoking and useful. He's obviously a doctor of something. If we don't get to see the alternatives, how can we question whether the mainstream health services are treating us right?
For example, 10 years ago Dr Atkins was showing people that diabetes can be controlled with low carb. The UK and US diabetic associations were telling people their diets needed to be based around meals consisting of mainly whole grains. They have since (at least in the UK) revised their guidelines slightly. It is well known now, that a high fat, medium protein and low carb diet is best for people with diabetes.
Banning and shutting people up because you don't agree with them is tantamount to closing down free speech.
This has nothing to do with disagreeing with anybody's point of view.
As a Cancer survivor, I really dislike people promoting materials about it who do not advertise themselves as being medical doctors who specialize in that particular field, especially when they are espousing "cures" because this gives false hope, which is an unbelievably cruel thing to do to people.
If there was a cure for Cancer, don't you think the medical community and the general public would know about it and run like crazy to access it? Furthermore, it is against the TOS of this site to self promote.
There are "alternatives" touted all over the place, but to date there has been no proof that they work.
I had a young cousin who was desperate and fell for an "alternative" that cost her family hundreds of thousands of dollars in an attempt to seek a cure. She died last year, and prior to that, the other people in her group also died. How's THAT for an alternative!
Cancer and other serious diseases are nothing to fool around with, but frightened and desperate people are easily misled by false claims.
I have not read the hubs or the book, but the titles and the fact that the photos for almost every single one of them is one of the book cover is the worst case of self promotion I've seen on this site. Furthermore, the author does not claim to be a medical doctor.
So, in the end, what you have is someone who has no real personal knowledge about the topic who loved a concept and decided to capitalize on it thinking, perhaps, that he could save people.
Speaking as a person who has had Cancer, I could do the same thing. However, my personal experiences have taught me that I should show more respect for the sick among us than to try and lead them away from conventional, and often successful, Cancer therapies.
As I speak, there are more than 2 million Breast Cancer survivors in the US. That surely speaks to the fact that doctors are, in fact, trying to cure it.
End of sermon.
The main reason there are 2 million CLAIMED breast cancer survivors is that breast cancer is over diagnosed 31% of the time, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.
That was 70,000 women falsely diagnosed just in 2008 alone. Not all of them survived the brutal treatments they didn't need, however, so there are only 2 million breast cancer survivors.
As for the myth that if there were a cure for cancer wouldn't doctors and patients be running to it. Are you? The fact is that doctors are trained to not ask any questions when someone is cured by natural methods. I've seen the actual wording in JAMA.
Patients have also shared time and again what doctors have siad to them wich happens to match what was in JAMA. To paraphrase, the doctor often says, "I don't know what you did, and I don't want to know." Often they will also tell the patient to keep doing it.
One of the reasons doctors say that is due to litigation. If they know, it increases the chance of liability, at least according to the thinking of those in the medical profession.
So time and again patients cure themselves using natural treatments, but the wisdom does not get picked up by the medical profession.
You mentioned a relative spending hundreds or thousands of dollars and dying anyway. I cured myself for $20. Others have followed suit.
But the average cost of death from cancer is $350,000. Nearly 600,000 die each year in the US, so high costs are the rule with the treatment you defend even though those methods have been a miserable failure for most. Even those who survive are injured in some way.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry when someone says natural treatments offer false hope. There is only one kind of hope. It's hope. But natural methods offer far more than hope. They offer healing rather than hurt. What you defend is something that is incredibly cruel: horrendously painful and deadly nostrums that ruin people's and their family's lives.
IOW, it's the height of projection whenever someone offers or defends deadly methods while complaining about safe and superior natural methods. FDA-brand medicine kills as a rule, not as an exception.
The other day, I heard a pathologist who noticed that most of the cancer cadavers he examined had died from things like burnt up livers and damaged heart tissue from the chemo or radiation. The cause of death was not cancer. The patient died because they fell for the garbage that they allowed themselves to be subjected to.
