Guest guest Posted March 21, 2001 Report Share Posted March 21, 2001 Thanks Patti! i'm going to look for her book Mog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2001 Report Share Posted March 21, 2001 Mog, so glad to hear things are "moving along" for you. I am sending my prayers. A thought that help me tremendously (and it's not always easy because it requires that I shift from an acid attitude/perspective to an alkaline one) is that when I DO allow myself to have sugar or something else I think doesn't support my goals - I relax and bless it and thank my body for taking it in and digesting & utilizing it for (or whatever works for you) my highest good and greatest joy. I breathe deeply and visualize my body and spirit with brilliant light and complete balance and health. I do this until I can completely FEEL WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO BE AT PEACE, STILL & SERENE & GRATEFUL & WHOLE. This really takes the bite out of "mistakes" and also diminishes the total effect of acid we may have just ingested or experienced in some other way. Hope this helps relieve some of the burden of the many cravings and so-called detours you currently experience. Love and light, Magi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2001 Report Share Posted March 22, 2001 That was very nice Mag! Thank you, i am at peace, The Lord is walking beside me all the way! He has been my Dr. going thru Candida, Parasites and now this, just another chapter in the book! I keep thinking "Positive" & this keeps popping up frequentlyto remind me. after this week's pain from the sugar, i'm really watching it. Thanks again Mog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2002 Report Share Posted April 29, 2002 cures for cancer From: " j7i7m7 " <j7i7m7@...> Date sent: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 17:35:22 -0000 Subject: Sugar and Cancer Send reply to: cures for cancer > The Cone Cancer Treatment > Could it be that the CCT uses inexpensive insulin and thyroid plus > a restricted diet, available for 50 years? Since the insulin and thyroid > is now " generic " no drug company would benefit from Curing Cancer with the > CCT. Hi Friend, With great respect, I hope you dont post 10 emails every day, as it takes a while to read them all. You have certainly explained well why people with cancer dont take sugar. Insulin therapy has been mentioned on this list several times before. You explain Otto Warburg's work well. I am pleased that you also support oxygen therapy, based on Prof. Warburg's work, as I also support the use of oxygen therapy, via the dilute peroxide/dmso bath. See Protocol 1 for details. Yesterday I contacted a major organization that collects money to " find a cure for Leukemia " . I asked them if they knew of any treatment that showed 85% to 90% complete remission in APL Leukemia. They knew of no such treatment, even though listmembers know of 3 clinical trials, with significant numbers of patients, that showed Arsenic gave %85 to %90 complete remission in APL Leukemia. I asked them what they did with the money they raised, they said they provided accomodation and travel expenses for patients to go to hospital and did a bit of cellular research, but " RAN NO CLINICAL TRIALS " WITH THE MONEY RAISED to find a cure for Leukemia...... moonbeam > by R. Hodgell, M.D. > The Cone Cancer Treatment (CCT) is a U.S. Patented, scientifically > sound, > metabolic therapy which exploits the " Achilles Heel " metabolic defect of > Cancer Cells. The Cancer Cell metabolic defect was first detected by > double Nobel Laureat Otto Warburg in 1925, and consists of the inability > of Cancer Cells to metabolize glucose into the TCA (Krebs) Cycle via the > glycolytic pathway. The result is the metabolism of glucose to pyruvate, > which is then converted to lactate and excreted from the cell. Cancer > Cells have developed the ability to excrete lactate at a rate of 100 times > the rate of normal cell lactate excretion, to prevent intracellular > acidity that would result from metabolism of large amounts of glucose. The > aborted metabolism of glucose is due to a geneticaly determined defective > cofactor which prevents CoEnzyme A from metabolizing pyruvate and > injecting it into the TCA Cycle. (I must apologize for not being more > specific, but I forgot to bring all of my reference materials with me on > my holiday travel) Due to the aborted metabolism of glucose, Cancer Cells > obtain about 1/8th the energy from glucose as that which is obtained from > each molecule of glucose by normal cells. As a result, Cancer Cells must > rely upon metabolism