Friday, November 22, 2013

KEYS TO SURVIVING CANCER (and many other diseases)...



                            SPONSORS


         The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
                   http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i

                   
  "19 Drug-Free Arthritis Treatment ‘Secrets’ the Big
  Drug Companies Hope and Pray You’ll Never Discover..."
                  http://bit.ly/193hi3i


TIPS FOR EXCELLENT HEALTH!


When I started this blog, I centered in on my cancer and
the want to inform as many people as I can that...CANCER
CAN BE CURED.

As time passed, my thinking started to change. I realized
that there is much more to learn. There is much more to do
...there is many different health problems that can be
addressed.

I changed my approach and my thinking, (an old dog can
learn new tricks). I have found and read a ton of information
since then. I found a site that offers some great, straight
forward information to cure many health problems that our
bodies face everyday. Check it out to see if any of the
information can help you or someone that you know.

TIP: Designate An Expert in the Family

ONE OF THE KEYS TO SURVIVING CANCER 

 (and many other diseases)

 

is that someone in the family takes charge of the treatment and
spends many hours studying relevant articles!!! Someone in the
family must do their homework!!! It can be the patient, or someone
else, but SOMEONE needs to continually be doing their homework!!
This is a good tip for the family and close friends to help
and support the individual that has the disease.

This same person must also make sure the cancer patient is not
subjected to negative comments from any "friends" or family. The
cancer patient must never hear a negative comment about natural
medicine. Natural cancer treatments are far, far superior to
orthodox cancer treatments (though orthodox treatments are
sometimes required).

Folks...That is what used to happen when, (The tip above), there
wasn't all of the so-called medicines that are used today.

It is common for people who have been brainwashed by the media
and orthodox medicine to speak negatively about natural medicine.
These people should be politely (or impolitely, if necessary)
told to keep their mouth shut because they spend too much time
watching television and they don't know what they are talking
about.

My experience with sharing my recovery from cancer is so
unbelievable. Over 50% think I'm nuts to do the alternative
approach. A few remark..."that works for you but it won't
work for me". A small amount act as though they believe they
are interest and a very small amount actually will start
learning and follow a regime of herbals for their health
problems(s).

ONCE AGAIN...We, (they) are so dumbed down from our
medicalprofession we, (they) follow what is told to them and
their health goes down hill.

I  believe that our immune system can fight off most disease
and our health can be brought to and maintained to an excellent
condition.

OK folks...Thanks for reading my blog. Please pass this on
to as many people as you can.  


God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.


Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com

Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.

Thursday, November 21, 2013

It's Time to Pay Attention...


                         

                             SPONSORS


         The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
                   http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i

                   
         Prevent Alzheimer's With Natural Remedies!
                   http://bit.ly/H8y8Uz


Hi Everybody...


I decided to let everyone know that I have had some great
responses from some great people. They realized that they
needed to learn more about health, learn more about their
health for their future and learn more about the future of
the health care system in the USA

Please open your mind and pay attention to what is happening
to our health system. I'll admit that I'm extremely unhappy
with our health system...But it is the only one we have.

My opinion of what is happening to our health care system, by
the Federal Government, is changing the system into WHAT???
To me it is scarey wondering what or where all of this government
manipulation is taking it.

Before my cancer diagnosis, I had read some sites that talked
about cancer treatment. I didn't read much about the alternative
approach.

When I was diagnosed, I became tremendously interested in what
I was going to do. I had one week to make my surgery and kemo
therapy decision. I quit reading about my choices...I studied
as much as I could find about cancer. Face it...I had to face
my absolute life changing diagnosis. I hope non of you folks
ever have to do that.

I have tons of articles, here, about health, health maintenance,
and the importance of researching all of my alternatives. Choosing
to go the alternative route wasn't hard to do once I started
to understand the outcomes of medical treatment verses the
alternative "CURES". Please make note of the words treatment
verses cures.

There is a ton of alternative cures and only a few medical
treatments. All I ask of you is to keep reading my blog here
and pass it on to as many people as you can.

God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.


Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com

Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Getting the Cancer Cure Rate Up...


                                                         

                                               SPONSORS


                                     The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
                                                     http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i

                   
                                  Prevent Alzheimer's With Natural Remedies!
                                                   http://bit.ly/H8y8Uz


           Continued From Last Post

Getting the Cure Rate Up


Using this definition, what kinds of things would cause "cure rates" to go up? Instead of lengthening the time a person lives after diagnoses, how about diagnosing the cancer earlier? By diagnosing cancer earlier, there is a longer period of time between diagnosis and death, thus increasing the percentage of people who live more than 5 years between diagnosis and death.

Before a person is diagnosed with cancer, it is quite common for the person to have had cancer for 5 or 10 years before it is diagnosed. Thus, if cancer is diagnosed at an earlier and earlier state, there will be a higher and higher percentage of people who live for 5 years between diagnoses and death. By simply diagnosing the disease earlier, "cure rates" go up, even if chemotherapy doesn't improve life expectancy at all!

