For several decades, modern medicine has tried a lot of toxic compounds, hoping to 'out-toxic' the cancer. And sure enough, the compounds did out-toxic cancer. Unfortunately, it usually out-toxics the patient as well. The result has been that cancer treatments are usually an expensive, painful and scary proposition. But you already knew that.
I didn't go bald or get sick to my stomach!
Fortunately, my Stage 4 cancer was none of the above for me. My advanced cancer treatment cost less than two tickets and popcorn at the movies. My treatment wasn't painful. And I wasn't scared...I didn't lose a minute's sleep...because I knew what to do. If we've learned anything about treating cancer in the last 50 to 60 years it has to be this: half killing the patient isn't half way successful. As I emphatically told a woman in my store recently, "You gotta be healthy to get well! In my own case, I knew by the many lesions I had that I was already sick. I didn't need someone to help make me sicker. I needed to get healthy, so I could get well.
UCLA Researchers Confirm My Method!
Maybe the best place to start with this would be to let you know that researchers at UCLA garnered lots of headlines two years ago because they had done something pretty incredible. (1) What had the UCLA researchers done? They shrank tumors by 80% with the heat from habaneros peppers. That is quite extraordinary in terms of what is usually accomplished with toxic drugs.
It's also worth noting that in the US the State of New Mexico has the lowest cancer mortality rate of all 50 states. They probably eat more peppers in New Mexico per capita than all the other states, too. In other words, the researchers at UCLA made a great choice in examining the anti-cancer properties of hot peppers.
My own success in curing myself with habaneros peppers preceded the UCLA researchers by seven years. And I didn't shrink my many tumors by 80%...I shrank them 100%. UCLA's research results did confirm that my own method was an extremely powerful weapon against cancer. I'm eternally grateful for their confirmation. But then, I used habaneros peppers PLUS two more low tech ingredients...running rings around the findings made by the UCLA guys and gals.
Here's a real brief recipe list here.
(1) Grate one habanero pepper each day, putting it on bread. Yes, you use the seeds. (2) Grate two cloves of garlic each day, putting them on bread and covering with butter. (3) One tablespoon of Emulsified cod liver oil once or twice each day.* TwinLabs makes some wonderfully flavored cod liver oil.
The cod liver oil is not put on the sandwich. One serving of the oil may be taken before or after eating the sandwich with the same meal
I used the cod liver oil because I was not losing any weight or dealing with fluid retention. If I had either of those conditions, I would have used evening primrose oil or borage oil instead of the emulsified cod liver oil, taking 6,000 mgs a day in divided doses.*
(4) Smother the grated garlic and habaneros peppers with real butter and eat it. Organic or raw butter is best. No margarines of any type, including Smart Balance, etc.
If hot peppers didn't agree with me, then ginger is what I would use - and yes I trust the ginger just as much as the habanero to do the job.
That's it!
* The best way to determine which oil I would use can be determined easily if there is pain. In fact there are two ways. One way would be to drink a cup of black coffee with two boiled eggs. (boiled only.) If that made me feel worse, I'd take 1 or 2 tablespoons of emulsified cod liver oil. If the coffee and eggs made me feel better, I'd take 6,000 mgs of borage oil or evening primrose oil.
The potent active ingredients from the peppers and the garlic disperse quickly. So they must be grated each day, and eaten immediately.
1AA - Has your recipe cured my type of cancer?
I have some great news for you. Doctors and TV have miseducated us into thinking there are over 100 types of cancer. There is only one true cancer cell. That means all true cancer cells are identical. They look different only due to the involved tissue.
Doctors call true cancer cells "highly undifferentiated." IOW, they are looking at a real cancer cell but don't know it because in their mind they think it is supposed to look different!
So you can take heart when you read about any of the accounts here. A colon cancer is a breast cancer is a leukemia etc, etc, etc. There is no difference between any of those cancers other than the involved non cancerous tissue and the surrounding pH. Yes, the cancer cells will distort the way the particular tissue or organ looks like. But the cancer is the same.
The Stage numbers given to cancer (I, II, III, IV) are merely describing how much cancer there is and how far it has spread. Staging doesn't change the nature of the actual cancer cells on iota - there are just more of them.
In Dr. Earl Mindell’s Garlic: The Miracle Nutrient, a 1957 study in the journal Science reported that researchers incubated sarcoma tumor cells with the garlic compound Allinase and S-ethyl-L-cysteine sulfoxide, then injected the tumor cells into mice. Tumor growth was completely inhibited and the mice survived beyond the sixth month observation period according to researchers. Mice injected with the tumor cells only (without the garlic compound), survived only 2 months.
The good news is research into garlic against cancer has shown positive results. In laboratory tests with mice, garlic stabilized and actually shrunk tumors. In mice injected with garlic extracts, tumor growth decreased by 30-50%. In mice that were given dietary garlic, the growths decreased by 10-25%.
One study, at the Mercy Cancer Institute in Pittsburgh, shows that garlic can help slow the growth of tumors.
"We have shown that some of these compounds prevent cancer in animals, and we hope that's the case in humans," said Shivendra Singh of the institute.
"We know how these garlic compounds are inhibiting cancer, but whether or not they have some kind of specificity for certain types of tumors, that remains to be seen," he said.
Other studies, some of them at West Virginia University, have found that garlic can inhibit the growth of breast cancer.
Also, says Dr. Donald Lamm of West Virginia University, "garlic very significantly reduced the growth of bladder tumors in mice."
Researchers at the university think garlic may help boost the immune system in laboratory mice, thereby reducing the growth of cancerous cells.
Conclusions:
Administration of AGE (aged garlic extract ) resulted in improved immune responses against experimentally implanted fibrosarcoma tumors in BALB/c mice. AGE showed significant effects on inhibition of tumor growth and longevity of survival times.
The Anticancer Effects of Garlic Extracts on Bladder Cancer Compared to Cisplatin
Abstract
Although garlic induces apoptosis in cancer cells, it is unclear whether the effects are similar to those of cisplatin against bladder cancer (BC). Therefore, this study investigated whether garlic extracts and cisplatin show similar activity when used to treat BC. The effect of garlic on T24 BC cell line was examined in a BALB/C-nude mouse xenograft model and compared with that of cisplatin. Tissue microarray analysis and gene network analysis were performed to identify differences in gene expression by control tumors and tumors exposed to garlic extract or cisplatin. Investigation of gene expression based on tissues from 165 BC patients and normal controls was then performed to identify common targets of garlic and cisplatin. Tumor volume and tumor weight in cisplatin (0.05[Formula: see text]mg/kg)- and garlic-treated mice were significantly smaller than those in negative control mice. However, cisplatin-treated mice also showed a significant reduction in body weight. Microarray analysis of tumor tissue identified 515 common anticancer genes in the garlic and cisplatin groups ([Formula: see text]). Gene network analysis of 252 of these genes using the Cytoscape and ClueGo software packages mapped 17 genes and 9 gene ontologies to gene networks. BC (NMIBC and MIBC) patients with low expression of centromere protein M (CENPM) showed significantly better progression-free survival than those with high expression. Garlic extract shows anticancer activity in vivo similar to that of cisplatin, with no evidence of side effects. Both appear to act by targeting protein-DNA complex assembly; in particular, expression of CENPM.
2.1. Cell Lines and Cultivation
Cell lines: A549 (human alveolar basal epithelial adenocarcinoma cell, ATCC#CCL-185), NIH 3T3
(neonatal fibroblasts from Mouse, ATCC#CRL-1658) HUVEC (human umbilical vein endothelial cells),
HT29 (human colorectal epithelial carcinoma, ATCC#HTB-38) and MCF7 (human mammary carcinoma,
ATCC#HTB-22) were from the Department of Immunology, Cochin Hospital, Paris Descartes
University, Paris, France. Cells were cultivated in complete medium containing RPMI Medium
(Roswell Park Memorial Institute Medium, Invitrogen) containing 10% FCS (foetal calf serum) and
1% Penicillin/Streptomycin (10,000 U/mL) (Invitrogen, Waltham, MA, USA). Cells were incubated at
37 C and 5% CO2.
...
These data show that allicin is an inhibitor of cell viability and cell proliferation in a concentration
dependent manner, but that different cell lines show different sensitivities.
Aged garlic extract has potential suppressive effect on colorectal adenomas in humans.
Tanaka S1, Haruma K, Yoshihara M, Kajiyama G, Kira K, Amagase H, Chayama K.
Abstract
Epidemiological and animal studies suggest AGE and its organosulfur constituents, such as S-allylcysteine and S-allylmercaptocysteine have anticarcinogenic effects. To confirm these effects in humans, a preliminary double-blind, randomized clinical trial using high-dose AGE (AGE 2.4 mL/d) as an active treatment and low-dose AGE (AGE 0.16 mL/d) as a control was performed on patients with colorectal adenomas-precancerous lesions of the large bowel. The study enrolled 51 patients who were diagnosed as carrying colorectal adenomas. The patients were randomly assigned to the two groups after adenomas larger than 5 mm in diameter were removed by polypectomy. The number and size of adenomas right before intake (0 mo) and at 6 and 12 mo after intake were measured using colonoscopy. Thirty-seven patients (19 in the active group, 18 in the control group) completed the study and were evaluated for the efficacy of AGE. The number of adenomas increased linearly in the control group from the beginning (the baseline), but AGE significantly suppressed both the size and number of colon adenomas in patients after 12 mo of high-dose treatment (P=0.04). The results suggest AGE suppresses progression of colorectal adenomas in humans. It appears that AGE has multiple pathways to reduce cancer incidence and suppress its growth and proliferation.
Is garlic anti cancer in nature? There is indeed a clear link between garlic and cancer reduction, as demonstrated by traditional wisdom and numerous studies.
During ancient times, garlic was used for the treatment of uterine cancer. Hippocrates, who is widely regarded as and referred to as the Father of Modern Medicine, was said to have used garlic to treat cancerous tumors.
Researchers have found that allicin, a chemical found in garlic that gives it its flavor, could be used to fight cancer. A previous study also found that allicin can fight MRSA, or staph infection. Although allicin is toxic, it breaks down quickly and harmlessly when eaten. The chemical is not present in unbroken cloves of garlic, but is produced when the clove is broken.
It is through this natural chemical reaction that allicin may be able to fight cancer. Researchers recreated the toxic reaction between alliinase and alliin (the two components that covert to allicin) at tumor sites by using an antibody that had been programmed to recognize tumor cells. The antibody was bound to alliinase and injected into the bloodstream to find cancer cells.
In ancient times garlic was used as a treatment for cancer:And they put disease-carrying leeches and bled you out to cure diseases. Their medicine sucked.
http://www.all4naturalhealth.com/garlic-and-cancer.html (http://www.all4naturalhealth.com/garlic-and-cancer.html)
In ancient times garlic was used as a treatment for cancer:And they put disease-carrying leeches and bled you out to cure diseases. Their medicine sucked.
http://www.all4naturalhealth.com/garlic-and-cancer.html (http://www.all4naturalhealth.com/garlic-and-cancer.html)
Cats tend to vomit after eating grass. Non-meat food items aren't very healthy for them.That depends on your definition of "healthy". Regurgitation is an important part of a cat's life, although admittedly less so in the case of a domesticated cat. Since cats often eat their prey whole, they end up swallowing a fair amount of inedible parts. The grass helps them clear their digestive track and, in many cases, prevents illness.
My Nan has just been diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Still want to talk shit about how it's 'easily cured'?
That's exactly what I'm like. ::)Yes:
My Nan has just been diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Still want to talk shit about how it's 'easily cured'?
The similarity is staggering.It is exactamundo. ::)
Go give someone with cancer these things, and they are going to die like every other untreated patient.
What in onions has the ability to destroy cells with malformed DNA?
Cancer is a defense mechanism response to parasites and disease. Tumors are usually benign, and go away, but if the body is too compromised with disease, those growth genes will not switch off and the cancer will grow and spread as the body's last ditch effort to survive.
See this article by Andreas Mortiz: Cancer is not a Disease - It's a Survival Mechanism (http://www.naturalnews.com/022578_cancer_body_disease.html)
Right now, I am really happy you are not a doctor (specifically an oncologist)... you would kill a lot of patients.
How Many People Are Surviving Cancer?
In the early 1900s, few cancer patients had any hope of long-term survival. In the 1930s, about one in four was alive five years after treatment. About 491,400 Americans, or 4 of 10 patients who get cancer this year, are expected to be alive five years after diagnosis.
Right now, I am really happy you are not a doctor (specifically an oncologist)... you would kill a lot of patients.
If I were an oncologist practicing traditional oncology 60% of my patients would be dead within 5 years (http://www.thomlatimercares.org/Cancer_Facts.htm).
According to that same article, in the 1930's before modern oncology, 75% of cancer patients would have died within 5 years. 1 in 4 would people would have survived by their own natural survival mechanisms without any medical help at all.
Modern medicine and its trillions of dollars have added a whooping 15% survival rate, and this is ignoring the many people who regress years later. So how great is modern oncology at fighting cancer, really?
If some garlic will kill cancer, then lots of garlic will cure cancer. It's not really such a difficult leap. You might as well tell me it's only possible to get a little wet from my refrigerator's water dispenser.
If some garlic will kill cancer, then lots of garlic will cure cancer. It's not really such a difficult leap. You might as well tell me it's only possible to get a little wet from my refrigerator's water dispenser.
On behalf of the sane portion of mankind: Your beliefs and those they affect are nothing short but dangerous. You need to seek help immediately.