The figures you are quoting are 8 years old! Furthermore, mine come directly from the American Cancer Society, which is an organization that carefully monitors the statistics on these issues.
Even if yours hold, that means that 69% or almost of women or more WERE being cured by traditional means.
The latest figures put out by the CDC (2013) show that the death figures have now been cut to 17% which means that for that year, 191,000 people were survivors.
This clearly shows that the medical community is working hard to save people's lives.
Furthermore, neither you nor I know the true nature of the conditions or general overall health of those who passed away, but what I do know is that those things greatly affect medical outcomes.
What were the ages of those who died?
How bad were their cancers?
What other diseases did they have that would have weakened their immune systems?
How often did they have themselves checked?
What other medications were they taking?
I do not think anybody, you or I, should be directing desperate, frightened people to take one route or the other, because neither of us could possibly know the extent of their personal situation. Only experienced, good specialists can ascertain this.
All I know is that I have seen case after case where people turned against traditional medicine when listening to people like you, stopped using their prescription meds and seeing their doctors, and suffered horrible consequences as a result.
I don't want to be the person responsible for giving desperate people information that will lead them to serious problems because the truth is that there is no hard, scientifically researched evidence that supports alternative medical theories.
You are good at quoting figures about the medical community, but can you do the same for alternative outcomes? Are you dealing with hundreds of people or less or can you produce the kinds of numbers I quoted above.
Therein lies the problem. The truth is that you can only know your own situation, as I can only know mine. We've both had successful outcomes, apparently, but, at this point, I don't even know what type of Cancer you had, where you had it, how advanced it was, etc., nor do you know those things about me.
There is a big difference between skin cancer and liver cancer!
You've grossly misused percentages. The 31% who were misdiagnosed with cancer when they didn't have it can't be subtracted from 100% to come up with a cure rate for breast cancer. ROFL!
Secondly, there is no requirement to do massive studies to find cures for major diseases. Want proof of that statement? Every doctor in the world understands that the deadly condition of scurvy - which is far deadlier than cancer - can be totally reversed with citrus. There is 10% agreement on this.
The proof came from two sailors treated by Dr. James Lind and written about in "A Treatise On Scurvy" published in 1753. One sailor recovered in six days and the other partially recovered in the same six days before they ran out of citrus fruit.
Yet if scurvy were still incurable today, doctors would prescribe chemo and radiation for it while calling people like me quacks for suggesting citrus. The same people would demand thousands of studies.
There have been tens of thousands of studies that nitric oxide and arginine relax blood vessels, thereby lowering blood pressure. Yet 10,000 studies aren't enough to get doctors to prescribe it even though a Nobel Prize has been awarded for the discovery.
IOW, no amount of studies will stop the monetary model that the medical profession and the medical industry operates under. At one point I asked six different doctors about nitric oxide lowering blood pressure. Not one was aware of it despite the Nobel Prize discovery.
It's a myth as amply shown above that many studies are the way to make informed decisions. If you need further proof, go touch a hot stove. Oh wait, you know better. You learned it as a young child.
Yet there is not a single study that proves touching hot stoves can burn you. Getting burned from hot stoves is unproven! Only quacks claim they burn.
Or we can use the brains God gave us to see what is obvious.
It's obvious that chemo turns relatively healthy looking people into sick and dying people in a matter of a few months. Radiation does the same.
Surgery turns cancer on making it a high risk option because often the surgery removes the main tumor while the hidden, unspotted tumors accelerate their growth. This is why so often surgical patients who have had tumors removed come back within a few years with cancer all over.
Your question about what kind of cancer I had shows the level of ignorance that is passed down from the ACS to the public. There is only one cancer. It's the involved tissue that makes cancer look so different. Doctors have a name for real cancer. It's called "highly undifferentiated." That's a 7-syllable word for they are the same.
The American Cancer Society has more blood on their hands than any other organization and should not be trusted or respected because they have done more to keep real cures from the public than any other organization.