This is undoubtedly the reason the American Cancer Society (an orthodox "charity") has been pushing women to get mammograms every year, in spite of the fact that mammograms can cause cancer because they are X-Rays. Thus, the American Cancer Society has had a positive affect on "cure rates" without having done anything about life expectancy. They have also had an affect on the percentage of people who get cancer, that number has also gone up.

Another trick orthodox medicine uses is to ignore counting people who die because of the damage done by chemotherapy and radiation. For example, someone who dies of pneumonia, as a result of their immune system being destroyed by chemotherapy, is generally not counted as a "cancer" death. Likewise, someone whose liver is destroyed by chemotherapy, and dies of liver "disease," is also not counted as a "cancer" death.

Some cancers are extremely slow growing. Thus, "cure rates" for these types of cancer look very good, but not because the people are cured, but because the cancer is slow growing.

Since many people who are on chemotherapy die of malnutrition and opportunistic infections, many doctors tell their cancer patients to take nutritional supplements. This can lead to the person living longer (because they do not die as quickly from malnutrition or opportunistic infections), but it makes chemotherapy look better! In other words, "cure rates" go up because of the nutritional supplements, but the effects of chemotherapy may have been unchanged!

Some patients secretly take alternative treatments to treat their cancer without telling their doctors (during or after orthodox treatments). This makes orthodox medicine survival rates look good, but not because of chemotherapy or radiation.

Another trick is to change the standards for what kind of people are part of the statistics. In other words, if they start including people with less severe cancers (which obviously have a higher "cure rate"), they can get their "cure rate" numbers up.

    "The five year cancer survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before…More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being "cured". When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly."
    Dr J. Bailer, New England Journal of Medicine (Dr Bailer’s answer to questions put by Neal Barnard MD of the Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine and published in PCRM Update, Sept/Oct 1990)

By using these tricks they can make it appear that cancer research is progressing slowly, when in fact cancer research has made very little overall improvements in life expectancy or quality of life in the past 80 years.

A Valid Definition of Cure Rate


So how should "cure rates" be defined? Here is my definition:


Definition of Cure Rate: "a person is cured of their cancer by treatment if they do not die of cancer, and if they do not die of something caused directly or indirectly by their cancer, and if they do not die from the side-effects of the treatment, and if they do not die indirectly from the side-effects of their treatment. All treatment statistics using life expectancy require that the treatment be compared to no treatment at all under the same detection criteria."

Using such a statistic would expose just how useless chemotherapy and radiation are. But you will never see this definition used with chemotherapy and radiation because orthodox medicine likes to hide behind bogus statistics, just like the B companies above.

It would be very logical for cancer researchers to use a valid definition of "cure rate," like the one I just mentioned, and do a double-blind study between patients who took the complete orthodox treatment plan and a second group who refused all treatments (Note: This would technically not be a double-blind study, but it would yield valuable data.) The results of such a study would never be widely publicized, because orthodox medicine would look very bad.

Cancer Surgery


In the history of medicine, cancer surgery will go down as one of the most damaging treatments ever perpetuated on an innocent general public. While it is true that if a person's cancer has not metastasized, surgery can kill all of the cancer cells, there are several problems with mindlessly using cancer surgery.

First, by the time cancer is diagnosed, unless it is benign, it has probably already spread outside of its original area and thus cancer surgery does not kill all of the cancer cells.

Let me give a simple metaphor. Suppose you have thousands of flies on your 10 acre farm. Suppose that most of them are around the horse corral where there is lots of horse manure. Suppose one day you take all of the horse manure (which contains many maggots) and put it in plastic bags (i.e. surgery) and ship it to a landfill. Will this cure your fly problem? Not at all. Since all of the flies have not been killed, it will not take long for the remaining flies to breed and replace all of the flies and maggots killed by the plastic bags.

Second, if the cancer has not spread, the patient has so long to live in most cases, that the cancer can easily be treated by any number of noninvasive alternative methods. Virtually all of the top 100 alternative treatments are extremely effective if the patient has over a year to live. Thus, even if the cancer is contained, surgery can be a poor choice.

Third, surgery severs numerous blood arteries, thus blocking them forever. This means the circulatory system is forever damaged with numerous blocked arteries and other arteries have had their blood supply cut off.

Fourth, in a similar manner, surgery does the same thing to the lymph system. The lymph system is a critical part of the immune system, as is the circulatory system, and arbitrarily blocking numerous lymph vessels permanently is not a good thing for the immune system.

Considering all of the permanent damage done by surgery, it is extremely rare when surgery is a cancer patient's best option.


Thank You R. Webster Kehr


God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.


Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com

Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.

Monday, November 18, 2013

Chemotherapy has other drawbacks...