If some garlic will kill cancer, then lots of garlic will cure cancer. It's not really such a difficult leap. You might as well tell me it's only possible to get a little wet from my refrigerator's water dispenser.
I am afraid that you do not make sense... going from there is a chemical in garlic that has properties that help fight cancer to a lot of garlic will cure cancer is a huge leap and not backed by any evidence or research. On the contrary, research does not back your idea.
Do you even know the mechanisms behind the cancer diseases? Do you look at the research being done and the results? There are many foods that prevent cancer, but eating them in any quantity does not mean that you will not get cancer - it only reduces the risks. And they are not universal either. They are specific to certain regions of the body. For instance, broccoli helps reduce chances of colon cancer by up to 50%.
Pushing garlic as a beneficial preventative for cancer - not a bad idea.
Pushing garlic as a cure for cancer - fallacious.
Again, if a little garlic can kill cancer, why can't a lot of garlic cure cancer?
A little salt is necessary for the body, but a lot of salt can harm the body so the physicians say.
Again, if a little garlic can kill cancer, why can't a lot of garlic cure cancer?
A little salt is necessary for the body, but a lot of salt can harm the body so the physicians say.
It has not been shown that the people treated with garlic therapy have suffered harmful effects. Please cite a valid criticism.
Here's a good way of finding out if a conspiracy is true. Let's do this one, shall we? "There is a supressed cure for cancer"Please substantiate your assumption that Steve Jobs must have necessarily been part of this supposed conspiracy.
Do rich and famous people get affected by cancer? Yeah, Steve Jobs died of cancer, unless you want to deny that. So no, there is no suppressed cure for cancer.
He was one of the richest and most influential people of his time, and had enough money to pay for the cure.Please substantiate the following claims:
He was one of the richest and most influential people of his time, and had enough money to pay for the cure. Not to mention that he tried using garlic himself, and died anyway.
I doubt garlic would cure any form of cancer, but it may help a little in preventing you from getting it in the first place.Probably not that either, no.
I doubt garlic would cure any form of cancer, but it may help a little in preventing you from getting it in the first place.Probably not that either, no.
Indeed. It's probable that it won't, but it might.I doubt garlic would cure any form of cancer, but it may help a little in preventing you from getting it in the first place.Probably not that either, no.
That is some top-quality refutation and evidence...
Indeed. It's probable that it won't, but it might.I doubt garlic would cure any form of cancer, but it may help a little in preventing you from getting it in the first place.Probably not that either, no.
That is some top-quality refutation and evidence...
Understand the meaning of probabilities. The claim was that garlic is a cure. Those claims need evidence. Since I didn't raise those claims, I don't need to supply anythingIndeed. It's probable that it won't, but it might.I doubt garlic would cure any form of cancer, but it may help a little in preventing you from getting it in the first place.Probably not that either, no.
That is some top-quality refutation and evidence...
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
Understand the meaning of probabilities. The claim was that garlic is a cure. Those claims need evidence. Since I didn't raise those claims, I don't need to supply anythingIndeed. It's probable that it won't, but it might.I doubt garlic would cure any form of cancer, but it may help a little in preventing you from getting it in the first place.Probably not that either, no.
That is some top-quality refutation and evidence...
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
Please substantiate the following claims:
- Steve Jobs was influential.
- The hypothetical cure can be bought with money.
If mugsy eats garlic potatoe chip and doesn't have cancer, I'd say the claim is undeniable.Understand the meaning of probabilities. The claim was that garlic is a cure. Those claims need evidence. Since I didn't raise those claims, I don't need to supply anythingIndeed. It's probable that it won't, but it might.I doubt garlic would cure any form of cancer, but it may help a little in preventing you from getting it in the first place.Probably not that either, no.
That is some top-quality refutation and evidence...
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
Seriously?Yes.
You need substantiation that Steve Jobs was influential?Correct. Was something about my phrasing unclear?
Don't half the people you know own an iPhone?Of course not, most people I know are technologically literate. Nonetheless, that has nothing to do with my question, so let's try to get back on track.
Seriously?Yeah.
You need substantiation that the hypothetical cure (garlic, in this case) can be bought for money?Almost, but you'd have to take away the strawman you've just built. I never suggested that the hypothetical cure is garlic. Please refrain from addressing my questions out of context (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3192.msg84237#msg84237).
How I Cured My Stage 4 Cancer In Two Weeks For Less Than The Cost Of A Night At The Movies (http://kelleyeidem.hubpages.com/hub/How-I-Cured-Stage-4-Cancer-in-Two-Weeks-For-Less-Than-The-Cost-Of-A-Night-At-The-Movies)Something isn't adding up here....QuoteI didn't ... get sick to my stomach!
...
My treatment wasn't painful.
...
(1) Grate one habanero pepper each day, putting it on bread.
In ancient times garlic was used as a treatment for cancer:
Throwing virgins into volcanoes was once popular.
In ancient times garlic was used as a treatment for cancer:
Throwing virgins into volcanoes was once popular.
As with so many popular beliefs, the answer boils down to: (1) this story is mostly Hollywood BS, but (2) not 100 percent. To get a better handle on things, let’s look at different permutations of the concept, starting with the least plausible and working up.
Virgins have been thrown into volcanoes to appease god(s). This is the story in purest form—so pure, in fact, that I haven’t been able to find any actual examples of it. The closest I got was the 1932 film Bird of Paradise, starring Dolores del Rio as native girl Luana. Plotwise it breaks down as: Boy meets girl, boy hooks up with girl, girl is betrothed to someone else, boy steals girl, boy is cursed by volcano goddess Pele, girl sacrifices self to appease Pele and save boy. Long in the public domain, the film is available for free download and worth every penny.
I need to point out a couple things. First, while Luana’s primitive culture is willing to sacrifice her to placate the volcano god, it doesn’t actually do so. She sacrifices herself.
Second, volcanoes suitable for throwing women into for the most part don’t exist. The popular idea is that a volcanic cone has a lake of molten lava inside, perhaps with a rocky promontory jutting out from the rim to provide a convenient spot for victim-flinging. In reality, an erupting volcano typically spews lava up or outward from a cone, vent, or fissure, after which the lava flows laterally along the flattish surfaces nearby. One could, I suppose, shove a sacrificial individual into one of these flows and thereby incinerate her (or him), but that doesn’t constitute tossing a virgin into a volcano as the trope is usually understood.
Virgins have been sacrificed on, if not in, volcanoes. I’ll go out on a limb and say this is 100 percent true. The mummified remains of numerous murdered Incan children, many of them female, have been found on the upper slopes of volcanoes in the Andes. For example, a girl was discovered on Mount Ampato in Peru in 1995 and two girls and a boy on Llullaillaco in Argentina in 1999. The victims, aged six to adulthood, were well dressed and nourished, suggesting they’d been fattened for the slaughter. I don’t know if on examination any of the children were found to be virgins but will politely assume they were.
Archaeologist Johan Reinhard, who led the expeditions that found the Ampato and Llullaillaco mummies, has conjectured that sacrifices at Ampato were intended to stop a volcanic eruption nearby.
Humans, but especially children, have been sacrificed to the gods, or to accompany deceased rulers who presumably were going to join the gods. This is so abundantly and widely true that it may not seem worth mentioning, but we ought not to let our interest in a particularly baroque sacrificial mode blind us to the larger truth, namely that our species has slaughtered innocents by the uncountable thousands since antiquity, without even the excuse of war. Examples:
- In the Bible, Abraham famously comes close to sacrificing his son Isaac, and Jephthah actually does kill his daughter in return for winning a war.
- As part of the funeral rites of the Incan ruler Huayna Capac a thousand people were sacrificed, including many children.
- The sacrificial cenote, a big sinkhole at the Mayan city of Chichen Itza, was found to contain the skeletons of children mostly from 7 to 15 years old. It’s guessed that the victims were selected for their beauty and freedom from blemish.
Getting back to volcanoes:
- In Indonesian legend, a princess and her husband prayed to the god of the Mount Bromo volcano to give them children. The volcano delivered 25, but required the last be offered as a sacrifice. Today, villagers commemorate the event by throwing food, livestock, and money into the crater, which more practical types wait below the rim to catch.
- American writer Armstrong Perry claimed he witnessed the sacrifice of a young man thrown into a lava pit in the Solomon Islands, and says he narrowly escaped the same fate.
- Classical legend says the Greek philosopher Empedocles threw himself into Mount Etna as a sacrifice after healing a woman near death. Why? Who knows? We’ll file this one under “alcohol may have been involved.”
I doubt garlic would cure any form of cancer, but it may help a little in preventing you from getting it in the first place.Probably not that either, no.
I agree, but that has nothing to do with garlic healing effects on cancer. It's a very general thing, eat healthy, stay healthy. Regardless, garlic is not a cure for cancer, and this anti-medicine propaganda is ridiculously apathic in nature.I doubt garlic would cure any form of cancer, but it may help a little in preventing you from getting it in the first place.Probably not that either, no.
Well, garlic is known to be a stimulant for the immune system. And cancerous cells are fought off by our immune systems, to a lesser or higher degree depending on the person. Immunotherapy for cancer is just now becoming a thing, so Tom may not be far off the mark. I would definitely not advise not going to the doctor, but loading your body up with healthy foods certainly wouldn't hurt.
I agree, but that has nothing to do with garlic healing effects on cancer. It's a very general thing, eat healthy, stay healthy. Regardless, garlic is not a cure for cancer, and this anti-medicine propaganda is ridiculously apathic in nature.I doubt garlic would cure any form of cancer, but it may help a little in preventing you from getting it in the first place.Probably not that either, no.
Well, garlic is known to be a stimulant for the immune system. And cancerous cells are fought off by our immune systems, to a lesser or higher degree depending on the person. Immunotherapy for cancer is just now becoming a thing, so Tom may not be far off the mark. I would definitely not advise not going to the doctor, but loading your body up with healthy foods certainly wouldn't hurt.
I'm sorry, but is there a quick-insert button for that particular reply?I agree, but that has nothing to do with garlic healing effects on cancer. It's a very general thing, eat healthy, stay healthy. Regardless, garlic is not a cure for cancer, and this anti-medicine propaganda is ridiculously apathic in nature.I doubt garlic would cure any form of cancer, but it may help a little in preventing you from getting it in the first place.Probably not that either, no.
Well, garlic is known to be a stimulant for the immune system. And cancerous cells are fought off by our immune systems, to a lesser or higher degree depending on the person. Immunotherapy for cancer is just now becoming a thing, so Tom may not be far off the mark. I would definitely not advise not going to the doctor, but loading your body up with healthy foods certainly wouldn't hurt.
Do you have any evidence to support these outlandish claims?
I'm sorry, but is there a quick-insert button for that particular reply?
Well, garlic is known to be a stimulant for the immune system. And cancerous cells are fought off by our immune systems, to a lesser or higher degree depending on the person.
Do you have any evidence to support these outlandish claims?
It is pretty simple to see that people with a healthy immune system would not get cancer, and natural medicines that improve the immune system can also reverse cancer.
It is pretty simple to see that people with a healthy immune system would not get cancer, and natural medicines that improve the immune system can also reverse cancer.
[Citation needed]
Our immune system is how we fight off infections, germs and cancer. Sometimes the immune system does not work properly, as with immunodeficiency disorders. These people are extremely susceptible to infection and cancer.
Diagnosis is vital as impaired immune response can pose serious threats to health. With the increasing resistance of pathogens to current antibiotics and anti-fungal medications, the impact of a weak immune system has taken on added significance. Likewise, the daily immune challenges in the face of a more environmentally toxic world have intensified the need for maintaining optimal immune function.
The immune system is highly complex and important to our well-being. A strong and balanced immune system is required for health maintenance. Using natural agents, it is possible to help restore an immune system imbalance or weakness.
The immune system is composed of many interdependent cell types that collectively protect the body from bacterial, parasitic, fungal and viral infections, as well as from the growth of tumor cells. Many of these cell types have specialized functions. The cells of the immune system can engulf bacteria, kill parasites or tumor cells, or kill virus-infected cells. These cells often depend on the T-helper subset for activation signals in the form of secretions formally known as cytokines, lymphokines, or more specifically interleukins.
Only sometimes, Tom, will cancer get attacked by the immune system. But if the cancer cells are similar enough to the original that they pass as "part of the body" then it won't be read as a foreign containment and thus not attacked.
Only sometimes, Tom, will cancer get attacked by the immune system. But if the cancer cells are similar enough to the original that they pass as "part of the body" then it won't be read as a foreign containment and thus not attacked.
That's called an immunodeficiency disorder, and is an immune system problem.
Everyone with cancer has a malfunctioning or compromised immune system. Everyone. Lethal cancers undetectable to the body would have been weeded out of life by natural processes of evolution eons before humans were human.
Only sometimes, Tom, will cancer get attacked by the immune system. But if the cancer cells are similar enough to the original that they pass as "part of the body" then it won't be read as a foreign containment and thus not attacked.
That's called an immunodeficiency disorder, and is an immune system problem.
Everyone with cancer has a malfunctioning or compromised immune system. Everyone. Lethal cancers undetectable to the body would have been weeded out of life by natural processes of evolution eons before humans were human.
Only sometimes, Tom, will cancer get attacked by the immune system. But if the cancer cells are similar enough to the original that they pass as "part of the body" then it won't be read as a foreign containment and thus not attacked.
That's called an immunodeficiency disorder, and is an immune system problem.