Their real job is to funnel cancer patients into expensive treatments.
Their stats are suspect as well. They base their stats on 4 states out of 50. That might be all right except that they have chosen four states with much lower cancer incidence and mortality rates than the average state. That means their numbers are not representative.
'Medical doctors' aren't necessarily at the cutting edge of research, you know. There was an elderly gentleman here in the UK who dedicated his life to nutritional research. He died a while back in his 80s. However, all his conclusions, such as saturated fat not being the villain as it was portrayed by the 'medical doctors', are now being confirmed by mainstream medical science. If we don't have people who are prepared to stand up to the pharmaceuticals, and the doctors taking payments to prescribe their drugs, we'll never find out that, in most cases, commonsense and logic go a long way.
You put your faith in the medical professions, and that's fine, but you can't insist that everyone else who disagrees be banned. It's called choice.
Ragged Edge: You obviously missed what my initial point was: The author should be banned due to providing overly promotional posts and also spamming, not for his or her views.
"So, in the end, what you have is someone who has no real personal knowledge about the topic who loved a concept and decided to capitalize on it thinking, perhaps, that he could save people."
Now you're saying he's a spammer. Have you actually taken the time to read the material before making that judgment? Yes, he uses his book cover as the main image, but the hubs contain different aspects of causes and possible remedies, especially prevention.
Aren't we all self-promoting in some way?
No, I said the author was spamming right from the start. Read my post.
Obviously you don't understand the concept of self promotion and spam. When we write, we are not self promoting. When we overdo ads, especially when they are for our own products and write articles about things in which we have personal financial interests, such as a website or a book we wrote or co wrote, that is spamming and being overly promotional.
I refuse to read material like this because it is a waste of my time and I do not want to support people who write this type of thing. If I want medical advice, I will seek it from a trained professional so that I know it's credible.
This is exactly why HP advises people to NOT write on health issues unless they, themselves, either want to discuss their personal experiences or have medical training.
I was simply explaining that going through the QAP, which happens every time you make an edit, does not cause an article to lose indexed (featured) status. The reason your article has lost featured status is because it had issues with passing the QAP, not as a result of the fact that it was pending.
You're still missing the point.
It should not matter how an article is categorized when it comes to delaying the republication of an article when the change is the removal of a capsule.
What possible difference could it make if the comments are listed as "oldest first" or "most recent first?" There is no reason or need for a review.
How does it make a bit of difference if the only the first 100 comments are being shown or all of them?
It makes zero sense for an article to be held up for those reasons.
It's bad business to force a temporary unpublishing for changes like that.
The article is not "held up" or "unpublished" during this process. If it was already featured, it continues to remain featured and able to earn while it is being assessed. It is only unfeatured after problems are detected.
If no problems are detected and the Hub passes the QAP, it remains continuously featured with no gap in visibility to readers or search engines and no interruption to earnings, including the time it was being assessed.
This is simply not true.
Read what Hubpages published at the top of the article while it was unpublished NOTING THE CAPITALIZED PART: "This Hub has been submitted for publication, AND WILL BE PUBLISHED ONCE IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED by the administrator."
The number of views suddenly dropped by more than 2/3rds as well in the ensuing hours as the 24 hour clock showed.
The article gets unpublished! The link from "Statistics page" is also a different color when the article is unpublished.
Here is an update. The views for the affected page have dropped from over 300 a day to about 50 in the last 24 hours as a result of Hubpages not keeping the page published.
That's an 83% drop.
Visits from Pinterest have dropped from about 180 to about 25. The risk is that a valuable Pinterest link that has been a source for up to 32,000 visits could be shut down as a result.
All because I changed whether people could leave a comment or not.
No. All because the team finally caught you spamming and promoting your own products.
Unless you visited the hub 50 times in the past 24 hours it is published. If it were not, it would not be visible to anyone but you and would have zero views.