of Free Fatty Acids (FFA) and Amino Acids (AA) via > the TCA Cycle, for the majority of the energy requirements of their > cellular survival functions. The CCT exploits the Cancer Cell metabolic > defect by restricting the availability of FFA and AA for Cancer Cell > energy while supplying precisely the energy required by ALL CELLS, in the > form of glucose. Next, the metabolic rate is increased to force all cells > to require increased energy for cell survival. The result is that Cancer > Cells cannot obtain adequate energy/time frame to survive, while normal > cells accept the increased metabolic rate without difficulty. The dying > Cancer Cells supply the FFA and AA required for normal cell survival since > the normal cell metabolism has an enhanced competitive advantage for > utilizing the FFA and AA, due to about 8 times as much energy available to > each normal cell, compared to the Cancer Cells. The remarkable feature of > the CCT is the fact that the cell destruction is confined EXCLUSIVELY to > the Cancer Cells! Therefore, there is NO TOXICITY to normal cells and no > effect on the immune system OR the GI tract and NO hair loss! Contrary to > the situation with chemo. and radiation, the effect of the CCT cell > destruction is targeted precisely to Cancer Cells. Chemo. And radiation > depend on the small difference in susceptability between normal and Cancer > Cells, for the anti-cancer effect; ie: Cancer Cells MUST be more sensitive > to the chemo./radiation than are normal cells, for the " selective " > destruction of the Cancer Cells. The problem with this situation is: There > is a " gray zone " of overlap between the sensitivity of normal and Cancer > Cells, which produces destruction of normal cells along with whatever > destruction occurs in Cancer Cells. Hence, the miserable complications of > chemo./ radiation, which are totally ABSENT with the CCT. The ONLY > toxicity of the CCT is due to the rapidity of tumor destruction, which can > be controlled by the caloric mix of the restricted diet. The CCT version > that we are using has been approved by Dr. Cone for use in the VA Pilot > Project which was approved in June, 1995, then cancelled in July, 1995, > due to the AMA edict that it is " unethical for physicians to seek, secure > OR ENFORCE patents on medical procedures. " (1) The AMA edict violates > Federal Patent Laws by demanding that physicians IGNORE the patent rights > of the patent holder by not honoring (ENFORCING) patent royalties OR risk > losing their medical license for being " unethical. " The Hippocratic Oath > requires that physicians " Do No Harm. " How is it possible to " Do No Harm " > by preventing the use of a patented treatment (medical procedure) to save > the lives of dying cancer victims? The CTMS application of the VA CCT > protocol utilizes thyroid hormone, insulin injections and a high > Carbohydrate diet which is carefully matched to the caloric demand of the > patient. Previous patient results indicate that TOTAL destruction of tumor > persists at least 6 months, when the patient carefully adheres to the CCT > therapy. CTMS will recommend therapy be continuous until the patients are > advised that it is safe to terminate the therapy (like hypothyroid or > diabetic patients). Now, concerning the " CURE " issue. As you know from the > info. The NCI recognizes treatment of patients who have > recurrent/persistant measurable tumor after receiving all standard > therapies, as a legitimate procedure for determining the " therapeutic > effect " of the treatment, including chemo. And radiation. (The patient's > residual tumor after previous standard treatment, constitutes " self > control " for any effect produced by subsequent treatment.) Their > requirement IS: Carefully DOCUMENTED evidence of AT LEAST 50% reduction of > tumor in cases treated (by tumor type), to obtain approval for use as a > " legitimate treatment " for specified tumors. The CCT routinely achieves > 50% reductions in 4 weeks, but we are not interested in only 50%. > Therefore, the controlled therapy is conducted for 8 weeks, with an > additional 4 months of monitoring, to confirm total destruction and an > expected " CURE " as long as the patients adhere to the CCT. So, we not only > expect to obtain evidence of the required 50% reduction in tumor size, but > we expect to confirm total destruction by 2-6 months! The primary reason > that the CCT hasn't been previously approved by the NCI, is due to the > lousy documentation of previously treated patients. CTMS will > unequivocally correct that defect, to obtain NCI/FDA approval. Refr.: (1) > American