Everyone with cancer has a malfunctioning or compromised immune system. Everyone. Lethal cancers undetectable to the body would have been weeded out of life by natural processes of evolution eons before humans were human.
O.o
So... I guess humans never have mutations or diseases that kill them cause evolution.
Not so Tom. Cancer with a few notable exeptions are late onset diseases, the diseases of this type are not selected out as they typically appear after we have bred.
Before the advent of petrochemicals, there was very few mortal diseases. People were relatively healthy and a doctors could spend his entire career without seeing a cancer case. The types of diseases back then were typically non-fatal.
Before the advent of petrochemicals, there was very few mortal diseases. People were relatively healthy and a doctors could spend his entire career without seeing a cancer case. The types of diseases back then were typically non-fatal.
Hmm. You seem to have a completely different version of history. The implication that cancer is a relatively recent disease is something I believe is probably true. The rest of your statement is nonsense. IMHO.
Men are fertile their entire lives. Why would evolution consider a 20 year old man any different than a 50 year old man when each of them have the potential to create life?
Before the advent of petrochemicals, there was very few mortal diseases. People were relatively healthy and a doctors could spend his entire career without seeing a cancer case. The types of diseases back then were typically non-fatal.
Hmm. You seem to have a completely different version of history. The implication that cancer is a relatively recent disease is something I believe is probably true. The rest of your statement is nonsense. IMHO.
Without treatment, around 50 percent of all HIV-positive individuals typically develop AIDS within 10 years. About 75 percent of people with HIV develop AIDS within 15 years. But about 10 percent of HIV-positive individuals are considered "long survivors," which means that their infection is stable and that their immune function hasn't steadily declined.
The fact that 10 percent of people who contract HIV don't get AIDS basically demonstrates the all-powerful nature of the immune system.
After billions of years of evolution and uncountable virus generations, often measured in minutes, don't you think that the body should know by now what a virus is? Does it not follow that all of the possible tricks have been played out by now?
Viruses evolved together with life. There are only so many chemicals and tactics a sneaky virus can use. Life sees it and defeats it and creates a genetic memory. It's pretty unlikely that after a virus can overwhelm a healthy immune system.
Even Ebola only has a mortality rate of 50% (on average). Ebola! How can this be? Do these African doctors have some kind of advanced medicine that we don't know about? No. It was defeated by the immune system. The people in Africa are around less modernalities and have healthier immune systems than we do. The mortality rate is lower in modernized countries like Liberia and Nigeria and higher in less modernized countries like Ginuea. Take away Africa's pesticides and cosmetics and air pollution and it is clear that the survival rate would shoot way, way up.
So you tell me, if the health of the immune system has nothing to do with diseases like Ebola, why are there so many survivors?
Children under 5 years of age are one of most vulnerable groups affected by malaria. There were an estimated 438 000 malaria deaths around the world in 2015, of which approximately 69% were in children under 5 years of age.
Actually Malaria, mainly affects children:
http://www.who.int/malaria/areas/high_risk_groups/children/en/QuoteChildren under 5 years of age are one of most vulnerable groups affected by malaria. There were an estimated 438 000 malaria deaths around the world in 2015, of which approximately 69% were in children under 5 years of age.
Why is this so?
Shouldn't malaria affect everyone if this virus really knows how to kill people, healthy immune system or not? This is pretty perplexing if your theory is correct.
The answer is simply because adults have stronger and healthier immune systems than children under 5.
You just told me that "Malaria has been killing people for thousands of years without any prevalent immunity arising." I showed that there are people who are immune to Malaria. They are called adults with healthy immune systems.
You just told me that "Malaria has been killing people for thousands of years without any prevalent immunity arising." I showed that there are people who are immune to Malaria. They are called adults with healthy immune systems.
I did say prevalent didn't I? It is still a disease that is deadly... as diseases go, it is very deadly.
If you have a great healthy immune system you are invulnerable to any disease.
Is there reliable documentation of anyone in the entire history of humankind that was invulnerable to every disease?At least temporarily, yes
Is there reliable documentation of anyone in the entire history of humankind that was invulnerable to every disease?At least temporarily, yes
Do you have evidence for that outlandish claim?No, patients' medical records tend to be confidential. However, you can likely obtain evidence which you'll consider credible yourself. Ask your family and friends if they've ever seen a doctor for a regular check-up, and were found to be in good health. While I can't make any guarantees, it is highly likely you'll find at least one such person.
Do you have evidence for that outlandish claim?No, patients' medical records tend to be confidential. However, you can likely obtain evidence which you'll consider credible yourself. Ask your family and friends if they've ever seen a doctor for a regular check-up, and were found to be in good health. While I can't make any guarantees, it is highly likely you'll find at least one such person.
So no evidence of of anyone in the entire history of humankind that was/is invulnerable to every disease then?Quite the contrary, I've provided you with the necessary steps to reproduce. Whether or not you choose to pursue them is your prerogative.
Got it.Clearly not.
Is there reliable documentation of anyone in the entire history of humankind that was invulnerable to every disease?At least temporarily, yes
nobody has ever been subjected to every disease.How does that preclude one from invulnerability? If anything, that makes it easier, not harder.
I haven't been ill for years, but I haven't been in contact with HIV, Ebola, the Plague....Thank you for contributing to the pool of evidence :)
nobody has ever been subjected to every disease.How does that preclude one from invulnerability? If anything, that makes it easier, not harder.I haven't been ill for years, but I haven't been in contact with HIV, Ebola, the Plague....Thank you for contributing to the pool of evidence :)
How does it prove invulnerability, any more than because I haven’t been killed by lightning, I say I am immune to electricity? A stupid argument.Whoah there, pardner. You're conflating two very different concepts.
So no evidence of of anyone in the entire history of humankind that was/is invulnerable to every disease then?Quite the contrary, I've provided you with the necessary steps to reproduce. Whether or not you choose to pursue them is your prerogative.
I could tell you that I know healthy people, even that I am one, but why bother when you can obtain much stronger evidence through virtually no effort?Got it.Clearly not.
The eggs Boots, don't forget the eggs.
I seriously do question your ability to understand logicWhat an excellent way to start an argument. You must be an expert debater.
Did you know that I am invulnerable to being run over by a bus? At least temporarily.Yes, I could believe that. It's not unlikely that you live in a high-rise flat, or in an area that's not serviced by buses; in either case the probability of you being harmed by a bus while at home can be considered to be 0 for all practical purposes.
As proof I offer my medical records. Perfect health. No broken bones, no internal bleeding. Nothing.No need, I believe you; although medical records would be completely irrelevant here. You probably also don't have your medical records, but that's more to point out your lack of knowledge than your logical failures.
To say that you've provided evidence of "anyone in the entire history of humankind that was/is invulnerable to every disease, at least temporarily", by offering that I should find someone in good health and ask them to show me their medical records is clearly not a valid claim.Ah, yes. This is not the case because it's clearly not the case. Such an impressive position.
Clearly!
The diseases we have so far discussed have a subset of people whose immune system was strong enough to fight off the disease. This is what my comment was based on. The burden has shifted to you guys to now show that there are diseases that can defeat a strong and healthy immune system.
The diseases we have so far discussed have a subset of people whose immune system was strong enough to fight off the disease. This is what my comment was based on. The burden has shifted to you guys to now show that there are diseases that can defeat a strong and healthy immune system.
How are you defining a "strong and healthy immune system". If you can say something other than "an immune system capable of fighting off any disease" we can actually talk about this point.
The diseases we have so far discussed have a subset of people whose immune system was strong enough to fight off the disease. This is what my comment was based on. The burden has shifted to you guys to now show that there are diseases that can defeat a strong and healthy immune system.
How are you defining a "strong and healthy immune system". If you can say something other than "an immune system capable of fighting off any disease" we can actually talk about this point.
If there are diseases that can overwhelm any immune system, then you should be able to point me to a disease with a 100% mortality rate.
The diseases we have so far discussed have a subset of people whose immune system was strong enough to fight off the disease. This is what my comment was based on. The burden has shifted to you guys to now show that there are diseases that can defeat a strong and healthy immune system.
If there are diseases that can overwhelm any immune system, then you should be able to point me to a disease with a 100% mortality rate.
Tom's logic is, of course, actually correct.
His argument is that if your immune system is strong enough (strong being far more complex than just energy or white blood cell count) then it can defend against any disease.
Also, isn't Ebola at 85-90%? Where's the 50% figure?
His argument is that if your immune system is strong enough (strong being far more complex than just energy or white blood cell count) then it can defend against any disease.
Tom's logic is, of course, actually correct.
His argument is that if your immune system is strong enough (strong being far more complex than just energy or white blood cell count) then it can defend against any disease.
This is a metaphysical truth but it has no basis in reality. Since we are talking about reality his metaphysical argument is irrelevant other than to possibly uncover a more effective philosophy in developing treatment.
QuoteHis argument is that if your immune system is strong enough (strong being far more complex than just energy or white blood cell count) then it can defend against any disease.
This is like saying if we had a perfect world, then there would be no disease. It is a tautology without any substance.
If you had a perfect immune system that could defend against every disease, then you would be able to defend against every disease. No shit. But the real world doesn't work that way. And in regards to cancer, your body can suppress cancer cells 99% of times without you even noticing, but it only takes that 1% of the time where it fails for you to become seriously ill.
That very specific part of his argument may be logical, if uselessly vague, but his original post that supposes that garlic can cure your malignant cancer is off-the-wall bonkers.Well yes, that goes without saying.
The diseases we have so far discussed have a subset of people whose immune system was strong enough to fight off the disease. This is what my comment was based on. The burden has shifted to you guys to now show that there are diseases that can defeat a strong and healthy immune system.
How are you defining a "strong and healthy immune system". If you can say something other than "an immune system capable of fighting off any disease" we can actually talk about this point.
If there are diseases that can overwhelm any immune system, then you should be able to point me to a disease with a 100% mortality rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_disease_case_fatality_rates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_disease_case_fatality_rates)
100% - Prion diseases, or transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE): Includes Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease and all its variants, fatal familial insomnia, kuru, and Gerstmann–Sträussler–Scheinker syndrome.
Causes can be sporadic, inherited, or acquired. It mostly affects people over the age of 60 years, and it is rare in people under 30 years old.
That very specific part of his argument may be logical, if uselessly vague, but his original post that supposes that garlic can cure your malignant cancer is off-the-wall bonkers.
That very specific part of his argument may be logical, if uselessly vague, but his original post that supposes that garlic can cure your malignant cancer is off-the-wall bonkers.
How, exactly, is it off the wall bonkers when there are a number of university studies saying that garlic and peppers kill cancer?
Are you aware that doctors no longer prescribe herbal medicines for ailments, despite many herbal concoctions being a known cure to many ailments for hundreds of years? Why is that?
are you aware that doctors no longer prescribe prayer for ailments, despite many psalms being a known cure to many ailments for hundreds of years? why is that?
Are you aware that doctors no longer prescribe herbal medicines for ailments, despite many herbal concoctions being a known cure to many ailments for hundreds of years? Why is that?
Herbal and natural medicines have been the primary mode of medicine in China for thousands of years, and Traditional Chinese Medicine is still the preferred choice when illness occurs. Its practitioners claim to have cured countless people. Is the entire medical profession in China lying? You are going to have to explain what is happening there.
You apparently have never been to one of the thousands of Catholic hospitals. The MDs there do recommend prayer. There is ample evidence through numerous studies (http://www.nwitimes.com/business/healthcare/can-happiness-heal-how-a-positive-attitude-might-save-your/article_bdda1397-b49f-5347-9e4b-825770d3e819.html) that positive mood and happy outlook can boost the immune system and help someone get over a stressful ailment.
Are you aware that doctors no longer prescribe herbal medicines for ailments, despite many herbal concoctions being a known cure to many ailments for hundreds of years? Why is that?
1. Not regulated by the FDA
2. Lack of proven efficacy
3. Lack of rigorous clinical trials
4. Lack of precise dosage control
5. And yes... possibly lack of money to be made off it
Regardless of the reasons, it is not evidence that garlic cures cancer. It's barely even related. Your logic is bewildering... doctors avoid prescribing herbal remedies, therefore garlic cures cancer??Herbal and natural medicines have been the primary mode of medicine in China for thousands of years, and Traditional Chinese Medicine is still the preferred choice when illness occurs. Its practitioners claim to have cured countless people. Is the entire medical profession in China lying? You are going to have to explain what is happening there.
Stop trying to shift the premise of your argument. No one is arguing that all herbal medicine is completely ineffective. Just because SOME herbal medicine is somewhat effective, doesn't prove garlic cures cancer.
That being said, traditional Chinese medicine is absolutely riddled with scams. Especially if it is marketed at foreigners.
Why would millions of people do something for hundreds of years if no one ever received any kind of benefit from it?Are you seriously using an ad populum?Also... burying the dead in monuments. No benefit what so ever yet we still do it.
Then our course is clear.Are you aware that doctors no longer prescribe herbal medicines for ailments, despite many herbal concoctions being a known cure to many ailments for hundreds of years? Why is that?
1. Not regulated by the FDA
2. Lack of proven efficacy
3. Lack of rigorous clinical trials
4. Lack of precise dosage control
5. And yes... possibly lack of money to be made off it
Regardless of the reasons, it is not evidence that garlic cures cancer. It's barely even related. Your logic is bewildering... doctors avoid prescribing herbal remedies, therefore garlic cures cancer??Herbal and natural medicines have been the primary mode of medicine in China for thousands of years, and Traditional Chinese Medicine is still the preferred choice when illness occurs. Its practitioners claim to have cured countless people. Is the entire medical profession in China lying? You are going to have to explain what is happening there.