I remember issues about these hubs a few years back being discussed in the forums. If it wasn't your hubs, it was someone else who claimed to have cures for Stage 4 cancer. The hubs were considered spammy by others back then too and offered false hope to patients. Not all cancers are the same. Hubpages isn't meant to promote books.
It is also the case, in the US, that making therapeutic ("cure") claims for unproven substances is illegal. It is a law to control the sale of quack cures to vulnerable people.
+1 The truth is that I'm surprised the team has allowed the hubs from this author to stay on this site for that reason alone, let alone that they are so self promotional.
It's easy to get tons of views when manipulating sick, desperate people who want to be relieved of their pain and suffering by offering them unproven cures.
$20 to cure Cancer? Really?
Well then, you'd better petition HubPages to get rid of this category: http://hubpages.com/health/alternative- … ments/6300
Otherwise, the OP is well within the remit to post his hubs.
Yes, TimeTraveller, I'm well aware you accused the OP of spamming from the beginning. Then you made a judgment about his work while admitting you hadn't bothered to read any of it. Cool.
Your cousin made the choice she made. You have no idea whether she would have survived whichever road she took. People who have cancer are usually desperate. Some have no insurance either. In those cases, anything is better than nothing. Then there are those who have late-stage cancer, when your medical doctors have written them off. They have nothing to lose so why not let them give it a try? 'Spontaneous remission' happens frequently enough. It helps to keep an open mind.
Things are changing all the time... and many modern cures are now based on what were considered to be quack medicine. The NHS in the UK is using leeches and maggots now to clean suppurated tissue from wounds. Who'd have thought that 30 years ago?
No-one is going to make you do anything, but, unless the guy is posting hate speech, live and let live.
I didn't say the team Banned that topic, I simply said this author has gone way too far with it. I don't think the team intended for that category to include using alternative medicines for serious issues such as Cancer, but do agree that, perhaps, that topic should be removed.
No is there any direct link between therapeutic claims being illegal and banning alternative health topics. Most people are trying to be healthy and support good body and mind function with their herbs and diet plans (Atkins etc) and such--not cure a specific disease that they have. And claims about the benefits of good diet and exercise overall are legal to make because that is not about a specific product, and also has evidence behind it.
psycheskinner: You are correct. I was not thinking clearly when I made that statement. I do think the topic should remain...however, I do NOT think writers should abuse it.
The team wants to allow freedom of speech here as much as possible, and I agree with that point. However, I simply cannot stomach someone trying to earn money on the backs of the vulnerable and sick.
It is easy to say live and let live when YOU are not the person who is sick and being used by people.
The cousin who died was told by numerous doctors that she had a terminal, incurable cancer, but was desperate enough to go to a quack in another country and pay huge sums of money until she and every member of her Cancer group there died. Yes, she would have died, anyhow, but would have done so without damaging her families finances.
What's the harm? The harm is in stealing money from people and their families by telling them you can make them well again when you know you can't. Sometimes there is just no chance for a cure.
As for reading articles, you can pretty much tell from titles whether something is worth reading or not. No matter the wordage, the concept is the same as I mentioned earlier. I pity the poor, sick people who are led into horrible situations because they listened to such advice.
You've repeated your complaint while ignoring the fact that the medical profession reaps an average of $350,000 from their patients while killing most of them in horrible ways.
Meanwhile, my article GIVES my recipe away! Thus your complaint about someone else taking money from your cousin's family has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with me.
Yet you keep attacking me! In a thread where to topic is a technical one. Do you not have anything better to do with your time?
We all know what your answer is going to be..."I'm protecting people, blah, blah, blah."
You'll say that despite all the evidence. Cancer treatments don't protect people. They burn their liver and kidneys and injure their hearts. Autopsies reveal this fact over and over again.
If you have an answer for fixing the Hubpage policy of temporarily unpublishing my threads when I remove a capsule or turn off comments, you're welcome to comment. Otherwise you have no business being here.
Thank you for providing why "The Doctor Who Cured Cancer" needed to be written. There are 100 pages devoted to obliterating the American Cancer Society and others who relied on false information or created their own false information.