College of Radiology Bulletin 1995;7:12 D. Hodgell, M.D. > Pres., Cancer Treatment Medical Services, Inc. (The patient may be a > candidate for the FREE Curative Treatment Clinical Trial being conducted > by Cancer Treatment Medical Services, Inc. @ 1-800-873-6304) > rdhodgell@a... > > A suppression case in point.... after inviting Dr. Cone to present the > research results published in the 3 patents, (under pressure from Sen. > Pryor and Sen. Cranston) in Sept. '92, NIH promised Dr. Cone that NCI > would initiate a " Pilot Project " to evaluate the efficacy of the Cone > Cancer Treatment (CCT) by treating 10 Advanced Breast Cancer patients, > commencing in mid- January of '93. When I last spoke with Dr. Cone in > mid-Aug. '93, he stated that NCI declared that they had " No Intention of > EVER CONDUCTING ANY RESEARCH on The Cone Cancer Treatment. " > > Why??? Could it be that the CCT uses inexpensive insulin and thyroid plus > a restricted diet, available for 50 years? Since the insulin and thyroid > is now " generic " no drug company would benefit from Curing Cancer with the > CCT. Nobody would be able to charge $100-150,000/BMT. What did NIH have to > lose by conducting research on the CCT? They funded research on Laetrile > which had NO Scientific Basis for its mode of action! Why are they AFRAID > of the CCT? Could they be afraid that CCT research would be the LAST > research they ever conduct on Cancer Treatment?? > > Once the pressure from the Senators had subsided, NCI REFUSED to > evaluate > the > Curative Effect of the CCT! Does this sound like suppression...or > what?? > > The original information, that I received on the CCT, came from the > American > Cancer Society in July, '90.....about 2.5 years after the first TWO > patents > were issued (Feb. '88). I was amazed, when I asked Dr. Cone in Aug. > '90, > about > research being conducted by or funded by the ACS. He declared that > " No One " > was conducting any research on the CCT! Why?? What does the ACS have to > lose? ....Fat salaries for executives of a Tax Exempt Organization which > is the largest fundraiser in the U.S.! > > Can anyone honestly believe that the ACS has been unaware of the CCT for > TEN years??....What else can this be but suppression? BTW, I am prepared > to document any of the above claims....in court, if necessary. > > Next, in July of '95, the American Medical Association (AMA) > declared, at > the > urging of the American College of Radiology (ACR), that it is > " unethical " > for > any physician to " seek, secure or enforce patents on therapeutic > procedures. " > Wait a minute! What Therapeutic procedures could the ACR be concerned > about? The ACR is comprised of about 90% Diagnostic Radiologists and 10% > Radiotherapists......So, the Radio- therapists must be concerned about > therapeutic procedures which are patented! Why?? Because a Curative Cancer > Treatment, which is a patented therapeutic procedure, would eliminate 99% > of their patients! Guess what Patented Cancer Treatment worries > them?.....The ONLY one available....the Cone Cancer Treatment! > > So now, any physician who uses the patented CCT in the U.S., will run the > risk of losing his/her medical license....EVEN if the treatment saves the > Cancer Victim's life!! (ACR Bulletin, 7-95, Pg 12) > > NOTE: The 3 patents are " Process Patents " which cover a procedure or > method to achieve some objective. The requirements for such a patent are, > basically: to assemble a widget, you begin with widget parts and by > following a specific sequence of procedures, you assemble the > widget.....To make yellow paint, begin with specific components and follow > a specific series of procedures to yield......yellow paint. The processes > involved can be patented to protect special techniques required to achieve > the end result. > > Hence, the Cone patents protect the intellectual property of the > techniques > required to produce tumor destruction by the CCT. Should Cancer > Victims die > while doctors avoid using the NON-TOXIC Cone patents but employ > patented > Chemotherapy drugs OR patented Radiotherapy machines? > > R.D. Hodgell, M.D., Pres. > Cancer Treatment Medical Services, Inc. > > > > > > Get HUGE info at http://www.cures for cancer.ws, and post your own links there. > Unsubscribe by sending email to cures for cancer-unsubscribeegroups or by > visiting http://www.bobhurt.com/subunsub.mv > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2002 Report Share Posted April 30, 2002 Hi moonbeam Just for the record I didn't write the piece on Otto Warburg.I wish I did.It is just something I had in my