Stop trying to shift the premise of your argument. No one is arguing that all herbal medicine is completely ineffective. Just because SOME herbal medicine is somewhat effective, doesn't prove garlic cures cancer.
That being said, traditional Chinese medicine is absolutely riddled with scams. Especially if it is marketed at foreigners.
If you agree that it is possible for herbal medicines to cure disease, then you open up the possibility of garlic curing cancer. I don't see what is so outrageous about the subject. There are a lot of people who claim that various plants and herbs cured their cancer.
The drug companies aren't going to spend $10 Million to put garlic through Phase 4 clinical trials for FDA approval because garlic can't be patented and sold for outrageous prices. How are they supposed to make that money back?
Water wasn't ever put through Phase 4 FDA approval for dehydration and dehydration related diseases. Are we to assume that water is an effectiveness substance?
Is it so impossible to figure out how to use water to cure dehydration if there are no large dosage control studies on the subject?
Natural medicines CAN cure, and you cannot rely on FDA approval to tell you that. Anyone who relies on FDA approval is pretty stupid to think that FDA approval is needed to be a legitimate medicine. There is ample evidence of the potency of herbal medicines. There are thousands of years of human experiments which have created the current natural medicine fields.
i completely agree. curing cancer is trivial. one merely needs to consult god, who has already provided everything we need for our survival. your link proves that prayer cures cancer.
there are certain people in the world who will tell you that cancer is terrible and impossible to cure without spending money on herbs, vitamin regimens, and other 'nautral' remedies they sell. i am here to tell you that this is false. one does not need to consult an industry which profiteers off the backs of the dying.
If you agree that it is possible for herbal medicines to cure disease, then you open up the possibility of garlic curing cancer.
Natural medicines CAN cure, and you cannot rely on FDA approval to tell you that.
Why would millions of people do something for hundreds of years if no one ever received any kind of benefit from it?Are you seriously using an ad populum?Also... burying the dead in monuments. No benefit what so ever yet we still do it.
Living in harsh environments.
If you agree that it is possible for herbal medicines to cure disease, then you open up the possibility of garlic curing cancer.
Of course it's possible. That doesn't mean it is true, or even likely. It is also possible that storing ants in your bellybutton cures baldness, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it
And that benefit is?Why would millions of people do something for hundreds of years if no one ever received any kind of benefit from it?Are you seriously using an ad populum?Also... burying the dead in monuments. No benefit what so ever yet we still do it.
Living in harsh environments.
First off, people do receive benefit from burying their dead in monuments. Your counterargument is completely laughable.
Secondly, It's not an ad populum argument. The argument is not based on nothing more than belief. I am referencing the thousands of years of human experiments which have molded the current natural medicine fields. It is an empirical argument that natural medicines have cured the things they claim to cure.The thousands of years of people praying for aid from God and getting nothing?
And that benefit is?
The thousands of years of people praying for aid from God and getting nothing?
If you agree that it is possible for herbal medicines to cure disease, then you open up the possibility of garlic curing cancer.
Of course it's possible. That doesn't mean it is true, or even likely. It is also possible that storing ants in your bellybutton cures baldness, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it
Your examples are pretty bad. There aren't many people who claim that bellybutton ants cure baldness, but there are a whole lot of people who claim that cancer can be and has been cured with plants like garlic.
Are you completely ignorant to the concept of evidence?
Prayer probably does help people with Cancer to some degree.
But you really need a reality check if you think that is all they do at Catholic hospitals.it's a shame that it isn't, actually: if i were an oncologist practicing traditional oncology 60% of my patients would be dead within 5 years.
So... your proof that garlic cures cancer is "a whole lot of people claim that cancer can be cured with plants like garlic?" Gee golly, you sure have convinced me. Your argument is airtight!
if some prayer will kill cancer, then lots of prayer will cure cancer. it's not really such a difficult leap. you might as well tell me it's only possible to get a little wet from my refrigerator's water dispenser.
there are a lot of people who claim that various psalms and prayers cured their cancer.
Hart's oncologist, Tammy Young, told the Town Talk, that while she certainly believed the Tarceva was effective in curing his cancer, prayer definitely played a role in the outcome.
"He has a lung cancer that has a mutation that is very responsive to Tarceva," Young said. "He began taking Tarceva and took it for a few months and had a very good response from the treatment…"Most patients don't have as spectacular a response as Hal has had. And, absolutely, the power of prayer is an important part of this picture."
So... your proof that garlic cures cancer is "a whole lot of people claim that cancer can be cured with plants like garlic?" Gee golly, you sure have convinced me. Your argument is airtight!
There are people who claim to have been cured by garlic, and there are people who have claimed to have been cured by peppers. Those testimonials are evidence that cancer is treatable by these things.
So... your proof that garlic cures cancer is "a whole lot of people claim that cancer can be cured with plants like garlic?" Gee golly, you sure have convinced me. Your argument is airtight!
There are people who claim to have been cured by garlic, and there are people who have claimed to have been cured by peppers. Those testimonials are evidence that cancer is treatable by these things.
Sure, but it's extremely weak, self-reported, anecdotal evidence. People claim all sorts of stuff cured their cancer. I just googled the first 6 foods that popped into my head: carrots, lettuce, broccoli, coffee, chocolate, peanuts. Every single one had multiple websites that claimed they cure/prevent/fight cancer.
Self-reported cures are extremely susceptible to all sorts of bias and errors.
So... your proof that garlic cures cancer is "a whole lot of people claim that cancer can be cured with plants like garlic?" Gee golly, you sure have convinced me. Your argument is airtight!
There are people who claim to have been cured by garlic, and there are people who have claimed to have been cured by peppers. Those testimonials are evidence that cancer is treatable by these things.
Sure, but it's extremely weak, self-reported, anecdotal evidence. People claim all sorts of stuff cured their cancer. I just googled the first 6 foods that popped into my head: carrots, lettuce, broccoli, coffee, chocolate, peanuts. Every single one had multiple websites that claimed they cure/prevent/fight cancer.
Self-reported cures are extremely susceptible to all sorts of bias and errors.
When a woman details how she cured her Stage 4 Cancer with "carrot juice, nothing else" (http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/ann-cameron-cured-her-cancer-with-carrot-juice/) that is pretty good evidence that carrot juice cures cancer. Stage 4 Cancer is the stage of cancer which is untreatable and death is certain. Doctors tell you to go home and die at that stage -- you are untreatable.
There is no other explanation for what could of cured that woman's cancer; except that there was something in the 5 pounds of carrot juice she was drinking day that exhibited cancer fighting properties. Many other people have similar stories of carrot juice curing cancers and various other diseases. It makes sense as well; as carrots are a root vegetable which evolved in an environment not too dissimilar to garlic, and which must contend with a wide host of funguses and parasites, constantly fighting off diseases , including cancer, within itself. It follows that if you put those beneficial substances into the human body, which has evolved in symbiosis with root vegetables, the body will use those substances to fight its own diseases.
If you are claiming that this story and the many stories like it are untrue, you must be delusional. There is really no other explanation for how this woman and others survived, unless you choose to accuse all of these people as being liars.
This is a false equivalence. There are people who claim that by using garlic alone cured their incurable cancer, but almost no one claims that their incurable cancers were cured with prayer alone. The people who claim that prayer cured their cancer also admit that they were taking other things too.
Prayer certainly seems to help, as the Oncologist above herself asserts. But the fact that Catholic hospitals do not use prayer alone to treat cancer should be enough evidence that it is not the recommended religious treatment for that ailment.
This one died from cancer:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3173212/Newlywed-shuns-chemotherapy-CARROTS-vows-beat-cancer-alternative-therapies-trying-baby-doctors-warn-s-no-evidence-work.html
Is that evidence it does not work?
Are you going to ignore the person in the first link diagnosed himself with stage 4 cancer? Not only that he used a method that would not detect the type of cancer he claims to have had.
So is it your belief all doctors and researchers involved with researching a cure are evil and hiding the truth?
The problem with that logic is you are able to find stuff supporting garlic can reduce growth or kill cancer from those people. They did not sweep it under the rug trying to hide it from the masses. That is why you can find the results and conclusions using an internet search.
Are you going to ignore the person in the first link diagnosed himself with stage 4 cancer? Not only that he used a method that would not detect the type of cancer he claims to have had.
There are plenty of other testimonials (http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/habaneropeppers-garlic-oilcure.html) on the website, from people who were diagnosed with cancer via biopsy.
QuoteSo is it your belief all doctors and researchers involved with researching a cure are evil and hiding the truth?
Researchers do study natural substances and show that they have cancer fighting effects. There are many university studies on the effect natural substances have on cancers. Its the drug companies who refuse to sponsor them for Phase 4 Clinical Trials.
a simple google search shows that there has been a lot of research showing that prayer alone kills cancer:
http://www1.cbn.com/700club/wayne-higgins-cry-cured-cancer
https://www.tgm.org/HealedFromCancerPM.html
http://mswm.org/miracles.alook.htm
http://mswm.org/miracle_healing_testimony_andrewkakepetum.htm
https://www.hopefaithprayer.com/books/Healed%20of%20Cancer%20-%20Osteen.pdf
http://www.alanames.org/en/testimonies.htm
http://healingandrevival.com/testimonies/?p=367
when people detail how they cured their stage 4 cancer with "prayer, nothing else" that is pretty good evidence that prayer cures cancer. if you are claiming that this story and the many stories like it are untrue, you must be delusional. there is really no other explanation for how they survived, unless you choose to accuse all of these people as being liars.
It is also not unusual for people to experience spontaneous remissions from cancer and other diseases simply because they have had a profound change in their beliefs or outlook on life.
studies during the 1980s and early 1990s revealed that the brain is directly wired to the immune system — portions of the nervous system connect with immune-related organs such as the thymus and bone marrow, and immune cells have receptors for neurotransmitters, suggesting that there is crosstalk.
Self-reported testimonials are subject to selection bias, and are almost useless for identifying a causative link among multiple variables. It has nothing to do with the honesty of the people reporting the results. It simply isn't possible to separate out all the confounding variables with such a small sample size, for something as complicated as cancer.
Screw phase 4 trials. How about at least phase 2? Or even phase 1?
Before you can claim that garlic cures cancer, you should be able to answer most of these questions:
1. How many people have been cured by garlic?
2. How many have tried to use garlic as a cure, and failed?
3. What is the breakdown by dosage?
4. What is the breakdown by cancer type and stage?
5. Based on these results, how effective is garlic compared to other treatment options (chemo, radiation, etc.)?
This one died from cancer:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3173212/Newlywed-shuns-chemotherapy-CARROTS-vows-beat-cancer-alternative-therapies-trying-baby-doctors-warn-s-no-evidence-work.html
Is that evidence it does not work?
Where does it say that she died from cancer?QuoteSo is it your belief all doctors and researchers involved with researching a cure are evil and hiding the truth?The drug companies don't control what gets posted on the internet.
Search her name, sometimes it is easy to find the information sometimes it is not. This time it was easy. Just add "death" after her name. I would also try that every time you see someone saying they have refused treatment. Not the ones after they claim they cured their cancer.
Tom you pushed a lot of "correlation equals causation" narratives in the last 2 pages. It doesn't hold together because it doesn't show that carrots/prayer/Chinese medicine could be the only cause of the change in people's condition.
The placebo effect and morale are well known to be effective but that is about patient belief in health and well-being and nothing to do with garlic/carrots/bullshit medicine.
In Dr. Earl Mindell’s Garlic: The Miracle Nutrient, a 1957 study in the journal Science reported that researchers incubated sarcoma tumor cells with the garlic compound Allinase and S-ethyl-L-cysteine sulfoxide, then injected the tumor cells into mice. Tumor growth was completely inhibited and the mice survived beyond the sixth month observation period according to researchers. Mice injected with the tumor cells only (without the garlic compound), survived only 2 months.
The good news is research into garlic against cancer has shown positive results. In laboratory tests with mice, garlic stabilized and actually shrunk tumors. In mice injected with garlic extracts, tumor growth decreased by 30-50%. In mice that were given dietary garlic, the growths decreased by 10-25%.
One study, at the Mercy Cancer Institute in Pittsburgh, shows that garlic can help slow the growth of tumors.
"We have shown that some of these compounds prevent cancer in animals, and we hope that's the case in humans," said Shivendra Singh of the institute.
"We know how these garlic compounds are inhibiting cancer, but whether or not they have some kind of specificity for certain types of tumors, that remains to be seen," he said.
Other studies, some of them at West Virginia University, have found that garlic can inhibit the growth of breast cancer.
Also, says Dr. Donald Lamm of West Virginia University, "garlic very significantly reduced the growth of bladder tumors in mice."
Researchers at the university think garlic may help boost the immune system in laboratory mice, thereby reducing the growth of cancerous cells.
Tom, all these studies show that garlic MIGHT reduce the risk of cancer, or slow cancer growth, or maybe even kill cancer cells under certain conditions. Many of the studies were only done on MICE, not humans. Also, most of the articles you provided don't even source the studies they are talking about. Here is an article that actually provides sources for the studies it references: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/garlic-fact-sheet (https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/garlic-fact-sheet).
Remember, you are claiming that curing cancer is trivial with garlic and peppers. None of these studies even come close to supporting your claim.