                            SPONSORS


         The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
                   http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i

                   
         Prevent Alzheimer's With Natural Remedies!
                   http://bit.ly/H8y8Uz


I just found the coolest way to make money from your computer!
Check it out.
                   http://bit.ly/1ga9NeR


           Continued From Last Post


The last part of that statement requires more explanation:


    "Chemotherapy has other drawbacks. There is an increased incidence of second, apparently unrelated malignancies in patients who have been "cured" by means of anticancer drugs. This is probably because the drugs themselves are carcinogenic. When radiation and chemotherapy were given together, the incidence of these second tumors was approximately twenty-five times the expected rate.

    Since both radiation and chemotherapy suppress the immune system, it is possible that new tumors are allowed to grow because the patient has been rendered unable to resist them. In either case, a person who is cured of cancer by these drastic means may find herself struggling with a new, drug-induced tumor a few years later."
    Ralph Moss, The Cancer Industry

So let us summarize this discussion:


With regards to "length of life since diagnosis," the concepts of "remission" and "reduction" are ineffective at evaluating the quantitative "length of life since diagnosis" because they fail to calculate an accurate number of cancer cells still in the body (at the time the cancer is determined to be in "remission"), and they fail to take into account the severely weakened immune system that can no longer routinely deal with cancer cells (a normal immune system routinely kills cancer cells, but not a weakened immune system). Thus, there is a significant probablity the same cancer will return or another cancer will arise.

In other words: there is no proven correlation between being in "remission" and increasing the "length of life since diagnosis!" Perhaps more importantly, there is no evidence that chemotherapy and radiation significantly increase the life of patients (compared to those who refuse treatment or go with alternative treatments), which would be necessary to justify their use.

    "In 1975, the respected British medical journal Lancet reported on a study which compared the effect on cancer patients of (1) a single chemotherapy, (2) multiple chemotherapy, and (3) no treatment at all. No treatment 'proved a significantly better policy for patients' survival and for quality of remaining life.'"
    Barry Lynes, The Healing of Cancer - The Cures - the Cover-ups and the Solution

With regards to "quality of life since diagnosis," there is no question that chemotherapy and radiation fail miserably in this area. Chemotherapy and radiation both decrease a person's quality of life to such a degree that many cancer patients in treatment quit their treatment program. They would rather be dead than have to go through such misery.

With regards to "strength of the immune system during and after treatments," chemotherapy and radiation treatments fail miserably in this criteria also. In fact it is the destruction of the immune system that causes many patients to die during treatment.

In short, the concepts of "remission" and "reduction" fail to relate to meaningful statistics with regards to "length of life since diagnosis." Chemotherapy and radiation fail the other two criteria in spite of a patient going into remission.

We thus conclude with extreme vigor that the concept of "remission" and "reduction" are not valuable measures by which to judge the effectiveness of orthodox treatments for cancer. In a future chapter I will use verified statistics to compare orthodox medicine with alternative medicine.

Cure Rates


Let us talk about what are called "cure rates" or "survival rates." Orthodox medicine generally says that if a person lives for five years after diagnosis, they are "cured" of cancer, even if they die in the sixth year. In other words, if there is more than 5 years between diagnosis and death, they were "cured" of cancer. This is how they determine their "survival rates."

A person might wonder why the medical community would use such a concept, knowing that the concept of "length of life since diagnosis" is so simple, so intuitive and so logical. And so useful.

Let us return to our automobile metaphor.


How can the B companies hide the fact that they intentionally make really crappy cars? They can use statistics. Suppose they decide to do a study to find out how many of their cars have their engine replaced within the first 30,000 miles. The number will be quite low, almost as low as the same statistic calculated for G company cars. This statistic will make it appear that the B companies make cars as good as the G companies. They didn't lie, they used statistics. G company cars are far superior to the B company cars, but you would never know that by looking at that one statistic. That is the whole purpose of using such a statistic!

The G company car makers, on the other hand, would want to see the percentage of cars made by the B companies that still have their original engine after 150,000 miles. That would be a very low percentage for the B companies, and a very high percentage for the G companies. This statistic would make it very clear which company made, by far, the best cars. But the B companies control the airwaves and the media would never allow its "journalists" to report that statistic.

This is exactly how the cancer industry hides the very poor results of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Their definition of "cure rate" is based on the percentage of cancer patients who live 5 years, between diagnoses and death, not 10 years and not 15 years. How does the 5 year number tell us what percentage of cancer patients eventually die of cancer? It doesn't. The orthodox medical community has done exactly what the B companies above have done, lied with statistics.

    "Keep in mind that the 5 year mark is still used as the official guideline for "cure" by mainstream oncologists. Statistically, the 5 year cure makes chemotherapy look good for certain kinds of cancer, but when you follow cancer patients beyond 5 years, the reality often shifts in a dramatic way."

    John Diamond, M.D.


            Continued


God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.


Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com

Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.