The ACS has NEVER tested the Revici Method. They have relied on a fraudulent, dare I say criminally fraudulent, study as part of their critique.
It may give your recipe away, but every time someone reads one of your articles or buys the book as a result, you make money, don't you?
As for what happened to my cousin, it definitely DOES have something to do with you because someone chose to lure a sick person into a therapy that was worthless not to mention dangerous.
Coming late to this discussion, but the fact is, HubPages DO NOT temporary unpublish Hubs when you remove a capsule or turn off comments. Ever.
I'm wondering if you are following the wrong procedure when you edit. I've known a few Hubbers who think they have to unpublish a Hub before they can edit it - and if you do that, then of course you'll have to wait for HubPages to republish it. So can you just confirm that when you decide to edit, you are simply clicking "edit" and not unpublishing it yourself at any point?
Secondly, you seemed to dismiss the fact that one of your Hubs was unFeatured. Do you understand the significance of unFeaturing? If a Hub is unFeatured, it is visible ONLY to people who have a link to the Hub. It's invisible to search engines. So if a Hub is unFeatured it has a disastrous effect on the number of visitors, to the point where it might as well be unpublished.
Then explain this message from Hubpages when the "edit" option is clicked on:
"Note: This Hub is currently published. However, if you make any changes to it, it will immediately be unpublished until it has been re-approved for publication (which can take 24-48 hours)."
Even your capital letters "DO NOT" don't appear to trump what Hubpages has written when you wrote the following: "but the fact is, HubPages DO NOT temporary unpublish Hubs when you remove a capsule or turn off comments. Ever."
Do you see the words, "it will immediately be unpublished...."
It has taken three weeks for the visits to my Hub articles to return to the same level of visits as there were before Hubpages unpublished my page. That means a loss of income to both myself and to Hupages.
It's just a bad policy for everyone.
Aha. Now that makes sense.
That Hub is on spam watch. The vast majority of Hubbers never see that message. However, at one time you must have broken some key HubPages rules in that Hub, and they want to be sure you don't do it again.
Unfortunately we all have to face the consequences of our own actions.
You must be a real joy to be around at parties. You've joined into this conversation not with the answers, but to find fault. Great - you've succeeded! I hope you feel better.
The Hub page has been up for 7-8 years and has over 600,000 views. So Hub pages is just fine with it. Except they have some policy that acts like a felony was committed.
I don't spam. The problem is that there are a group of people who set their hair on fire if you offer a better way to reverse cancer.
No, I'm just telling you the facts. Only people who have broken the rules get that message.
Personally I don't always agree with HubPages' definition of spam. I think they are too strict, and for all I know, whatever you did was something I wouldn't consider a problem. But that's irrelevant. HubPages considers it was serious enough to take precautions and that's that.
It's very, very common for a Hub to be published for years without a problem and then get dinged for breaking the rules. That's because the rules are being tightened all the time. What was OK last year is not OK this year.
I suggest you email the team @ HubPages to see if you can get specifics on what rules you broke, since you're clearly unaware. Then you'll know how to avoid it in future.
Umm, the punishment from Hub pages came right at the time I'd asked a question on the forum and got vituperative responses even worse than the ones populating this thread. Threats were made and followed through on.
IOW, I did't do anything. It was several years ago. Felons don't get probations this long. I have asked about the problem more than once. Even if I were on probation, it is nonsensical for Hubpages to unpublish a page for REMOVING a capsule or changing whether coments will be allowed or not.
It's also nonsensical to "unpublish" for making spelling corrections that Hubpages has notified me about in the comments section. Hubpages WANTS me to correct them, yet they punish me and themselves if the change is made.
It has taken three weeks to get the visits to my Hubpage article back to the level of what they were simply because I removed a capsule and changed permissions on commenting. The visits had dropped by some 200 visits a day!
Hubpages needs to fix their programming to avoid things like that from happening.
Did you read my response to you?