Several population studies show an association between increased intake of garlic and reduced risk of certain cancers, including cancers of the stomach, colon, esophagus, pancreas, and breast. Population studies are multidisciplinary studies of population groups that investigate the cause, incidence, or spread of a disease or examine the effect of health-related interventions, dietary and nutritional intakes, or environmental exposures. An analysis of data from seven population studies showed that the higher the amount of raw and cooked garlic consumed, the lower the risk of stomach and colorectal cancer (5).
The results of a small, nonrandomized study indicate that the application of garlic extracts to some skin tumors may be beneficial. In the study, which involved 21 persons with basal cell carcinoma, the application of ajoene (a sulfurous chemical found in garlic) to the skin for 1 month markedly decreased the size of 17 tumors, increased tumor size in 3 patients, and resulted in no change in 1 other patient (16). Changes in tumor size ranged from an 88 percent reduction to a 69 percent increase, with an overall median reduction of 47 percent.
Tom, all these studies show that garlic MIGHT reduce the risk of cancer, or slow cancer growth, or maybe even kill cancer cells under certain conditions. Many of the studies were only done on MICE, not humans. Also, most of the articles you provided don't even source the studies they are talking about. Here is an article that actually provides sources for the studies it references: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/garlic-fact-sheet (https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/garlic-fact-sheet).
Remember, you are claiming that curing cancer is trivial with garlic and peppers. None of these studies even come close to supporting your claim.
Actually the studies show that garlic DOES reverse cancer. The fact that it was done to mice in laboratory conditions, with control groups, pretty much demonstrates the effect to a certainty. You can't claim that the cancer was really cured by the mouses paleo diet or whatever.
So garlic just "happens" to reverse cancer in mice, but is non-effective in humans? And there just "happens" to be a ton of people who claim that garlic reversed their cancer? And garlic really does nothing? Are you even listening to yourself?
Is your narrative now that garlic happens to cure cancer in mice, and only mice, but all the human people who claim that garlic has helped their cancers are liars? Come on now. That is just incredulous.
People were saying that garlic cured cancer long before those animal studies. The ancient greek Hippocrates recommended his patients eat large amounts of crushed garlic to cure their cancer.
What is the likelihood that this cancer marvel totally does not work on humans, but that it happens to cure cancer in mice?
I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here.
There are countless types of of flowers and grasses and barks in the world, but Hippocrates happened to tell people to cure their cancer with something that actually does cure cancer in animal studies.
The evidence it there, it is strong and plentiful, and to ignore it is plain denial.
Is your narrative now that garlic happens to cure cancer in mice, and only mice, but all the human people who claim that garlic has helped their cancers are liars? Come on now. That is just incredulous.
Well, if you've been paying attention, medical science does say that garlicreverses cancermight help prevent or reduce certain types of cancer in mice under certain conditions. There have also been population studies on humans that show mixed results.The university medical studies say that garlic kills cancer.[citation needed]. I assume the pharmaceutical industry neglects to move forward with it because garlic can't be patented, and I like to jump to conclusions that reinforce my preconceived notions.
I think it's important not to dissuade people from seeking orthodox medical treatments.
Tom what you are doing is borderline immoral, giving people diet tips is fine but you are doing harm to people of you discourage them for seeking professional help.
I think it's important not to dissuade people from seeking orthodox medical treatments.
Tom what you are doing is borderline immoral, giving people diet tips is fine but you are doing harm to people of you discourage them for seeking professional help.
Anyone who takes medical advice from a random stranger on the internet has only themselves to blame for their "treatment" outcomes. Just saying.
In Rounder's comment, you are the random stranger. He is saying that anyone who takes your advice is foolish.
In Rounder's comment, you are the random stranger. He is saying that anyone who takes your advice is foolish.
Since this thread seems to be getting thousands of views I've added a disclaimer to the OP instructing people to consult a medical professional before exploring a path of self treatment.
I'm all for healthy eating and I believe a healthy diet helps prevent and, in some cases, even cure cancer. However I, and most everyone as far as I can tell, do not agree that cancer is easily cured with a few grocery store items.
I'm all for healthy eating and I believe a healthy diet helps prevent and, in some cases, even cure cancer. However I, and most everyone as far as I can tell, do not agree that cancer is easily cured with a few grocery store items.
Ultimately that really boils down to an arbitrary time definition. Technically speaking we all have cancerous cells present all the time. The arbitrary time cutoff you are using is after critical mass has been reached and severe symptoms felt. By that time, your immune system has been losing a slow battle for years/decades and you had undiagnosed cancer that whole time. That's why they are graded in stages instead of a binary grading system. Stage 4, probably not going to reverse no matter what you try. Precancerous abnormalities, Stage 0.5 because they really don't like calling it cancer, is a sugar coated way of saying cancer that probably won't kill you right away. One could conceivably be cured by changes in lifestyle factors, the other probably not. However, that doesn't negate the sad reality that both are still cancer.
Early nonaggressive cancer can easily be treated using grocery store items. Stage 0.5 cancer is the watch and wait type of cancer but you probably won't hear that you could reverse it at this stage by making some serious life changes. That's because many doctors have become too cynical to believe that you'll actually follow through with the changes necessary for that to happen. Instead, they assume that you'll continue on with your mildly destructive habits until you reach a later stage and then they'll perform chemo or surgery. Same thing happens for pre-diabetes. Why bother teaching the patient something they don't want to learn only to have them ignore your advice. It's much easier to just leave it be and wait until they need medication because that's how 1st world countries work.
Though I'm not a oncologist, I am a doctor with a master's in public health to boot so no clinical slouch. Those that rapidly dismiss lifestyle factors as relevant to health typically don't want to take responsibility for their bad habits. There's an awful lot that the medical community doesn't know and a little that they'd rather not talk about. Take a look at the funded research by the American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association and American Cancer Society and take a look at the distribution of funding between prevention research and management research. American Caner Society is about a 1:2 ratio respectively.
Per the American Cancer Society page.
Obesity, lack of physical activity, and poor diet are major risk factors for cancer – second only to tobacco use. The World Cancer Research Fund estimates that about 20% of all cancers diagnosed in the US are related to body fatness, physical inactivity, excess alcohol consumption, and/or poor nutrition, and thus could be prevented.
Read between the lines could be prevented = early stage cure. Doctors just aren't allowed to call patients out to their faces because yelp reviews actually matter to hospital administrators now.
CT
If some garlic will kill cancer, then lots of garlic will cure cancer. It's not really such a difficult leap.
If some garlic will kill cancer, then lots of garlic will cure cancer. It's not really such a difficult leap.
Tom you demonstrate an uncanny lack on knowledge of human physiology here. As you are talking hypothetically I will answer as such:
Imagine that 5g of garlic will kill 1000 cancer cells, logic follows that if I have 10,000 cancer cells I need only eat 50g of garlic and boom! Cancer gone.
The problem with this hypothesis is that the human digestive and metabolic system is not 100% efficient; hence why circa 24 hours after eating sweetcorn the husks can clearly be seen in one's faecal output. If I ate 50g of garlic not all of it would be digested, even if I ate 5,000g I may never reach the magic 50g I required. Think of it as a ceiling; the maximum amount of any given substance that the body can absorb.
The amount of garlic needed to cure the cancer can simply fall above the amount the body can digest.
Wut?Nice necro
I mean what?
Please show your medical reports, your studies, your experiments, your rate of success.
That is what it needed before making a claim, not an anecdote from an unreliable source.
Things do have anti-cancerous properties, that's true. BUT their effect is minute and not able to cure cancer. Do you really think that scientists wouldn't have figured it out by now.
In fact, next time, do an experiment on someone you hate. We'll see how much pain and anguish that person goes through when deprived of modern medicine and subjected to a massive amount of garlic.
Disclaimer: This thread contains my own opinion on the possibility of cancer treatment with natural substances. Please consult a medical professional, such as a naturopathic doctor, before attempting to treat yourself or your loved ones for deadly diseases. Make sure to do a lot of research on the options available to you.
There are certain people in the world who will tell you that cancer is terrible and impossible to cure without hundreds of thousands of dollars of state of the art medical care. I am here to tell you that this is false. Curing cancer is trivial. One does not need to consult an industry which profiteers off the backs of the dying. One merely needs to consult nature, which has already provided everything we need for our survival.
Natural remedies are the best remedies because humans and their natural food sources are in symbioses. Our fruits and vegetables depend on animals to spread their seeds through their feces, and will never deliberately hurt us. In fact, they have evolved to benefit us, as we benefit them, and make sure to feed us with an assortment of vitamins and nutrition as incentive.
We also have shared enemies with the plants, such as fungus, bacteria, and viruses. Plants will also get cancer (http://www.popsci.com/article/science/ask-anything-do-plants-get-cancer), just like we do. It stands to reason, therefore, that anything a plant makes to repel those things will benefit us as well.
One such cure for cancer involves the usage of garlic and peppers, which will kill cancer cells. Consider this man, Kelley Eidem, author of The Doctor Who Cures Cancer, who cured his own Stage 4 Cancer in 2 weeks and $20:
How I Cured My Stage 4 Cancer In Two Weeks For Less Than The Cost Of A Night At The Movies (http://kelleyeidem.hubpages.com/hub/How-I-Cured-Stage-4-Cancer-in-Two-Weeks-For-Less-Than-The-Cost-Of-A-Night-At-The-Movies)QuoteFor several decades, modern medicine has tried a lot of toxic compounds, hoping to 'out-toxic' the cancer. And sure enough, the compounds did out-toxic cancer. Unfortunately, it usually out-toxics the patient as well. The result has been that cancer treatments are usually an expensive, painful and scary proposition. But you already knew that.
I didn't go bald or get sick to my stomach!
Fortunately, my Stage 4 cancer was none of the above for me. My advanced cancer treatment cost less than two tickets and popcorn at the movies. My treatment wasn't painful. And I wasn't scared...I didn't lose a minute's sleep...because I knew what to do. If we've learned anything about treating cancer in the last 50 to 60 years it has to be this: half killing the patient isn't half way successful. As I emphatically told a woman in my store recently, "You gotta be healthy to get well! In my own case, I knew by the many lesions I had that I was already sick. I didn't need someone to help make me sicker. I needed to get healthy, so I could get well.
UCLA Researchers Confirm My Method!
Maybe the best place to start with this would be to let you know that researchers at UCLA garnered lots of headlines two years ago because they had done something pretty incredible. (1) What had the UCLA researchers done? They shrank tumors by 80% with the heat from habaneros peppers. That is quite extraordinary in terms of what is usually accomplished with toxic drugs.
It's also worth noting that in the US the State of New Mexico has the lowest cancer mortality rate of all 50 states. They probably eat more peppers in New Mexico per capita than all the other states, too. In other words, the researchers at UCLA made a great choice in examining the anti-cancer properties of hot peppers.
My own success in curing myself with habaneros peppers preceded the UCLA researchers by seven years. And I didn't shrink my many tumors by 80%...I shrank them 100%. UCLA's research results did confirm that my own method was an extremely powerful weapon against cancer. I'm eternally grateful for their confirmation. But then, I used habaneros peppers PLUS two more low tech ingredients...running rings around the findings made by the UCLA guys and gals.
Here is his recipe from that link:QuoteHere's a real brief recipe list here.
(1) Grate one habanero pepper each day, putting it on bread. Yes, you use the seeds. (2) Grate two cloves of garlic each day, putting them on bread and covering with butter. (3) One tablespoon of Emulsified cod liver oil once or twice each day.* TwinLabs makes some wonderfully flavored cod liver oil.
The cod liver oil is not put on the sandwich. One serving of the oil may be taken before or after eating the sandwich with the same meal
I used the cod liver oil because I was not losing any weight or dealing with fluid retention. If I had either of those conditions, I would have used evening primrose oil or borage oil instead of the emulsified cod liver oil, taking 6,000 mgs a day in divided doses.*
(4) Smother the grated garlic and habaneros peppers with real butter and eat it. Organic or raw butter is best. No margarines of any type, including Smart Balance, etc.
If hot peppers didn't agree with me, then ginger is what I would use - and yes I trust the ginger just as much as the habanero to do the job.
That's it!
* The best way to determine which oil I would use can be determined easily if there is pain. In fact there are two ways. One way would be to drink a cup of black coffee with two boiled eggs. (boiled only.) If that made me feel worse, I'd take 1 or 2 tablespoons of emulsified cod liver oil. If the coffee and eggs made me feel better, I'd take 6,000 mgs of borage oil or evening primrose oil.
The potent active ingredients from the peppers and the garlic disperse quickly. So they must be grated each day, and eaten immediately.
We also learn that this recipe can treat many types of cancer:Quote1AA - Has your recipe cured my type of cancer?
I have some great news for you. Doctors and TV have miseducated us into thinking there are over 100 types of cancer. There is only one true cancer cell. That means all true cancer cells are identical. They look different only due to the involved tissue.
Doctors call true cancer cells "highly undifferentiated." IOW, they are looking at a real cancer cell but don't know it because in their mind they think it is supposed to look different!
So you can take heart when you read about any of the accounts here. A colon cancer is a breast cancer is a leukemia etc, etc, etc. There is no difference between any of those cancers other than the involved non cancerous tissue and the surrounding pH. Yes, the cancer cells will distort the way the particular tissue or organ looks like. But the cancer is the same.
The Stage numbers given to cancer (I, II, III, IV) are merely describing how much cancer there is and how far it has spread. Staging doesn't change the nature of the actual cancer cells on iota - there are just more of them.