files.But I do support oxygen therapy and yes I have read protocol 1 with great interest.As for the 10 posts on sugar and cancer (smile) no I won't make it a habit of doing that I just wanted to get the point across to those who don't know.I think you would agree with me that stopping sugar intake should be the first thing in a cancer protocol and it doesn't cost a thing.When I walk into a cancer ward and see all these people hooked up to a chemo IV and sucking down candy, cake and sodas and the Doctors and nurses don't think nothing of it I get darn right mad. But what can I do about it? nothing! I remember you posted something on arsenic a few months ago. Interesting.As for the money collected It just dosen't end. Take care Jim > cures for cancer@y... > From: " j7i7m7 " <j7i7m7@y...> > Date sent: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 17:35:22 -0000 > Subject: Sugar and Cancer > Send reply to: cures for cancer@y... > > > The Cone Cancer Treatment > > Could it be that the CCT uses inexpensive insulin and thyroid plus > > a restricted diet, available for 50 years? Since the insulin and thyroid > > is now " generic " no drug company would benefit from Curing Cancer with the > > CCT. > > Hi Friend, > With great respect, I hope you dont post 10 emails every day, as > it takes a while to read them all. > You have certainly explained well why people with cancer dont take sugar. > Insulin therapy has been mentioned on this list several times before. > You explain Otto Warburg's work well. I am pleased that you also support oxygen > therapy, based on Prof. Warburg's work, as I also support the use of oxygen therapy, > via the dilute peroxide/dmso bath. See Protocol 1 for details. > > Yesterday I contacted a major organization that collects money to " find a cure > for Leukemia " . I asked them if they knew of any treatment that showed 85% to 90% > complete remission in APL Leukemia. They knew of no such treatment, even though > listmembers know of 3 clinical trials, with significant numbers of patients, that > showed Arsenic gave %85 to %90 complete remission in APL Leukemia. > > I asked them what they did with the money they raised, they said they provided > accomodation and travel expenses for patients to go to hospital and did a bit of > cellular research, but " RAN NO CLINICAL TRIALS " WITH THE MONEY RAISED to find a cure > for Leukemia...... > > moonbeam > > > > > > > > by R. Hodgell, M.D. > > The Cone Cancer Treatment (CCT) is a U.S. Patented, scientifically > > sound, > > metabolic therapy which exploits the " Achilles Heel " metabolic defect of > > Cancer Cells. The Cancer Cell metabolic defect was first detected by > > double Nobel Laureat Otto Warburg in 1925, and consists of the inability > > of Cancer Cells to metabolize glucose into the TCA (Krebs) Cycle via the > > glycolytic pathway. The result is the metabolism of glucose to pyruvate, > > which is then converted to lactate and excreted from the cell. Cancer > > Cells have developed the ability to excrete lactate at a rate of 100 times > > the rate of normal cell lactate excretion, to prevent intracellular > > acidity that would result from metabolism of large amounts of glucose. The > > aborted metabolism of glucose is due to a geneticaly determined defective > > cofactor which prevents CoEnzyme A from metabolizing pyruvate and > > injecting it into the TCA Cycle. (I must apologize for not being more > > specific, but I forgot to bring all of my reference materials with me on > > my holiday travel) Due to the aborted metabolism of glucose, Cancer Cells > > obtain about 1/8th the energy from glucose as that which is obtained from > > each molecule of glucose by normal cells. As a result, Cancer Cells must > > rely upon metabolism of Free Fatty Acids (FFA) and Amino Acids (AA) via > > the TCA Cycle, for the majority of the energy requirements of their > > cellular survival functions. The CCT exploits the Cancer Cell metabolic > > defect by restricting the availability of FFA and AA for Cancer Cell > > energy while supplying precisely the energy required by ALL CELLS, in the > > form of glucose. Next, the metabolic rate is increased to force all cells > > to require increased energy for cell survival. The result is that Cancer > > Cells cannot obtain adequate energy/time frame to survive, while normal > > cells accept the increased metabolic rate without difficulty. The dying > > Cancer Cells supply the FFA and AA required for normal cell survival since > > the normal cell metabolism has an enhanced competitive advantage for > > utilizing the FFA and AA, due to about 8 times as much energy