Scientists 'close to breast cancer cure' after British researchers find a way to stop
- Thread starter neoprodigy
- Start date
Sadly, there is already a cure for cancer, involving a drastic change in lifestyle(especially diet). It only works in early stages of cancer, but is not considered a "cure" because there are no drugs involved. It involves creating an environment that the cancer cannot live in by altering the body's Ph levels and controlling certain elements(sugars have to be almost eliminated). I know of one person personally who tried it for a form of brain cancer and it worked for them. It was proposed to them by a woman who beat breast cancer. They have been cancer free with no other treatment for over 3 years.
That said, I guess it is nice they found a drug to treat it (since so many people believe that only a pill can cure anything)
That said, I guess it is nice they found a drug to treat it (since so many people believe that only a pill can cure anything)
That is so full of false and misleading information. Your body has a certain pH setpoint for a reason that does not deviate drastically as it denatures proteins lowers efficiency otherwise etc... You can't simply change it through a diet, neither should you. So please don't post this unscientific nonsense.
Here's a good article of the homeostatic control mechanism as it relates to respiration and it's effect to C02 and subsequently pH.
http://www.enotes.com/nursing-encyclopedia/breathing-regulation
Your body maintains homeostasis and as far as blood pH is concerned it can't go out of the range of 7.4 and often if it does it's a serious medical condition.
"
Acidosis. Increase of the amount of hydrogen ion (acidity) in the blood and CSF, leading to respiratory acidosis. It occurs when the lungs are not ventilating properly and results in excessive amounts of carbon dioxide in the blood. Non-functional carotid bodies have been shown to cause acidosis.
Alkalosis. Loss of hydrogen ion in the blood and CSF, leading to respiratory alkalosis, meaning excessive loss of carbon dioxide from the body. An alkaline CSF inhibits the respiratory control center."
http://www.enotes.com/nursing-encyclopedia/breathing-regulation
Your body maintains homeostasis and as far as blood pH is concerned it can't go out of the range of 7.4 and often if it does it's a serious medical condition.
"
Acidosis. Increase of the amount of hydrogen ion (acidity) in the blood and CSF, leading to respiratory acidosis. It occurs when the lungs are not ventilating properly and results in excessive amounts of carbon dioxide in the blood. Non-functional carotid bodies have been shown to cause acidosis.
Alkalosis. Loss of hydrogen ion in the blood and CSF, leading to respiratory alkalosis, meaning excessive loss of carbon dioxide from the body. An alkaline CSF inhibits the respiratory control center."
It's not misleading. I gave a vague example of a treatment alternate to drugs. I honestly am not an expert on it and did not give details as to what the methods, effects and/or side effects may be. I'm sure the drugs science somes up with will have some negative effects as well. Sorry, but given the choice between a risky opperation, death and a possible solution, my friend tried something and it worked. I don't know if it will work for every person, every type of cancer(though it has been tested on others) or every situation. However, it is not an isolated incident.
You are quick to attack a change in body PH. The article does not go into detail but talks about messing with the bodys RNA.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for a cure, any cure. I lost an aunt to breast cancer. But I will not discredit fact (no matter the inherant risks) that some people have had sucess without drugs.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...s-way-stop-tumours-growing.html#ixzz0PXIAJtTl
You are quick to attack a change in body PH. The article does not go into detail but talks about messing with the bodys RNA.
Any treatment may have undesired consequenses. I am not some homeopathic nutjob. But anyone who has ever taken asprin has used "natural medicine"(asprin is calssified as a drug, but was used by native americans by chewing on TREE BARK!) . I am all for any cure, but the USFDA will generally not support a cure that does not involve a "drug'
Don't get me wrong, I am all for a cure, any cure. I lost an aunt to breast cancer. But I will not discredit fact (no matter the inherant risks) that some people have had sucess without drugs.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...s-way-stop-tumours-growing.html#ixzz0PXIAJtTl
Many of the first medicines were naturally derived, aspirin as you say was in use in some form or another before modern medicine, it acetyl-salicyclic acid which is why people crush it up and use it before prom night.
But just because something is "natural" doesn't suddenly make it the panacea for all your ills, or somehow healthy to take. Many of these herbs are ineffective and pose no risk other than if patients refuse conventional treatments. Some of these herbs, especially when finely ground and unregulated by dosages could essentially warrant a label as a prescription drug and be dangerous due to high levels of naturally occuring compounds. One of the reasons the FDA refuses to grant credit to them is that there is scant or embellished evidence but proponents of these treatments.
I'm not calling you a nutjob, there is alot of evidence of chemotherapy being over used etc, and I generally agree that patients should have more say and choose a lifestyle. Still, it's difficult to standby and give false hope to someone. I've heard the stories from relatives too of people who have beaten cancer through herbal teas, but wouldn't there be more research into it or is it really just a bunch of quakery.
But just because something is "natural" doesn't suddenly make it the panacea for all your ills, or somehow healthy to take. Many of these herbs are ineffective and pose no risk other than if patients refuse conventional treatments. Some of these herbs, especially when finely ground and unregulated by dosages could essentially warrant a label as a prescription drug and be dangerous due to high levels of naturally occuring compounds. One of the reasons the FDA refuses to grant credit to them is that there is scant or embellished evidence but proponents of these treatments.
I'm not calling you a nutjob, there is alot of evidence of chemotherapy being over used etc, and I generally agree that patients should have more say and choose a lifestyle. Still, it's difficult to standby and give false hope to someone. I've heard the stories from relatives too of people who have beaten cancer through herbal teas, but wouldn't there be more research into it or is it really just a bunch of quakery.