I think this whole thread is highly irresponsble and immoral given the numbers of people who die each day from this particular affliction. Its also massively insulting to all those who are currently enduring the various types of chemo and radiation therapies that are required.Meta analysis would be great. But the short answer is, certain dietary and lifestyle habits can give you an edge in beating and warding off cancer. A certain number of people, probably quite a small number, have possibly avoided cancer or even fought off an early, light attack by sticking to certain healthy habits.
Why i would like to see is a meta analysis of the studies that have been carried out on which the claim is based.
I think this whole thread is highly irresponsble and immoral given the numbers of people who die each day from this particular affliction. Its also massively insulting to all those who are currently enduring the various types of chemo and radiation therapies that are required.Meta analysis would be great. But the short answer is, certain dietary and lifestyle habits can give you an edge in beating and warding off cancer. A certain number of people, probably quite a small number, have possibly avoided cancer or even fought off an early, light attack by sticking to certain healthy habits.
Why i would like to see is a meta analysis of the studies that have been carried out on which the claim is based.
While the thread title may contain some small element of truth, it is at best misleading and in my opinion it is false.
More accurate would be "In Some Rare Cases Some Types of Cancer May Be Cured By Maintaining Strict Adherence to Certain Lifestyle Habits"
Go home and die. that's what doctors told 59 year old Arlindo Olivera.
His lung cancer was so advanced, it had spread to his brain and doctors said there was nothing they could do.
Today, Arlindo is cancer free.
Arlindo Oliviera a Lung Cancer Survivor says "My pulmonary doctor told me, whatever you are doing, keep doing it."
Arlindo believes his cancer is gone because of vitamin C treatment.
Arlindo says "It's working on me from what the doctor says."
Dr. Scott Greenberg says he has successfully treated many people with vitamin C infusions, including Arlindo.
I am telling you that cancer is not generally easily cured with common grocery store items.Are you telling me that Arlindo was coincidentally cured for reasons that have nothing to do with his alternative treatment?I think this whole thread is highly irresponsble and immoral given the numbers of people who die each day from this particular affliction. Its also massively insulting to all those who are currently enduring the various types of chemo and radiation therapies that are required.Meta analysis would be great. But the short answer is, certain dietary and lifestyle habits can give you an edge in beating and warding off cancer. A certain number of people, probably quite a small number, have possibly avoided cancer or even fought off an early, light attack by sticking to certain healthy habits.
Why i would like to see is a meta analysis of the studies that have been carried out on which the claim is based.
While the thread title may contain some small element of truth, it is at best misleading and in my opinion it is false.
More accurate would be "In Some Rare Cases Some Types of Cancer May Be Cured By Maintaining Strict Adherence to Certain Lifestyle Habits"
Do you maintain that, despite articles like this, that naturopathic doctors who engage in these types of alternative treatments like this are frauds?
People are claiming that incurable Stage 4 cancers have been cured!You need to acknowledge that the title of this thread does not reflect reality.
Why can't you pick a side on this important matter? You need to form an opinion on the article I have posted and the many Vitamin C articles like it. Are all of the people and doctors in the articles liars or not?
The assertion of "it is possible they are liars" does not really tell us much or give us anything more to talk about. You may as well not have posted at all.
Whilst there is increasing interest in high dose Vitamin C injections in the treatment of cancer, and evidence that such high doses can be effective in some cases, the 300-400mg/100g needed to be present in the plasma can never ever, ever, ever, be reached by ingesting oranges or supplement pills, they must be administered by medical professionals observing scientific principles.
Whereas dietary supplements seem to have little effect https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=16808775
To suggest that this line of “scientifically” generated treatment in any way backs the mumbo-jumbo assertion this thread is labelled with, would beggar belief in any other than a Tom one.
People are claiming that incurable Stage 4 cancers have been cured!You need to acknowledge that the title of this thread does not reflect reality.
Why can't you pick a side on this important matter? You need to form an opinion on the article I have posted and the many Vitamin C articles like it. Are all of the people and doctors in the articles liars or not?
The assertion of "it is possible they are liars" does not really tell us much or give us anything more to talk about. You may as well not have posted at all.
Tom you pushed a lot of "correlation equals causation" narratives in the last 2 pages. It doesn't hold together because it doesn't show that carrots/prayer/Chinese medicine could be the only cause of the change in people's condition.
The placebo effect and morale are well known to be effective but that is about patient belief in health and well-being and nothing to do with garlic/carrots/bullshit medicine.
If Garlic is complete BS, please explain the following:
http://truedemocracyparty.net/2013/11/garlic-the-natural-cure-8-scientific-studies-that-prove-garlic-kills-cancer-dead-dead-dead/QuoteIn Dr. Earl Mindell’s Garlic: The Miracle Nutrient, a 1957 study in the journal Science reported that researchers incubated sarcoma tumor cells with the garlic compound Allinase and S-ethyl-L-cysteine sulfoxide, then injected the tumor cells into mice. Tumor growth was completely inhibited and the mice survived beyond the sixth month observation period according to researchers. Mice injected with the tumor cells only (without the garlic compound), survived only 2 months.
http://www.miracleofgarlic.com/cancer-and-garlic/QuoteThe good news is research into garlic against cancer has shown positive results. In laboratory tests with mice, garlic stabilized and actually shrunk tumors. In mice injected with garlic extracts, tumor growth decreased by 30-50%. In mice that were given dietary garlic, the growths decreased by 10-25%.
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9707/21/nfm.garlic.cancer/index.htmlQuoteOne study, at the Mercy Cancer Institute in Pittsburgh, shows that garlic can help slow the growth of tumors.
"We have shown that some of these compounds prevent cancer in animals, and we hope that's the case in humans," said Shivendra Singh of the institute.
"We know how these garlic compounds are inhibiting cancer, but whether or not they have some kind of specificity for certain types of tumors, that remains to be seen," he said.
Other studies, some of them at West Virginia University, have found that garlic can inhibit the growth of breast cancer.
Also, says Dr. Donald Lamm of West Virginia University, "garlic very significantly reduced the growth of bladder tumors in mice."
Researchers at the university think garlic may help boost the immune system in laboratory mice, thereby reducing the growth of cancerous cells.
What I really think is that cancer is not generally easily cured with common grocery store items.Do you really think he would have been respected as a father of medicine if his patients were dying all the time?People are claiming that incurable Stage 4 cancers have been cured!You need to acknowledge that the title of this thread does not reflect reality.
Why can't you pick a side on this important matter? You need to form an opinion on the article I have posted and the many Vitamin C articles like it. Are all of the people and doctors in the articles liars or not?
The assertion of "it is possible they are liars" does not really tell us much or give us anything more to talk about. You may as well not have posted at all.
What I really think is that cancer is not generally easily cured with common grocery store items.
Garlic Could Prevent Millions Of Deaths
A quick perusal of a literature provided by the National Library of Medicine, contains 4525 study abstracts on garlic (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Allium+sativum) indicates that garlic has a significant role to play in preventing or treating well over 150 health conditions, ranging from cancer to diabetes, infection to plaque buildup in the arteries, DNA damage to mercury poisoning!
Garlic is great and good for your health and most likely has cancer fighting properties! Hippocrates was great and I have not concluded he is a fraud.What I really think is that cancer is not generally easily cured with common grocery store items.
How have you concluded that that Hippocrates was a fraud who didn't cure people of cancer, anyway?
Garlic is great and good for your health and most likely has cancer fighting properties! Hippocrates was great and I have not concluded he is a fraud.What I really think is that cancer is not generally easily cured with common grocery store items.
How have you concluded that that Hippocrates was a fraud who didn't cure people of cancer, anyway?
What I have concluded is that "Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items" is a misleading and inaccurate statement.
Garlic is great and good for your health and most likely has cancer fighting properties! Hippocrates was great and I have not concluded he is a fraud.What I really think is that cancer is not generally easily cured with common grocery store items.
How have you concluded that that Hippocrates was a fraud who didn't cure people of cancer, anyway?
What I have concluded is that "Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items" is a misleading and inaccurate statement.
Garlic is a grocery store item. Hippocrates cured people with cancers with crushed garlic. If you agree the accounts that cancers have been reversed with garlic, then you are agreeing that cancer has been treated with a grocery store item.
If you do not agree with those accounts, then you are calling Hippocrates and others frauds, which needs explaining.
Tom where are the scientific papers we can reference to back up your claim?
Tom where are the scientific papers we can reference to back up your claim?
There are plenty of scientific papers which back up the many wonderful abilities of garlic. In my last few posts on this page I posted a link to a database with thousands of them, as well as specifically quoting studies showing that cancers have been reversed in animals. Natural physcians like Hippocrates are well regarded to have cured cancers with garlic.
Do you think that the drug companies would fund large human trials with garlic? They don't do that with Vitamin C IVs. Neither Garlic or Vitamin C is patentable. The law says that things which occur naturally and are found in nature are not patentable. There is no money to be made by promoting use of those things.
You guys are implying that the father of medicine was a fraud, and you really need to support this rather serious accusation.
No thats you shamelessly putting words in people's mouthes like you always do because you are utterly unethical. Unless I am mistaken, you support skepticism.
I do not agree that it is accurate to say that cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items.Garlic is great and good for your health and most likely has cancer fighting properties! Hippocrates was great and I have not concluded he is a fraud.What I really think is that cancer is not generally easily cured with common grocery store items.
How have you concluded that that Hippocrates was a fraud who didn't cure people of cancer, anyway?
What I have concluded is that "Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items" is a misleading and inaccurate statement.
Garlic is a grocery store item. Hippocrates cured people with cancers with crushed garlic. If you agree with the accounts that cancers have been reversed with garlic, then you are agreeing that cancer has been treated with a grocery store item.
If you do not agree with those accounts, then you are calling Hippocrates and others frauds, which needs explaining.
I do not agree that it is accurate to say that cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items.Garlic is great and good for your health and most likely has cancer fighting properties! Hippocrates was great and I have not concluded he is a fraud.What I really think is that cancer is not generally easily cured with common grocery store items.
How have you concluded that that Hippocrates was a fraud who didn't cure people of cancer, anyway?
What I have concluded is that "Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items" is a misleading and inaccurate statement.
Garlic is a grocery store item. Hippocrates cured people with cancers with crushed garlic. If you agree with the accounts that cancers have been reversed with garlic, then you are agreeing that cancer has been treated with a grocery store item.
If you do not agree with those accounts, then you are calling Hippocrates and others frauds, which needs explaining.
Hippocrates did not say that cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items.
As far as I know you are the only one stating that.
No thats you shamelessly putting words in people's mouthes like you always do because you are utterly unethical. Unless I am mistaken, you support skepticism.
How would Hippocrates lieing about curing people with cancer not be fraudulent? You need to explain what is happening there. Hippocrates and other naturopathic doctors have claimed to cure cancers with garlic.
You need to either agree with it or call Hippocrates, who is considered the father of medicine and the most outstanding figure in the history of medicine, a fraud.
Hippocrates did not state that cancer is easily cured with garlic. If he did, he made a misleading statement at best. It is not accurate to say that cancer is easily cured with garlic.I do not agree that it is accurate to say that cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items.Garlic is great and good for your health and most likely has cancer fighting properties! Hippocrates was great and I have not concluded he is a fraud.What I really think is that cancer is not generally easily cured with common grocery store items.
How have you concluded that that Hippocrates was a fraud who didn't cure people of cancer, anyway?
What I have concluded is that "Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items" is a misleading and inaccurate statement.
Garlic is a grocery store item. Hippocrates cured people with cancers with crushed garlic. If you agree with the accounts that cancers have been reversed with garlic, then you are agreeing that cancer has been treated with a grocery store item.
If you do not agree with those accounts, then you are calling Hippocrates and others frauds, which needs explaining.
Hippocrates did not say that cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items.
As far as I know you are the only one stating that.
Hippocrates said that cancer is cured with crushed garlic. Garlic is a grocery store item.
Which sentence do you disagree with? Does your grocery store not carry garlic?
Lecture on "The Origin and Progress of Medicine - the different Systems, &c."
By Dr. J. Caplin, Manchester
...
I knew a lady some years ago, who had a cancer in her breast; and, after many consultations, it was thought that there was no remedy for it but by extraction by the knife. She went to Paris, and met with the same opinion; but before submitting to the operation, she resolved to consult the sisters of the convent of the Cacre Coeur de Jesus; and those Hippocratic women doctors took her under their treatment and cured her. The recipe consisted of herbs, milk, and flour boiled together, and applied as a poultice, morning and evening. So this dreadful disorder, which baffled scientific knowledge, yielded to the therapeutics of Hippocrates.
Hippocrates did recommend and prescribe garlic for cancer. The entire world is against you.