available to > > each normal cell, compared to the Cancer Cells. The remarkable feature of > > the CCT is the fact that the cell destruction is confined EXCLUSIVELY to > > the Cancer Cells! Therefore, there is NO TOXICITY to normal cells and no > > effect on the immune system OR the GI tract and NO hair loss! Contrary to > > the situation with chemo. and radiation, the effect of the CCT cell > > destruction is targeted precisely to Cancer Cells. Chemo. And radiation > > depend on the small difference in susceptability between normal and Cancer > > Cells, for the anti-cancer effect; ie: Cancer Cells MUST be more sensitive > > to the chemo./radiation than are normal cells, for the " selective " > > destruction of the Cancer Cells. The problem with this situation is: There > > is a " gray zone " of overlap between the sensitivity of normal and Cancer > > Cells, which produces destruction of normal cells along with whatever > > destruction occurs in Cancer Cells. Hence, the miserable complications of > > chemo./ radiation, which are totally ABSENT with the CCT. The ONLY > > toxicity of the CCT is due to the rapidity of tumor destruction, which can > > be controlled by the caloric mix of the restricted diet. The CCT version > > that we are using has been approved by Dr. Cone for use in the VA Pilot > > Project which was approved in June, 1995, then cancelled in July, 1995, > > due to the AMA edict that it is " unethical for physicians to seek, secure > > OR ENFORCE patents on medical procedures. " (1) The AMA edict violates > > Federal Patent Laws by demanding that physicians IGNORE the patent rights > > of the patent holder by not honoring (ENFORCING) patent royalties OR risk > > losing their medical license for being " unethical. " The Hippocratic Oath > > requires that physicians " Do No Harm. " How is it possible to " Do No Harm " > > by preventing the use of a patented treatment (medical procedure) to save > > the lives of dying cancer victims? The CTMS application of the VA CCT > > protocol utilizes thyroid hormone, insulin injections and a high > > Carbohydrate diet which is carefully matched to the caloric demand of the > > patient. Previous patient results indicate that TOTAL destruction of tumor > > persists at least 6 months, when the patient carefully adheres to the CCT > > therapy. CTMS will recommend therapy be continuous until the patients are > > advised that it is safe to terminate the therapy (like hypothyroid or > > diabetic patients). Now, concerning the " CURE " issue. As you know from the > > info. The NCI recognizes treatment of patients who have > > recurrent/persistant measurable tumor after receiving all standard > > therapies, as a legitimate procedure for determining the " therapeutic > > effect " of the treatment, including chemo. And radiation. (The patient's > > residual tumor after previous standard treatment, constitutes " self > > control " for any effect produced by subsequent treatment.) Their > > requirement IS: Carefully DOCUMENTED evidence of AT LEAST 50% reduction of > > tumor in cases treated (by tumor type), to obtain approval for use as a > > " legitimate treatment " for specified tumors. The CCT routinely achieves > > 50% reductions in 4 weeks, but we are not interested in only 50%. > > Therefore, the controlled therapy is conducted for 8 weeks, with an > > additional 4 months of monitoring, to confirm total destruction and an > > expected " CURE " as long as the patients adhere to the CCT. So, we not only > > expect to obtain evidence of the required 50% reduction in tumor size, but > > we expect to confirm total destruction by 2-6 months! The primary reason > > that the CCT hasn't been previously approved by the NCI, is due to the > > lousy documentation of previously treated patients. CTMS will > > unequivocally correct that defect, to obtain NCI/FDA approval. Refr.: (1) > > American College of Radiology Bulletin 1995;7:12 D. Hodgell, M.D. > > Pres., Cancer Treatment Medical Services, Inc. (The patient may be a > > candidate for the FREE Curative Treatment Clinical Trial being conducted > > by Cancer Treatment Medical Services, Inc. @ 1-800-873-6304) > > rdhodgell@a... > > > > A suppression case in point.... after inviting Dr. Cone to present the > > research results published in the 3 patents, (under pressure from Sen. > > Pryor and Sen. Cranston) in Sept. '92, NIH promised Dr. Cone that NCI > > would initiate a " Pilot Project " to evaluate the efficacy of the Cone > > Cancer Treatment (CCT) by treating 10 Advanced Breast Cancer patients, > > commencing in mid- January of '93. When I last spoke with Dr. Cone in > > mid-Aug. '93, he stated that NCI declared that they had " No Intention of > > EVER CONDUCTING ANY RESEARCH on The Cone Cancer Treatment. " > > > > Why??? Could it be that the CCT uses inexpensive insulin and thyroid plus > > a restricted diet, available for 50 years? Since the insulin and thyroid > > is now " generic " no drug company would benefit from Curing Cancer with the > > CCT. Nobody would be able to charge $100-150,000/BMT. What did NIH have to > > lose by conducting research on the CCT? They funded research on Laetrile > > which had NO Scientific Basis for its mode of action! Why are they AFRAID > > of the CCT? Could they be afraid that CCT research would be the LAST > > research they ever conduct on Cancer Treatment?? > > > > Once the pressure from the Senators had subsided, NCI REFUSED to > > evaluate > > the > > Curative Effect of the CCT! Does this sound like suppression...or > > what?? > > > > The original information, that I received on the CCT, came from the > > American > > Cancer Society in July, '90.....about 2.5 years after the first TWO > > patents > > were issued (Feb. '88). I was amazed, when I asked Dr. Cone in Aug. > > '90, > > about > > research being conducted by or funded by the ACS. He declared that > > " No One " > > was conducting any research on the CCT! Why?? What does the ACS have to > > lose? ....Fat salaries for executives of a Tax Exempt Organization which > > is the largest fundraiser in the U.S.! > > > > Can anyone honestly believe that the ACS has been unaware of the CCT for > > TEN years??....What else can this be but suppression? BTW, I am prepared > > to document any of the above claims....in court, if necessary. > > > > Next, in July of '95, the American Medical Association (AMA) > > declared, at > > the > > urging of the American College of Radiology (ACR), that it is > > " unethical " > > for > > any physician to " seek, secure or enforce patents on therapeutic > > procedures. " > > Wait a minute! What Therapeutic procedures could the ACR be concerned > > about? The ACR is comprised of about 90% Diagnostic Radiologists and 10% > > Radiotherapists......So, the Radio- therapists must be concerned about > > therapeutic procedures which are patented! Why?? Because a Curative Cancer > > Treatment, which is a patented therapeutic procedure, would eliminate 99% > > of their patients! Guess what Patented Cancer Treatment worries > > them?.....The ONLY one available....the Cone Cancer Treatment! > > > > So now, any physician who uses the patented CCT in the U.S., will run the > > risk of losing his/her medical license....EVEN if the treatment saves the > > Cancer Victim's life!! (ACR Bulletin, 7-95, Pg 12) > > > > NOTE: The 3 patents are " Process Patents " which cover a procedure or > > method to achieve some objective. The requirements for such a patent are, > > basically: to assemble a widget, you begin with widget parts and by > > following a specific sequence of procedures, you assemble the > > widget.....To make yellow paint, begin with specific components and follow > > a specific series of procedures to yield......yellow paint. The processes > > involved can be patented to protect special techniques required to achieve > > the end result. > > > > Hence, the Cone patents protect the intellectual property of the > > techniques > > required to produce tumor destruction by the CCT. Should Cancer > > Victims die > > while doctors avoid using the NON-TOXIC Cone patents but employ > > patented > > Chemotherapy drugs OR patented Radiotherapy machines? > > > > R.D. Hodgell, M.D., Pres. > > Cancer Treatment Medical Services, Inc. > > > > > > > > > > > > Get HUGE info at http://www.cures for cancer.ws, and post your own links there. > > Unsubscribe by sending email to cures for cancer-unsubscribe@e... or by > > visiting http://www.bobhurt.com/subunsub.mv > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2002 Report Share Posted April 30, 2002 Hanna says that the American Indians are one of the greatest consumers of sugar. Yet, their cancer rate is very low. Why? She says they know their medicinal plants. So, it's what you eat--whether foods have natural medicines--that is the key issue. http://www.kroegerherb.com/ \\\ =(o o)= ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--V---+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >Hi moonbeam >Just for the record I didn't write the piece on Otto Warburg.I wish I >did.It is just something I had in my files.But I do support oxygen >therapy and yes I have read protocol 1 with great interest.As for the >10 posts on sugar and cancer (smile) no I won't make it a habit of >doing that I just wanted to get the point across to those who don't >know.I think you would agree with me that stopping sugar intake >should be the first thing in a cancer protocol and it doesn't cost a >thing.When I walk into a cancer ward and see all these people hooked >up to a chemo IV and sucking down candy, cake and sodas and the >Doctors and nurses don't think nothing of it I get darn right mad. >But what can I do about it? nothing! > I remember you posted something on arsenic a few months ago. >Interesting.As for the money collected It just dosen't end. > >Take care >Jim > > > >> cures for cancer@y... >> From: " j7i7m7 " <j7i7m7@y...