None of us ever sees that message. But I've been here long enough to see other people get that message several times and ask about it on these forums. The answer, every time, was that the Hubber had broken the rules and had been put on watch.
If you want to solve the problem, stop arguing on the forums and send an email to the team asking how you can get your watch status removed. Simple really.
You're still at it, Marisa. You just can't quit it seems, either repeating yourself or changing your story depending on what is needed at the time.
This response will give you another opportunity. It doesn't matter if I've said more than once that I've contacted the team to no avail. You keep going with same mantra.
You didn't notice that a moderator on this thread also spent about three replies being non responsive, did you? No, because you're too busy trying to find fault.
I am not finding fault!!
I am not saying you're doing anything wrong NOW. And I have not made a single comment on the nature of your content, I'm not interested in that.
I'm just telling you the facts. AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST, you did something which upset HubPages and that resulted in you being put on watch.
YOU MAY HAVE DONE IT TOTALLY INNOCENTLY for all I know. So I am NOT finding fault. I am just trying to tell you what is wrong and how to fix it.
Which is to email the team @ HubPages, quote the wording that you see at the top of that Hub when you go to make a change, and ask them how to get that restriction lifted.
When you contacted the team in the past, you probably worded your complaint in the same way you worded this thread, and the moderator couldn't understand what you were talking about. I didn't understand it at first either, until you quoted the exact warning you saw, and that reminded me. I'm not even sure they use that feature any more, so the newer moderators may not even remember it exists.
If you don't want to take my advice, you'll never get rid of the problem But it's your choice.
She is explaining that the rest of us do not see that warning. You did *something* to have that warning added to your account. And it wasn't promoting quack cancer cures on the forums. It may well have been promoting quack cancer cures on your hubs.
The Revici Method has been tested before and found not to reduce tumors
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3 … .2.119/pdf
"How I Cured My Stage 4 Cancer In Two Weeks For Less Than The Cost Of A Night At The Movies"
Wow. Now there's a hub title for ya. What do y'all think of that one?
Once again, when I ask for technical support, there are those who have little better to do than to ignore the topic at hand only to personally attack me.
This thread is no exception. If you can't stay on topic, your comments really aren't needed.
Your previous threads were attention-seeking
http://hubpages.com/community/forum/121 … milestones
http://hubpages.com/community/forum/136 … iews-total
When you brag on HP, people go to your profile to see what you're bragging about. Don't act like a martyr.
There have been multiple times when I've asked a technical question where the same kind of off topic response has occurred. Some were deleted as a result of the heated discussions that ensued.
Once again THIS topic has been hijacked. Go read my original comment and you will see that people have used this thread to go way off topic to attack me.
The forum seems to be filled with people who have nothing better to do than to start fights. I don't go to their topics to pick fights with them.
"The medical profession" is why most cancers are now survivable illnesses. Anyone who thinks people with cancer patients would be better off without doctors is by definition someone not to listen to. Complementary therapies have a place and lead to a better patient experience. But they do not replace actual medicine.
If a person wants a cure of their disease, they should not use doctors because doctors are trained to manage and - unwittingly - to increase disease.
Here are some examples of diseases they don't cure but they often create diseases when they intervene with their toxic nostrums:
sinus and lung diseases
etc etc etc
This is the cure:
two cloves of garlic,
cod liver oil.
Coffee and boiled eggs are important too, apparently.
Kelley manages to string it out, of course, plenty of mumbo jumbo in there like "yoghurt is catabolic'.
The 'cure' is so preposterous. no reputable organization would dignify it with a serious test, so Kelly will never be proved wrong. The people who die won't be around to complain.
Don't forget the complete eBook at 22 dollars!
If I had terminal cancer and no health insurance, I'd give it a go. Wouldn't you? I'd be trying everything I could.
Thankfully, I live in the UK, where we don't ignore people with cancer, and whether you have money, or none, makes no difference in the care you receive.
I think I would rather not be sidetracked by this kind of foolishness into settling for avoidable deaths.