"Allium sativum (Garlic) has been used for thousands of years to treat various diseases. The earliest use of Allium sativum as a medicine has been recorded in ancient Egypt, Greece, India, China, Rome, Russia and Europe. Hippocrates was the first to recommend its use for cancer." (Researchgate.net (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ashu_Mittal/publication/262007412_Role_of_herbals_in_cancer_management/links/00b4953648ed6a6b32000000/Role-of-herbals-in-cancer-management.pdf))
"Hippocrates recommended crushed garlic to his patients in large amounts to cure their cancer" (naturalnews.com (https://www.naturalnews.com/044329_beating_cancer_garlic_alliums.html))
"However, the theraputic value of garlic was already recognized since, Hippocrates (460-357 B.C.) perscribed eating garlic in uterine tumors" (The Sitech Journal (http://thescitech.com/admin/includes/abstractpdf/2014-9-05536cdd2c1d2a2.pdf))
"Medicinal use of garlic has been known for over 3000 years. Already Hippocrates prescribed it for the treatment of cervical cancer" (doctorsbeyondmedicine.com (http://www.doctorsbeyondmedicine.com/listing/garlic))
"Hippocrates, the famous Greek physician, prescribed eating garlic as treatment for cancers." (truedemocracyparty.net (http://truedemocracyparty.net/2013/01/garlic-natural-cancer-killer-and-prevention-studies-demonstrating-the-effects-of-garlic-to-treat-and-cure-cancer-including-brain-tumors/))
"Hippocrates prescribed garlic for protecting the skin against toxins or treating abdominal tumors" (healthfreedoms.org (http://www.healthfreedoms.org/garlics-allicin-is-a-major-disease-fighter-of-cancer-heart-disease-and-cognitive-decline/))
"The Greek physician, Hippocrates, recommended garlic for pulmonary conditions, sores, and cancer." (Evidence-based Anticancer Materia Medica (https://books.google.com/books?id=Msr6HCbh0dQC&lpg=PA194&ots=zegq99eiRe&dq=Hippocrates%20prescribed%20garlic%20for%20protecting%20the%20skin%20against%20toxins%20or%20treating%20abdominal%20tumors&pg=PA194#v=onepage&q=Hippocrates%20prescribed%20garlic%20for%20protecting%20the%20skin%20against%20toxins%20or%20treating%20abdominal%20tumors&f=false))
A testimonial from The Monthly Literary and Scientific Lecturer (https://books.google.com/books?id=wpXD3gGz6SMC&dq=Hippocrates%20cancer%20garlic&pg=PP41#v=onepage&q=Hippocrates%20cancer%20garlic&f=false) ---QuoteLecture on "The Origin and Progress of Medicine - the different Systems, &c."
By Dr. J. Caplin, Manchester
...
I knew a lady some years ago, who had a cancer in her breast; and, after many consultations, it was thought that there was no remedy for it but by extraction by the knife. She went to Paris, and met with the same opinion; but before submitting to the operation, she resolved to consult the sisters of the convent of the Cacre Coeur de Jesus; and those Hippocratic women doctors took her under their treatment and cured her. The recipe consisted of herbs, milk, and flour boiled together, and applied as a poultice, morning and evening. So this dreadful disorder, which baffled scientific knowledge, yielded to the therapeutics of Hippocrates.
Hippocrates did recommend and prescribe garlic for cancer. The entire world is against you.Recommending and prescribing garlic for cancer =/= Stating that cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items
So, you would expect those countries that consumed the most garlic to have the lowest cancer rates?
Hippocrates did recommend and prescribe garlic for cancer. The entire world is against you.Recommending and prescribing garlic for cancer =/= Stating that cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items
SMH
I just posted a testimony by a doctor who stated that their patient was cured of breast cancer by following the therapeutics of Hippocrates.
There are hundreds of references online stating that he treated people with cancer with garlic and other grocery store items.
The fact that it does not follow from your studies or testimonials that cancer is easily cured. Not by grocery store items or any other known remedy.
So, you would expect those countries that consumed the most garlic to have the lowest cancer rates?
Hippocrates and other nautopaths had their patients eat a truly massive amount of garlic in their prescriptions. I am not sure that such statistics would tell us anything.
If you actually followed the types of instructions Hippocrates gave you, you would absolutely reek of garlic through every pore of your body. Your breath would smell of it. Your body would smell of it. No one would want to be around you, and you would not even want to be around yourself. You would have to isolate yourself from society until you were cured.
This is actually the reason why in nauturopathic circles solutions such as Vitamin C IVs are more popular for treating cancer these days, despite the cheapness and availability of garlic. The whole heavy powerful herb approach has its social drawbacks. There are no such stigmatizing side effects with the Vitamin C IVs.Hippocrates did recommend and prescribe garlic for cancer. The entire world is against you.Recommending and prescribing garlic for cancer =/= Stating that cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items
SMH
Hippocrates is originator of the phrase "Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food." Translation: The key to good health is found in the grocery store. Choose your food wisely and eat well.
I just posted a testimony by a doctor who stated that their patient was cured of breast cancer by following the therapeutics of Hippocrates. There are hundreds of references online stating that he treated people with cancer with garlic and other grocery store items.
I have shown you scientific studies showing that animals have been cured of cancer by feeding them garlic. What more is there to discuss?
We should discuss where we can find evidence that it works on humans.
The fact that it does not follow from your studies or testimonials that cancer is easily cured. Not by grocery store items or any other known remedy.]The fact that it does not follow from your studies or testimonials that cancer is easily cured. Not by grocery store items or any other known remedy.
We should discuss where we can find evidence that it works on humans.
Is Hippocrates famous for curing illnesses in dogs?
I'm petty sure people would know if his therapeutics did not work.
You don't become father of medicine and the greatest figure in the history of medicine if your patients were known for dying all the time.
Where are those anti-Hippocrates articles?
You are backed into a corner. Your argument is bad. There are thousands of university studies into garlic which say that garlic is anti-cancer. Why can't we find studies saying that garlic does nothing for cancer? The evidence is entirely on my side. Entirely.
Recommending and prescribing garlic for cancer =/= Stating that cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items
Exactly. My claim is that cancer is not easily cured with common grocery store items. That's what I'm defending. It does not follow from the studies you've presented that cancer is easily cured - by garlic or any other method. What need for further rebuttal?We should discuss where we can find evidence that it works on humans.
Is Hippocrates famous for curing illnesses in dogs? I'm petty sure people would know if his therapeutics did not work. You don't become father of medicine and the greatest figure in the history of medicine if your patients were known for dying all the time. Where are those anti-Hippocrates articles?
You are backed into a corner. Your argument is bad. There are thousands of university studies into garlic which say that garlic is anti-cancer. Why can't we find studies saying that garlic does nothing for cancer? The evidence is entirely on the naturopathic side. Entirely.QuoteThe fact that it does not follow from your studies or testimonials that cancer is easily cured. Not by grocery store items or any other known remedy.]The fact that it does not follow from your studies or testimonials that cancer is easily cured. Not by grocery store items or any other known remedy.
You are not even attempting a rebuttal of the university cancer studies with animals, which showed that cancer was reversed.
He is an article that dispels the myth of Hippocrates are the source of all the acts and writings that we attribute to him.
https://theconversation.com/hippocrates-didnt-write-the-oath-so-why-is-he-the-father-of-medicine-32334
In fact it is widely accepted that Hippocrates did not write the oath, no text in the hippocratic corpus can definitely be attributed to him and it is more likely that these texts were assembled over a few centuries by various people. Some historians have identified as many as 19 authors involved in the Hippocratic corpus. So... you can kindly refrain from pushing your argument from authority, thanks.
The original oath was written in Ionic Greek, between the fifth and third centuries BC.[1] Although it is traditionally attributed to the Greek doctor Hippocrates and it is usually included in the Hippocratic Corpus, most modern scholars do not regard it as having been written by Hippocrates himself.
You are increasingly needing to provide evidence that a sweeping statement like "Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items" is realistic.
In fact, cancer is not easily cured. It is exceptionally difficult to cure.
I think this whole thread is highly irresponsble and immoral given the numbers of people who die each day from this particular affliction. Its also massively insulting to all those who are currently enduring the various types of chemo and radiation therapies that are required.Meta analysis would be great. But the short answer is, certain dietary and lifestyle habits can give you an edge in beating and warding off cancer. A certain number of people, probably quite a small number, have possibly avoided cancer or even fought off an attack by sticking to certain healthy habits.
Why i would like to see is a meta analysis of the studies that have been carried out on which the claim is based.
So, you would expect those countries that consumed the most garlic to have the lowest cancer rates?
Hippocrates and other nautopaths had their patients eat a truly massive amount of garlic in their prescriptions. I am not sure that such statistics would tell us anything.
If you actually followed the types of instructions Hippocrates gave you, you would absolutely reek of garlic through every pore of your body. Your breath would smell of it. Your body would smell of it. No one would want to be around you, and you would not even want to be around yourself. You would have to isolate yourself from society until you were cured.
This is actually the reason why in nauturopathic circles solutions such as Vitamin C IVs are more popular for treating cancer these days, despite the cheapness and availability of garlic. The whole heavy powerful herb approach has its social drawbacks. There are no such stigmatizing side effects with the Vitamin C IVs.
So these wonder drugs we should get from the grocers, don't work in low doses, even at 13 times the average, you had better not tell that to the Homoeopaths.True story.
Sock horror in homeopathic cholera statisticsBack then homoeopathy did nothing, which was less harmful than the then current "mainstream" medical treatments.
This is the second paragraph from Ben Goldacre’s recent comment piece Benefits and risks of homeopathy in The Lancet’s November 17 edition.
During the cholera epidemic in the 19th century, death rates at the London Homoeopathic Hospital were three times lower than those at the Middlesex Hospital. (6) The reason for homoeopathy’s success in this epidemic is even more interesting than the placebo effect. At the time, nobody could treat cholera, and while medical treatments such as blood-letting were actively harmful, the homoeopaths’ treatments were at least inert.
(6) Hempel S. The medical detective. London, UK: Granta Books, 2006
From: Laughing my socks off … A weblog about science, homeopathy and spin. And socks. (https://laughingmysocksoff.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/sock-horror-in-cholera-statistics/)
More dribble from the king of dribble.
I go through about 5 garlic bulbs a week as well as ounces of garlic powder and have capsaicin at every meal. I love hot food and sometimes eat a fistful of pickled garlic for a snack. Rather than sugar, which i don't eat, I even put garlic, chilies, black pepper and cumin in my oatmeal then put an over-easy egg on it. Thing about garlick is, once you get acclimated to it, you stop stinking of it. Your body just be gets better at breaking it down a metabolizing it.
This is not a fad thing I got onto by myself either. I lived in Africa for 6 years and both my parents lived in India (and of course Africa) for years. This is the way I've always done it, the way of my upbringing. My Mother who also ate garlic like it was popcorn died of cancer around the time this hokum post got started. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Not a nice way to go.
Tom, pray you don't get cancer. All the garlic and chili peppers in the world are not going to save you.
Tom you pushed a lot of "correlation equals causation" narratives in the last 2 pages. It doesn't hold together because it doesn't show that carrots/prayer/Chinese medicine could be the only cause of the change in people's condition.
The placebo effect and morale are well known to be effective but that is about patient belief in health and well-being and nothing to do with garlic/carrots/bullshit medicine.
If Garlic is complete BS, please explain the following:
http://truedemocracyparty.net/2013/11/garlic-the-natural-cure-8-scientific-studies-that-prove-garlic-kills-cancer-dead-dead-dead/QuoteIn Dr. Earl Mindell’s Garlic: The Miracle Nutrient, a 1957 study in the journal Science reported that researchers incubated sarcoma tumor cells with the garlic compound Allinase and S-ethyl-L-cysteine sulfoxide, then injected the tumor cells into mice. Tumor growth was completely inhibited and the mice survived beyond the sixth month observation period according to researchers. Mice injected with the tumor cells only (without the garlic compound), survived only 2 months.
http://www.miracleofgarlic.com/cancer-and-garlic/QuoteThe good news is research into garlic against cancer has shown positive results. In laboratory tests with mice, garlic stabilized and actually shrunk tumors. In mice injected with garlic extracts, tumor growth decreased by 30-50%. In mice that were given dietary garlic, the growths decreased by 10-25%.
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9707/21/nfm.garlic.cancer/index.htmlQuoteOne study, at the Mercy Cancer Institute in Pittsburgh, shows that garlic can help slow the growth of tumors.
"We have shown that some of these compounds prevent cancer in animals, and we hope that's the case in humans," said Shivendra Singh of the institute.
"We know how these garlic compounds are inhibiting cancer, but whether or not they have some kind of specificity for certain types of tumors, that remains to be seen," he said.
Other studies, some of them at West Virginia University, have found that garlic can inhibit the growth of breast cancer.
Also, says Dr. Donald Lamm of West Virginia University, "garlic very significantly reduced the growth of bladder tumors in mice."
Researchers at the university think garlic may help boost the immune system in laboratory mice, thereby reducing the growth of cancerous cells.
Conclusions:
Administration of AGE (aged garlic extract ) resulted in improved immune responses against experimentally implanted fibrosarcoma tumors in BALB/c mice. AGE showed significant effects on inhibition of tumor growth and longevity of survival times.
The Anticancer Effects of Garlic Extracts on Bladder Cancer Compared to Cisplatin
Abstract
Although garlic induces apoptosis in cancer cells, it is unclear whether the effects are similar to those of cisplatin against bladder cancer (BC). Therefore, this study investigated whether garlic extracts and cisplatin show similar activity when used to treat BC. The effect of garlic on T24 BC cell line was examined in a BALB/C-nude mouse xenograft model and compared with that of cisplatin. Tissue microarray analysis and gene network analysis were performed to identify differences in gene expression by control tumors and tumors exposed to garlic extract or cisplatin. Investigation of gene expression based on tissues from 165 BC patients and normal controls was then performed to identify common targets of garlic and cisplatin. Tumor volume and tumor weight in cisplatin (0.05[Formula: see text]mg/kg)- and garlic-treated mice were significantly smaller than those in negative control mice. However, cisplatin-treated mice also showed a significant reduction in body weight. Microarray analysis of tumor tissue identified 515 common anticancer genes in the garlic and cisplatin groups ([Formula: see text]). Gene network analysis of 252 of these genes using the Cytoscape and ClueGo software packages mapped 17 genes and 9 gene ontologies to gene networks. BC (NMIBC and MIBC) patients with low expression of centromere protein M (CENPM) showed significantly better progression-free survival than those with high expression. Garlic extract shows anticancer activity in vivo similar to that of cisplatin, with no evidence of side effects. Both appear to act by targeting protein-DNA complex assembly; in particular, expression of CENPM.
