Possible cure for cancer discovered

@Rebel Head
Yeah I am with asdf here. That all sounds like a bunch of snake oil to me. You don't need a PHD to know that what you described is suppose to sound scientific, when it's closer to a bunch of bull****.

 

ok, rebel head. you have ONE anecdotal piece of incomplete evidence. was she given any other drugs or treatment for her cancer, or just MMS? how do you know it was the MMS that cured it, if she was given anything else?

second: like i said before, if MMS actually worked, some scientist would have proved it. Researchers are, in the end, looking out for themselves. they discover a cure to cancer, you can bet they'll get famous, more money, tenure, nobel prize. nobody has published anything that says MMS works.

sure, chlorine dioxide kills stuff. so does bleach. like i said, this crap is about as effective as drinking diluted bleach. any claims about it being "selective" and choosing "only the bad things" is complete bull****.

 

You know why it's called 'alternative medicine?' Because it is alternative. Ever stop to think there's a reason it's not called 'mainstream medicine?' And the first person to gimme bull about 'big pharma' is gonna get smacked.

 

I am no doctor myself, I am training in the field of alternative and natural medicine however. I have seen the results of natural medicine with my own eyes, I have suggested friends and acquaintences to clinics that use such methods or have given certain kinds of medicine to them myself and they have always come back to me with amazing results. Not knowing much about natural treatments and prevention it is easy to be skeptical, but I encourage you to research it yourself and if you or a friend or family member is strickened with cancer, then I urge you to try out MMS, or any of the other things I suggested in my post above.

My friend had endometrial cancer. I don't know the full details of her treatment, but it did involve her taking MMS, and some other body detoxifying medicine I believe to be chlorella. I remember her treatment didn't take long at all, and about a week after when she was declared cancer free she went to the same doctors who were to diagnose her to run some tests, and they couldn't believe it.

Also, I would like to add that it IS the pharmaceutical companies who suppress this information. If you watch T.V. you'll notice that most commericals are drug advertisements paid by these drug companies. It's easy to see that most news and televised networks depend on the sponsoring of these drug companies, so it wouldn't be wise to advertise something they wouldnt like, such as MMS. The amount of profits pharmaceuticals make on cancer pills is mind boggeling. It's important to know that the pharmaceuticals are a business that depend on maximizing their profits, they cannot make sufficient money on a cure, especially one that can be abundant. Remember it is nothing personel, just business.

 

yeah, and for the "big pharma" argument: big pharmaceutical companies will not spend BILLIONS OF DOLLARS researching complex drugs if they can spend a few million researching this stuff, patent it, sell it themselves, and get BILLIONS OF DOLLARS of extra profit.

no company would turn down tons and tons of extra profit, no matter what kind of conspiracy theory you want to make up. and as for the commercials, no, drug ads make up a tiny minority of advertising. seems like cars get the lion's share of ad time. pharmacy companies have no control over television networks. certainly not newspapers. i don't recall the last time i actually saw a drug ad in a newspaper.

 

It is far more profitable to sell ineffective drugs then a cure. Ever heard of planned obselence? It's purpososely making a product to eventually fail so the consumer has to buy another one to replace it. It kind of works like that in the drug business ... consumers who buy the drugs don't ever get treated, and in some cases the drugs lead to dangerous side effects that make them more ill so they'll keep buying more and more drugs. Far more profitable then marketing a cure.

 

I know chorine dioxide, as that is the fusty smelling gas that's produced in abundance when acid is added to bleach... and it lingers in the house for days

from wikipedia:

I've no doubt that it can kill germs -- it is used in water treatment to this effect. But I doubt it is very selective about what body tissues it attacks if ingested, as it's chemistry derives from the ionic nature of the molecule, not from receptors.


I have heard of something called nanosilver which is supposed to get rid of germs and things. I expect that may be a lot less toxic than chlorine dioxide. Do you know anything about that?

 

How do you know it wasn't one of the other medicines that cured the cancer? Or it possibly was a form of the Placebo Affect?

Taking something like that orally makes it seem likely that the MMS would attack and oxidize the helpful germs in your digestive tract before ever reaching the cancer site. I also don't see how a combination of sodium, chlorine, and oxygen would be selective about which cells it oxidizes as I'm pretty sure chlorine gas likes to kill anything it touches.

While I do see it as a possible cure, I think extensive testing should be done to see if it's really safer or more effective than conventional treatments.

 

question:
Wouldn't alternative medicines be far likely to fall under this? There are less experts on alternative medicine, so less oversight. Plus there are less laws covering effectiveness of alternative medicines then of classic medicine. You could easily change the dose so that it's less effective. So if there is a grand conspiracy, why haven't they switched on to alternative medicines yet?

 

You guys do realise that alternative medicine is called alternative for a reason right? ie: It did not passed any medical examination and testing. Surely a great placebo, but that's about it.

 

not neccesarily. If i remember correctly, some things are not researched, and there are a few things which have a sufficiently small effect that you can proscribe it to pure coincidence. Some things are impossible to measure, due to the sickness working over either a long period of time, or being hard to keep track off(counting the number of infected cells in one's body). Good double-blind research takes a lot of time, effort and money, so there is a significant number of cures which it hasn't been used on. I find it staggering that in debates about alternative medicine, no one makes any distinction between tested yet unproven methods and untested.

 

yeah, good studies with a large sample size and control factors cost a lot. but given that these "alternative medicine" companies don't even bother with a cheap, low-sample study (say, less than a hundred people) to back up their claims with DATA i wouldn't trust them. personally picking people's "testimonials" and putting them on a website doesn't mean jack.

 

ijffdrie, tested and proven methods automatically mean that the medicine is no longer alternative.
People usually use the label 'alternative medicine' on bull**** which did not pass any proper study and often not even common sense in order to justify further distribution of the supposed cure. Of course there are seemingly effective and yet so far unproven methods of healing. (that does not mean crystals merely a medicine which was not tested well enough yet) and if you are talking about those I advice you to label them differently (why not just call it what it is? untested medicine?) because if you say alternative medicine I will innevitably picture homoepathy and things alike.

 

because the fact is that those two things aren't named differently. Discussions like this would be a lot easier if they were.

 

yeah, there should be a different label for medicines that are "proven ineffective but people do it anyways" vs "untested"

lol @ homeopathy.

 

However in the end people will still call homoepathy as "untested". That's why it is best just to be skeptical of everything that is not "mainstream tested medicine".

 

sceptical shouldn't mean totally dismissive though. The general principles behind homeopathy for an example, are the same as behind a vaccine. I know it's a bad example yes, just couldn't think of any better. Maybe remedial marijuana would be a better example.

 

One time, at band camp, this kid licked a tree and was cured of cancer.

And because I just told that story now you have to believe that licking trees can cure cancer.

Do it.

@ Rebel Head ,

Quit trollin' kid.

 

the principles of homeopathy might be similar to the principles behind a vaccine... if they didn't also diulte their products to the point where you're getting less than a single molecule of product per dosage. oh, and the less they have, the more powerful it is. uh, thank you... i'll just walk away now...

 

i said i knew it was a bad example.