For the record, I have nothing against Tarot, Astrology or any of those other ways of reaching hard to reach thoughts and feelings.
It's the mad anti-life stuff I have an issue with, from wild conspiracy theories to quack medicine.
I'm talking about no-hope cancer here. Deathbed. Terminal. End of the line. Ten of Swords.
Given that sort of sentence, one would try anything.
Which is why laws were created to stop frauds from taking desperate people's life savings while only making them sicker and alienating them from their loved ones, on a dishonest basis.
There are wonderful alternative therapies used as part of palliative care and to maximize the slim chance of remission. But they are still sane and honest about what they can and can't do.
Today's medical system IS quack medicine. They cure nothing. But they lay the groundwork and create disease every time they prescribe a drug.
If we applied your reasoning to scurvy, we would be treating it with chemo and radiation today.
Scurvy is far more deadly than cancer, so one would think the cure must require heroic means. Not so.
Cancer is also vulnerable to simple remedies which is why I'm cancer free 18 years later and others have also reversed their cancers using the same recipe. (To be clear cod liver oil is the oil to be used when a person is too anabolic. It should not be used when a person is too catabolic. Borage oil should be used in its place.)
Everyone alive today has grown up with the predominant method for treating cancer has been to injure the patient and kill them most of the time as well. So we think that such treatments are "normal." It's a testament to the capacity of our brains to accept the absurd: 'Everybody is doing it, so it must be good.'
Such beliefs are a classic example of Plato's Cave. People are enamored by the shadows and afraid of the sunshine. In Plato's Cave the one who goes out and sees the sunny world comes back to let the others who are terrified by the shadows that there is a grand world outside. The fearful ones tear the messenger apart.
If you support today's noxious treatments, you are in the front row of Plato's Cave.
I forgot to mention that I'm giving away ONE MILLION copies of my book in eBook format. I'd put the link here but that risks having this thread closed down. Sorry.
Looks like a lot of people are fighting cancer naturally - and beating it:
http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/category … at-cancer/
http://www.naturalnews.com/026076_PSA_c … ancer.html
http://www.naturalhealth365.com/0926_ca … ncer.html/
https://draxe.com/10-natural-cancer-tre … den-cures/
http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/kay-heal … nt-failed/
http://www.trueactivist.com/how-i-heale … naturally/
There are more things in heaven and earth...
by Tessa Schlesinger 20 months ago
So now hubpage pro goes and ruins my article. They remove the first picture which is what draws the traffic to my article. This is how it works. I know this because I used to get 1.5 million views on posts in the early days of G+ And I did that often enough (2 or 3 times a week over a two year...
by Jessica 2 years ago
Evening. I'm new; so, I'm not aware if I made any overlook the rules on forum posting. With the article approval, is there a way to find what mistakes and rules that relate to unpublished articles so I know in what area I can improve and edit?The links are very helpful; but, they have too much...
by Anita Saran 8 years ago
I added some links to my other related hubs into this hub today which was featured before. Now I can't see most of the content when I access the hub and of course the Featured icon is gone. http://anitasaran.hubpages.com/hub/Shor … d-DialogueThanks!
by Sheila Craan 3 years ago
Lately, I have had 11 hubs unfeatured due to Quality Issues. I have assured my hubs do not contain grammatical or spelling errors. I have included relevant video and changed the titles and added new supporting texts and all this to no avail. The HubPages Staff continues to deem my hubs do not...
by AnnaMKB 5 years ago
First off, my hubs are transferred from Squidoo, and I am aware of various issues there. I'd already checked and edited hubs after the transition, so this is all post transfer.What I don't understand is why some of my hubs get unfeatured after I've edited them? One even got...
by Heather Edgens 9 years ago
So, I understand I can't publish any content on here that I have used for another site. But can I publish on here first, then carry those articles over to another site? Is that allowed? Cause on the other sites I write for allow me to republish content on them... Also, I read that the hubs are...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|