The "Real Deal" about Cancer

Anyone interested in seeing what else there may be out there apart from what conventional treatments offer.

This is both for use on its own if you don't go down the chemo etc route, or as a COMPLEMENTARY PATH which can help with the orthodox side effects and also encourage the body to be a less receptive place for cancer cells to grow…

This of course gives no guarantees, is not a panacea, and is merely offering possibilities which you might like to consider.

THIS IS YOUR ROAD, AND YOURS ALONE

Others may walk it with you, but only you can walk it for you.

The "Real Deal" about Cancer

Postby DrTCH » Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:43 pm

Cancer has been a terrible scourge for centuries, but seemingly has represented more of a threat over the last century (though SOME of this may be attributed to better (and earlier) diagnosis of the disease). President Nixon signed the “National Cancer Act” in 1971, but though this effort has been a vigorous one (with many $ millions consumed by research), the results have meant very little advance, in terms of actual progress.

The conventional view of cancer is that the disease represents, with varying time of onset and progress (and dependent upon the organ or organs affected), the appearance of amass of comprised of very poorly differentiated, poorly functioning cells, with rapidly dividing cells (that will often eventually migrate to other sites in the body— metastasis)…related to environmental toxins, but primarily based on significant genetic changes in the nuclei of the the cells of the affected area.

For many years now, cancer protocols—based on that model--have overwhelmingly consisted of surgical intervention, radiotherapy and chemotherapy (what some of us have come to call the “Terrible Triad”). In recent years, some “adjunctive” methods, such as imaging exercises, viewing motion picture comedies, as well as massage or chiropractic bodywork have been adopted by some clinics and hospitals, yet considering that—within the conventional cancer community—these have generally been included ALONG WITH the usual methods (not IN PLACE of them), this has left those of us in the “Holistic-Alternative Community” terribly skeptical and concerned.

Over the last few years research program, known as the “Genome Project” seemed to hold great promise for oncologists (a promise to provide, metaphorically, the "silver bullet" in attacking the affliction). Yet, to the surprise of many, this promise was NOT fulfilled, but turned out to be an exceptionally disappointing “dead-end.” Could it be the conventional model--upon which most all of the research has been based (and for which virtually all of the funding has been based) for the last fifty years--is flawed?

Anyone with reasonable intelligence, and an open mind (and with an effort to do just a little searching) will find that there is another model today which fits the facts, and may pose far less risk than conventional methods. [HINT: Dr. Otto Warburg]
DrTCH
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 9:36 pm

Return to Who is it for?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

User Control Panel

Login

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 150 on Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest