Re: Comdyne /Re: One way to treat cancer???

[Guest guest]

how did she cure herself - did I miss a previous post? Please advise...thats

fantastic news

On 5/3/08, robyn howell <robynehowell@...> wrote:

>

> How did she fix her metabolism?

>

> --- comdyne2002 wrote:

> ...Our friend is alive 27 months after being diagnosed with Pancreatic

> cancer. She is alive and well. They can't find any cancer in her! PC!

> Besides melanoma, can you think of a more deadly form of cancer? She fixed

> her low metabolism and the cancer went away.

>

>

--

Don't get Greenwashed!

www.sweetlifeorganics.com

Certified USDA Food Grade Organic

Personal Care, Cosmetics, & Wellness

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 03 May 2008 05:26:15 -0000, " comdyne2002 " <comdyne@...>

said:

> She used Armour to increase her metabolism along with Marcozyme and

> some Laetrile although I don't know if she stuck with it. We are not

> on speaking terms since I cut her off for non-compliance. I have no

> tolerance for those who fail to follow instructions that I know work.

Please note that Armour is a thyroid treatment for hypothyroid patients.

Using thyroid meds without having thyroid disease can be very

dangerous.

ar

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

[Guest guest]

Hi Comdyne,

I've been on Armour for many years. I also keep myself slightly

hyperthyroid. I have fought my doctors on this point for ten years now.

My current doctor doubled my Armour almost three years ago - which I

thought was extreme. But all is well. Except that I got cancer anyway.

Obviously, my cancer was NOT easily cured by using high doses of Armour

and eating a vegetarian raw food diet. Hence why I do not believe

everything you say.

I know exactly what Armour is and it IS dangerous. Giving someone a

treatment for a disease they don't have is never a good idea. Were you

aware that many people are allergic to the porcine product in Armour?

Armour, even in tiny doses, makes them horribly sick? I've met at least

three women with that problem. Also, my ND tells me that those patients

with Hashimoto's Thyroiditis sometimes do NOT do well on Armour. For

those people synthetic is a far better choice.

My father has been on synthetic for decades and he has suffered no

problems from it. It is a great alternative for many. My mother, by

the way was hyperthyroid. She was hyperthyroid for 30 years. The

doctor only medicated her when her symptoms became bad. Other than

that, she remained unmedicated. She also was a ballerina, so lots of

exercise, worked in the yard and got tons of sunlight. She ate a

wonderful diet. She died of cancer. People who are slightly

hyperthyroid do get cancer nowadays.

The simple under the arm test for checking the thyroid does not work for

everyone, either. It has never worked for me. My current doctor had me

do that for a few weeks. A better test is to have the Free T3 and Free

T4 tested through a blood test. ALL results should be looked at

carefully.

I will go back to synthetic hormones if I need to. I prefer Armour, but

notice no difference between the two. I think there are those that

can't handle synthetic. But there are hundreds of thousands of people

who do just as fine on them. They are not " nasty. "

I have been involved with a very large thyroid group for a decade. This

is an online community, btw. Oddly enough there are only two of us who

have developed cancer out of the thousands who have been through the

group. That's not a good indication, of course, on whether thyroid

patients are going to develop cancer. But I certainly have absolutely

no proof that what you are saying is true. Plus, in another cancer

group I frequent, where the women are very young, have not had mammos

because of their age, yet still have breast cancer, only a few are hypo.

So, following your advice, I should never have developed cancer. I'm on

Armour. I eat right. I exercise. I get sunlight.

Taking thyroid hormones when they are not needed is dangerous. Taking

ANY medication when it is not needed is dangerous. Hormones CAN cause

damage in the body...heck, estrogen did a doosy on me. Heart problems,

osteoporosis, all the symptoms of hyperthyroidism - which can be very

uncomfortable - and even burning out a thyroid...thus actually causing

thyroid disease, can all result from taking Armour when it is not

needed.

ar

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

[Guest guest]

arlynsg writes:

I

meet more and more people who have had the most success by combining

both methods.

Can you be more specific..are you saying that ravaging one's body with chemo

and radiation and then trying to repair the damage with alternative is the

best way?

[Guest guest]

Comdyne,

Here is my point.

You come into this group and you speak in absolutes. You say there is

only one cause of cancer. You also keep saying there is only one way to

cure cancer. And then when you are confronted by the facts that your

statements aren't necessarily true, you start back tracking.

So I propose that you change your delivery techniques. When posting a

message to this group, try to not speak in absolutes.