2.1. Cell Lines and Cultivation
Cell lines: A549 (human alveolar basal epithelial adenocarcinoma cell, ATCC#CCL-185), NIH 3T3
(neonatal fibroblasts from Mouse, ATCC#CRL-1658) HUVEC (human umbilical vein endothelial cells),
HT29 (human colorectal epithelial carcinoma, ATCC#HTB-38) and MCF7 (human mammary carcinoma,
ATCC#HTB-22) were from the Department of Immunology, Cochin Hospital, Paris Descartes
University, Paris, France. Cells were cultivated in complete medium containing RPMI Medium
(Roswell Park Memorial Institute Medium, Invitrogen) containing 10% FCS (foetal calf serum) and
1% Penicillin/Streptomycin (10,000 U/mL) (Invitrogen, Waltham, MA, USA). Cells were incubated at
37 C and 5% CO2.
...
These data show that allicin is an inhibitor of cell viability and cell proliferation in a concentration
dependent manner, but that different cell lines show different sensitivities.
Please consult a medical professional, such as a naturopathic doctor
He is an article that dispels the myth of Hippocrates are the source of all the acts and writings that we attribute to him.Providing revisionist history does nothing to support your position.
https://theconversation.com/hippocrates-didnt-write-the-oath-so-why-is-he-the-father-of-medicine-32334
In fact it is widely accepted that Hippocrates did not write the oath, no text in the hippocratic corpus can definitely be attributed to him and it is more likely that these texts were assembled over a few centuries by various people. Some historians have identified as many as 19 authors involved in the Hippocratic corpus. So... you can kindly refrain from pushing your argument from authority, thanks.
He is an article that dispels the myth of Hippocrates are the source of all the acts and writings that we attribute to him.Providing revisionist history does nothing to support your position.
https://theconversation.com/hippocrates-didnt-write-the-oath-so-why-is-he-the-father-of-medicine-32334
In fact it is widely accepted that Hippocrates did not write the oath, no text in the hippocratic corpus can definitely be attributed to him and it is more likely that these texts were assembled over a few centuries by various people. Some historians have identified as many as 19 authors involved in the Hippocratic corpus. So... you can kindly refrain from pushing your argument from authority, thanks.
I don't have time to read all 12 pages.
So can someone quickly post the studies which prove that 'cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items'?
(P.s. if you applied garlic to this forum, would it cease to exist?)
Microarray analysis of tumor tissue identified 515 common anticancer genes in the garlic and cisplatin groups ([Formula: see text]). Gene network analysis of 252 of these genes using the Cytoscape and ClueGo software packages mapped 17 genes and 9 gene ontologies to gene networks. BC (NMIBC and MIBC) patients with low expression of centromere protein M (CENPM) showed significantly better progression-free survival than those with high expression. Garlic extract shows anticancer activity in vivo similar to that of cisplatin, with no evidence of side effects. Both appear to act by targeting protein-DNA complex assembly; in particular, expression of CENPM.
Hippocrates said that cancer is cured with crushed garlic. Garlic is a grocery store item.How many cases of what kinds of cancer did Hippocrates treat with crushed garlic? How many of what kinds of cancers were actually cured by the crushed garlic? How many of the patients did he treat with crushed garlic (or any other other common grocery store items) that died of cancer anyway? I don't know about you Tom, but I consider the success to failure rate of a proposed treatment to be fairly important.
Which sentence do you disagree with? Does your grocery store not carry garlic?
I'm talking about #227. The study says that it was tested in vivo.I'm not sure if you have actually read the study. Let me explain it to you:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29595070QuoteMicroarray analysis of tumor tissue identified 515 common anticancer genes in the garlic and cisplatin groups ([Formula: see text]). Gene network analysis of 252 of these genes using the Cytoscape and ClueGo software packages mapped 17 genes and 9 gene ontologies to gene networks. BC (NMIBC and MIBC) patients with low expression of centromere protein M (CENPM) showed significantly better progression-free survival than those with high expression. Garlic extract shows anticancer activity in vivo similar to that of cisplatin, with no evidence of side effects. Both appear to act by targeting protein-DNA complex assembly; in particular, expression of CENPM.
The sentence says that garlic shows similar anticancer activity to that of the chemotherapy drug cisplatin, in vivo, and without the side effects of a chemotherapy drug.
- The study only takes into account the effect on bladder cancer in mice. They also only tested with one cell line.
- The study shows that Cisplatin in general has a stronger effect than garlic
- It also shows that the garlic has to be dosed very high to actually work (on humans that would be 80g garlic powder for an 80kg man... have fun eating that)
- There was only 6 mice in each group, which is very low and means randomness has a big influence
https://image.ibb.co/jZq01U/1.png
Do you still think, this study proves that 'Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items'?
Because I think this study only shows that garlic contains a molecule that can cause apoptosis if it's taken in very high doses. A fact that apparently is long known.
I do agree that research in that direction might be helpful in the fight against cancer, but the study certainly does not prove the title of this thread.
One cannot maintain that herbs do not cure when entire countries, such as China, have medical systems based around herbs.
There is a large gap in rates of survival between China, and Western countries including European nations and the United States.
However you are much less likely to get cancer in China, due to all the garlic you likely eat.
But to claim that garlic “cures” cancer. That is an out-and-out fallacy.Maybe you should take that up with Britain's NHS?
Garlic may be used to treat brain cancers, The Times reported on September 1 2007. The newspaper reported that scientists had found that certain organic compounds in garlic kill tumours. The type of tumour in question, glioblastoma, tends to kill people soon after they are diagnosed.
But to claim that garlic “cures” cancer. That is an out-and-out fallacy.Maybe you should take that up with Britain's NHS?
https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/garlic-study-raises-hopes-for-rare-brain-cancer/Quote from: https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/garlic-study-raises-hopes-for-rare-brain-cancer/Garlic may be used to treat brain cancers, The Times reported on September 1 2007. The newspaper reported that scientists had found that certain organic compounds in garlic kill tumours. The type of tumour in question, glioblastoma, tends to kill people soon after they are diagnosed.
So the NHS are just having a wild stab in the dark about garlic, are they? Maybe there is another entry where they suggest leeches or holy water?
The researchers found that all three compounds caused more glioblastoma cells to die (by a method known as apoptosis) than was observed in the untreated control cells. The higher the concentration of the compound used, the more cells died.
The NHS, as Tom pointed out, are basically saying clinical trials are on going, garlic does kill the cancer cells in the lab ... but there is no drug that can be sold for masses of profit at this time.Quote from: https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/garlic-study-raises-hopes-for-rare-brain-cancer/The researchers found that all three compounds caused more glioblastoma cells to die (by a method known as apoptosis) than was observed in the untreated control cells. The higher the concentration of the compound used, the more cells died.
Those are the results. Garlic kills cancer.
Aged garlic extract has potential suppressive effect on colorectal adenomas in humans.
Tanaka S1, Haruma K, Yoshihara M, Kajiyama G, Kira K, Amagase H, Chayama K.
Abstract
Epidemiological and animal studies suggest AGE and its organosulfur constituents, such as S-allylcysteine and S-allylmercaptocysteine have anticarcinogenic effects. To confirm these effects in humans, a preliminary double-blind, randomized clinical trial using high-dose AGE (AGE 2.4 mL/d) as an active treatment and low-dose AGE (AGE 0.16 mL/d) as a control was performed on patients with colorectal adenomas-precancerous lesions of the large bowel. The study enrolled 51 patients who were diagnosed as carrying colorectal adenomas. The patients were randomly assigned to the two groups after adenomas larger than 5 mm in diameter were removed by polypectomy. The number and size of adenomas right before intake (0 mo) and at 6 and 12 mo after intake were measured using colonoscopy. Thirty-seven patients (19 in the active group, 18 in the control group) completed the study and were evaluated for the efficacy of AGE. The number of adenomas increased linearly in the control group from the beginning (the baseline), but AGE significantly suppressed both the size and number of colon adenomas in patients after 12 mo of high-dose treatment (P=0.04). The results suggest AGE suppresses progression of colorectal adenomas in humans. It appears that AGE has multiple pathways to reduce cancer incidence and suppress its growth and proliferation.
Garlic suppresses cancer in humans:
Garlic suppresses cancer in humans:
Careful with statements like: "Garlic suppresses cancer in humans". There's a potential and is still being studied.
Garlic suppresses cancer in humans:
Careful with statements like: "Garlic suppresses cancer in humans". There's a potential and is still being studied.
I bet those people were pretty happy when the garlic suppressed their cancer.
The study you cited is a totally different study with different doses and cancers and timespans.
The people in the study I cited were given the same treatment and their cancers were suppressed in a double-blind study against a control group. The control group without the high doses of garlic had cancers which proliferated. How did those people in that study taking high dose garlic coincidentally regress?
Garlic suppresses cancer in humans:Tom, if your own source won't say with certainty that AGE suppresses cancer, then you shouldn't either.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484573QuoteAged garlic extract has potential suppressive effect on colorectal adenomas in humans.
Tanaka S1, Haruma K, Yoshihara M, Kajiyama G, Kira K, Amagase H, Chayama K.
...
The results suggest AGE suppresses progression of colorectal adenomas in humans. It appears that AGE has multiple pathways to reduce cancer incidence and suppress its growth and proliferation.
The study you cited is a totally different study with different doses and cancers and timespans.
The people in the study I cited were given the same treatment and their cancers were suppressed in a double-blind study against a control group. The control group without the high doses of garlic had cancers which proliferated. How did those people in that study taking high dose garlic coincidentally regress?
A Garlic Derivative, S-allylcysteine (SAC), Suppresses Proliferation and Metastasis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Abstract
Background
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is highly malignant and metastatic. Currently, there is no effective chemotherapy for patients with advanced HCC leading to an urgent need to seek for novel therapeutic options. We aimed to investigate the effect of a garlic derivative, S-allylcysteine (SAC), on the proliferation and metastasis of HCC.
Methodology/Principal Findings
A series of in vitro experiments including MTT, colony-forming, wound-healing, invasion, apoptosis and cell cycle assays were performed to examine the anti-proliferative and anti-metastatic effects of SAC on a metastatic HCC cell line MHCC97L. The therapeutic values of SAC single and combined with cisplatin treatments were examined in an in vivo orthotopic xenograft liver tumor model. The result showed that the proliferation rate and colony-forming abilities of MHCC97L cells were suppressed by SAC together with significant suppression of the expressions of proliferation markers, Ki-67 and proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA). Moreover, SAC hindered the migration and invasion of MHCC97L cells corresponding with up-regulation of E-cadherin and down-regulation of VEGF. Furthermore, SAC significantly induced apoptosis and necrosis of MHCC97L cells through suppressing Bcl-xL and Bcl-2 as well as activating caspase-3 and caspase-9. In addition, SAC could significantly induce the S phase arrest of MHCC97L cells together with down-regulation of cdc25c, cdc2 and cyclin B1. In vivo xenograft liver tumor model demonstrated that SAC single or combined with cisplatin treatment inhibited the progression and metastasis of HCC tumor.
Conclusions/Significance
Our data demonstrate the anti-proliferative and anti-metastatic effects of SAC on HCC cells and suggest that SAC may be a potential therapeutic agent for the treatment of HCC patients.
Garlic-Derived S-allylmercaptocysteine Is a Novel In vivo Antimetastatic Agent for Androgen-Independent Prostate Cancer
Abstract
Purpose: There is epidemiologic evidence that high garlic consumption decreases the incidence of prostate cancer, and compounds isolated from garlic have been shown to have cancer-preventive and tumor-suppressive effects. Recent in vitro studies in our laboratory have shown that garlic-derived organosulfur compound S-allylmercaptocysteine suppresses invasion and cell motility of androgen-independent prostate cancer cells via the up-regulation of cell-adhesion molecule E-cadherin. S-allylmercaptocysteine is therefore a potential antimetastatic drug with broad clinical applications that we tested in vivo for the first time in this study.
Experimental Design: We used a newly established fluorescent orthotopic androgen-independent prostate cancer mouse model to assess the ability of S-allylmercaptocysteine to inhibit tumor growth and dissemination.
Results: We showed that oral S-allylmercaptocysteine not only inhibited the growth of primary tumors by up to 71% (P < 0.001) but also reduced the number of lung and adrenal metastases by as much as 85.5% (P = 0.001) without causing notable toxicity. This metastatic suppression was accompanied by a 91% reduction of viable circulating tumor cells (P = 0.041), suggesting that S-allylmercaptocysteine prevents dissemination by decreasing tumor cell intravasation.
Conclusions: Our results provide in vivo evidence supporting the potential use of S-allylmercaptocysteine as an E-cadherin up-regulating antimetastatic agent for the treatment of androgen-independent prostate cancer. This is the first report of the in vivo antimetastatic properties of garlic, which may also apply to other cancer types.