You have information that is important. Please try delivering your

information in a manner that is not offensive. There are no absolutes

with cancer. Also, it is all your opinion. Opinion doesn't necessarily

mean fact.

Yes, there are always exceptions - and that is the point. In today's

world, the exceptions probably outweigh the truths from a hundred years

ago. We no longer live in that world.

Conventional medicine failed many. That's why groups like this one

exist. There is no reason to continue to bash convenional medicine

here. You will find, also, that alternatives failed many people. I

meet more and more people who have had the most success by combining

both methods. They can and do work together. Maybe not for everyone,

but for many, yes.

I have also met cancer survivors who did conventional treatment and have

done amazingly well for 20 and 30 years.

Breast cancer in young women is completely different than breast cancer

in older women. Mammograms did not cause the cancer I have. But it did

detect it at stage 0 - and it doesn't get much earlier than that. My

DCIS was aggressive and would have become invasive cancer, I'm fairly

certain. I am very glad I had that mammogram. Now I must figure out

how I will do my follow-up care. And all those young women who are in

their 20s and are being diagnosed with stage 3 or 4 cancer, didn't get

their cancer from wearing bras, having mammograms, or from being

slighly hypothyroid.

Hormones in our food and plastics, pesticides, and general crap in our

water and air, are slowly killing us. In my limited experience -as a

young woman who had breast cancer - it has nothing to do with mammograms

and bras. There are far more dangerous reasons our society is getting

more and more cancer.

If you get cancer, you can decide how YOU wish to treat it.

What cancer patients need most, is information and support no matter

what treatment they choose to do.

If all it took was Armour thyroid, sunlight, and food, I wouldn't be

here.

You are free to have the last word if you wish. I am sure the people of

this group are tired of reading this exchange.

ar

On Sat, 03 May 2008 18:46:21 -0000, " comdyne2002 " <comdyne@...>

said:

> There are always exceptions. I did state that our environment is much

> different than it was 100 years ago. We have halogens in the water

> supply and in our toothpaste. Dentists still apply mercury fillings.

> There are many many things that can cause cancer. The point I was

> trying to make is that the doctors of yesteryear were able to cure

> this disease using the methods I described. Today things are more

> complex but it doesn't preclude knowing important information that if

> applied could potentially help people where conventional medicine

> fails routinely.

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

[Guest guest]

arlynsg@... writes:

> And quite frankly, not everyone who uses only traditional medicine dies from

cancer. Some people are doing great afterwards.

>

most that I know who did traditional, have a lot of after effects. One

friend of mine had radiation for breast cancera and it destroyed the muscles in

her upper arms..she has no use of her arms/hands now. It horrible.

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 3 May 2008 16:10:05 EDT, szukipoo@... said:

>

> arlynsg writes:

>

>

> I

> meet more and more people who have had the most success by combining

> both methods.

>

> Can you be more specific..are you saying that ravaging one's body with

> chemo

> and radiation and then trying to repair the damage with alternative is

> the

> best way?

I'm saying that we shouldn't discount anyone's cancer journey. Many

people feel they must do chemo and or radiation in order to help cure

themselves. Then they can choose to use complimentary medicines to help

throughout that period of time to keep their bodies healthy. After

traditional treatment, the patient may feel more comfortable with

turning to alternative methods to keep cancer from coming back.

Each person is an individual. Period. You used a lot of negative words

above. So great, that's how you feel. But not everyone does.

And quite frankly, not everyone who uses only traditional medicine dies

from cancer. Some people are doing great afterwards.

The minute anyone closes their minds, there is trouble.

ar

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 3 May 2008 19:57:05 EDT, szukipoo@... said:

> arlynsg@... writes:

> > And quite frankly, not everyone who uses only traditional medicine dies from

cancer. Some people are doing great afterwards.

> >

>

> most that I know who did traditional, have a lot of after effects. One

> friend of mine had radiation for breast cancera and it destroyed the

> muscles in her upper arms..she has no use of her arms/hands now. It

> horrible.

I'm so sorry to hear about your friend. Are you sure it wasn't

lymphadema she developed?

The radiation didn't bother me much at all. And most of the women I

know who had it said it didn't bother them.

ar

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

[Guest guest]

The fact of the matter is, and this comes from within the Allopathic Community,

is that Chemotherapy and radiation are failing those afflicted with cancer.

Many of the 'successes' in treating cancer via conventional medicine and their

bag of tricks, other than the very few that do respond more readily, are cancers

that very likely would not have resulted in death. The most recent revelation

by the Australian Oncologists, which barely received mention in the United

States, again highlights the failures of this system..........their words, not

mine.

Many of the so-called successes have to do with the very misleading 5 year

survival rate which is still being heralded as an accomplishment though it has

been discredited over the past few years. The trickery used in this scheme

heralds the numbers now surviving beyond the five years and these are considered

cures. What they do not tell you is that with modern technology cancers are

being detected earlier. When one adds those earlier diagnosis years to the

five year survival rate, one must come to the conclusion people are living

longer.........but they aren't.

Additionally, the percentages used in 'response' to treatment are even more

misleading than the five year survival rates. There is the Relative vs.

Absolute benefit. For example: If a drug results in 5 people out of 100

supposedly benefiting from a treatment, no matter how long, one has a 5%

benefit. Now along comes an added treatment and 7 people seem to benefit.

To me that's 7% but what the schemers use is the difference between the 5% and

7% which is only 2% but they claim it is really a 40% improvement. That is

how a perceived 2% benefit is turned into a 40% benefit. Because many

physicians simply do not have time to study, while making lots of money and

trying to enjoy life and their families, they often do not know the difference

either. Fortunately there are honest physicians that decry this kind of

fakery..................but not enough of them! When the Oncologist throws

these percentages at you, are they real or are they 'relative'

benefits???????????????????????

For those terrible cancers, the ones we fear the most, along with metastasis,

conventional medicine does not offer what they claim.............it just seems

so.

A statement in a recent report I read stunned me. It was for medical

professionals, not Cancer-cured list members and it stated, " All treatment for

metastasised breast cancer IS palliative " . Scary isn't it? This from inside

the medical community.

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

i want some details regarding MAMMOGRAPHY.

[Guest guest]

Qw re " HCG...I am getting to inject with HCG for a special diet - I have

chronic lyme and its has messe dup my endocrien system and yes I eat well

and am not an overeater and always excersised....its not from gluten or

dairy either - none of that mattered - thsi is my hope...and I think it will

work...HCG is known to be a good breast cancer preventative but how it

behaves with other cancers I do not know - does anyone know anything about

HCG and cancer? All pregnant women produce enormous amounst of it - i will

on mininscule amounts of it on this 23 day diet......

On 5/4/08, ukti desai <ukti_desai@...> wrote:

>

> i want some details regarding MAMMOGRAPHY.

>

>

>

--

Don't get Greenwashed!

www.sweetlifeorganics.com

Certified USDA Food Grade Organic

Personal Care, Cosmetics, & Wellness

[Guest guest]

HCG works very well in helping one lose proper fat and not muscle etc... *iy

* in itself does not cause weight loss, it must be combined with a reduced

calorie diet for a short period of time after which the hypothalmous is

reset and normal eating may resume without regain as with all diets....It

has been around since the 50's and used extensivley. it is considered a very

safe drug and is used quite frequently at higher dosgaes which are not used

for teh purposes of teh diet.. Alot is known about it actually but I was

asking if you had heard anything about its effects on cancer othe rthan it

seesm to be a great breast cancer preventative....sounds like you havent

heard anything bad in that regard.....

On 5/4/08, comdyne2002 <comdyne@...> wrote:

>

> Chorionic cells (stem cells) aka Diploid totipotent cells

> are the special cells that contain the entire instruction set to

> create any tissue in the body as well as a complete human as well.

> They have no specific function and are considered to be left-overs

> from the reproduction process. Early in the last century professor

> Baird of Edinburgh, Scotland postulated this thesis on the

> Trophoblastic Thesis of Cancer whereby he discovered that these stem

> cells that turn cancerous are identical to tissue found in the

> placenta and both excrete a the hormone hCG (Human Chorionic

> Gonadotropin). Gonadotropin is produced by the Basophils of the blood

> and not by the reproductive organs as is incorrectly taught to

> doctors. This fact is important because one standard technique used

> against male prostate cancer is to castrate the poor chap which is

> believed to reduce the amount of gonadotropin which excites cellular

> splitting and inhibits cellular respiration. If these macrocephalic

> Lilliputions understood what happens after the emasculate the fellow,

> they would discover an increase in the hormone production, and not a

> reduction as the missing organ stimulates hormone production. They

> never check this, of course, because they think the hormone comes

> from the genitalia.

>

> hCG is being touted as a weight loss method. I am very skeptical

> about this, however. It may be very dangerous to supplement with this

> hormone considering that the profession doesn't understand where it

> even comes from. Besides, its not nice to fool Mother Nature!