> >> Date sent: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 17:35:22 -0000 >> Subject: Sugar and Cancer >> Send reply to: cures for cancer@y... >> >> > The Cone Cancer Treatment >> > Could it be that the CCT uses inexpensive insulin and thyroid plus >> > a restricted diet, available for 50 years? Since the insulin and >thyroid >> > is now " generic " no drug company would benefit from Curing Cancer >with the >> > CCT. >> >> Hi Friend, >> With great respect, I hope you dont post 10 >emails every day, as >> it takes a while to read them all. >> You have certainly explained well why people with cancer dont >take sugar. >> Insulin therapy has been mentioned on this list several times >before. >> You explain Otto Warburg's work well. I am pleased that you also >support oxygen >> therapy, based on Prof. Warburg's work, as I also support the use >of oxygen therapy, >> via the dilute peroxide/dmso bath. See Protocol 1 for details. >> >> Yesterday I contacted a major organization that collects money >to " find a cure >> for Leukemia " . I asked them if they knew of any treatment that >showed 85% to 90% >> complete remission in APL Leukemia. They knew of no such treatment, >even though >> listmembers know of 3 clinical trials, with significant numbers of >patients, that >> showed Arsenic gave %85 to %90 complete remission in APL Leukemia. >> >> I asked them what they did with the money they raised, they said >they provided >> accomodation and travel expenses for patients to go to hospital and >did a bit of >> cellular research, but " RAN NO CLINICAL TRIALS " WITH THE MONEY >RAISED to find a cure >> for Leukemia...... >> >> moonbeam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > by R. Hodgell, M.D. >> > The Cone Cancer Treatment (CCT) is a U.S. Patented, >scientifically >> > sound, >> > metabolic therapy which exploits the " Achilles Heel " metabolic >defect of >> > Cancer Cells. The Cancer Cell metabolic defect was first detected >by >> > double Nobel Laureat Otto Warburg in 1925, and consists of the >inability >> > of Cancer Cells to metabolize glucose into the TCA (Krebs) Cycle >via the >> > glycolytic pathway. The result is the metabolism of glucose to >pyruvate, >> > which is then converted to lactate and excreted from the cell. >Cancer >> > Cells have developed the ability to excrete lactate at a rate of >100 times >> > the rate of normal cell lactate excretion, to prevent >intracellular >> > acidity that would result from metabolism of large amounts of >glucose. The >> > aborted metabolism of glucose is due to a geneticaly determined >defective >> > cofactor which prevents CoEnzyme A from metabolizing pyruvate and >> > injecting it into the TCA Cycle. (I must apologize for not being >more >> > specific, but I forgot to bring all of my reference materials >with me on >> > my holiday travel) Due to the aborted metabolism of glucose, >Cancer Cells >> > obtain about 1/8th the energy from glucose as that which is >obtained from >> > each molecule of glucose by normal cells. As a result, Cancer >Cells must >> > rely upon metabolism of Free Fatty Acids (FFA) and Amino Acids >(AA) via >> > the TCA Cycle, for the majority of the energy requirements of >their >> > cellular survival functions. The CCT exploits the Cancer Cell >metabolic >> > defect by restricting the availability of FFA and AA for Cancer >Cell >> > energy while supplying precisely the energy required by ALL >CELLS, in the >> > form of glucose. Next, the metabolic rate is increased to force >all cells >> > to require increased energy for cell survival. The result is that >Cancer >> > Cells cannot obtain adequate energy/time frame to survive, while >normal >> > cells accept the increased metabolic rate without difficulty. The >dying >> > Cancer Cells supply the FFA and AA required for normal cell >survival since >> > the normal cell metabolism has an enhanced competitive advantage >for >> > utilizing the FFA and AA, due to about 8 times as much energy >available to >> > each normal cell, compared to the Cancer Cells. The remarkable >feature of >> > the CCT is the fact that the cell destruction is confined >EXCLUSIVELY to >> > the Cancer Cells! Therefore, there is NO TOXICITY to normal cells >and no >> > effect on the immune system OR the GI tract and NO hair loss! >Contrary to >> > the situation with chemo. and radiation, the effect of the CCT >cell >> > destruction is targeted precisely to Cancer Cells. Chemo. And >radiation >> > depend on the small difference in susceptability between normal >and Cancer >> > Cells, for the anti-cancer effect; ie: Cancer Cells MUST be more >sensitive >> > to the chemo./radiation than are normal cells, for the " selective " >> > destruction of the Cancer Cells. The problem with this situation >is: There >> > is a " gray zone " of overlap between the sensitivity of normal and >Cancer >> > Cells, which produces destruction of normal cells along with >whatever >> > destruction occurs in Cancer Cells. Hence, the miserable >complications of >> > chemo./ radiation, which are totally ABSENT with the CCT. The ONLY >> > toxicity of the CCT is due to the rapidity of tumor destruction, >which can >> > be controlled by the caloric mix of the restricted diet. The CCT >version >> > that we are using has been approved by Dr. Cone for use in the VA >Pilot >> > Project which was approved in June, 1995, then cancelled in July, >1995, >> > due to the AMA edict that it is " unethical for physicians to >seek, secure >> > OR ENFORCE patents on medical procedures. " (1) The AMA edict >violates >> > Federal Patent Laws by demanding that physicians IGNORE the >patent rights >> > of the patent holder by not honoring (ENFORCING) patent royalties >OR risk >> > losing their medical license for being " unethical. " The >Hippocratic Oath >> > requires that physicians " Do No Harm. " How is it possible to " Do >No Harm " >> > by preventing the use of a patented treatment (medical procedure) >to save >> > the lives of dying cancer victims? The CTMS application of the VA >CCT >> > protocol utilizes thyroid hormone, insulin injections and a high >> > Carbohydrate diet which is carefully matched to the caloric >demand of the >> > patient. Previous patient results indicate that TOTAL destruction >of tumor >> > persists at least 6 months, when the patient carefully adheres to >the CCT >> > therapy. CTMS will recommend therapy be continuous until the >patients are >> > advised that it is safe to terminate the therapy (like >hypothyroid or >> > diabetic patients). Now, concerning the " CURE " issue. As you know >from the >> > info. The NCI recognizes treatment of patients who have >> > recurrent/persistant measurable tumor after receiving all standard >> > therapies, as a legitimate procedure for determining the > " therapeutic >> > effect " of the treatment, including chemo. And radiation. (The >patient's >> > residual tumor after previous standard treatment, constitutes > " self >> > control " for any effect produced by subsequent treatment.) Their >> > requirement IS: Carefully DOCUMENTED evidence of AT LEAST 50% >reduction of >> > tumor in cases treated (by tumor type), to obtain approval for >use as a >> > " legitimate treatment " for specified tumors. The CCT routinely >achieves >> > 50% reductions in 4 weeks, but we are not interested in only 50%. >> > Therefore, the controlled therapy is conducted for 8 weeks, with >an >> > additional 4 months of monitoring, to confirm total destruction >and an >> > expected " CURE " as long as the patients adhere to the CCT. So, we >not only >> > expect to obtain evidence of the required 50% reduction in tumor >size, but >> > we expect to confirm total destruction by 2-6 months! The primary >reason >> > that the CCT hasn't been previously approved by the NCI, is due >to the >> > lousy documentation of previously treated patients. CTMS will >> > unequivocally correct that defect, to obtain NCI/FDA approval. >Refr.: (1) >> > American College of Radiology Bulletin 1995;7:12 D. >Hodgell, M.D. >> > Pres., Cancer Treatment Medical Services, Inc. (The patient may >be a >> > candidate for the FREE Curative Treatment Clinical Trial being >conducted >> > by Cancer Treatment Medical Services, Inc. @ 1-800-873-6304) >> > rdhodgell@a... >> > >> > A suppression case in point.... after inviting Dr. Cone to >present the >> > research results published in the 3 patents, (under pressure from >Sen. >> > Pryor and Sen. Cranston) in Sept. '92, NIH promised Dr. Cone that >NCI >> > would initiate a " Pilot Project " to evaluate the efficacy of the >Cone >> > Cancer Treatment (CCT) by treating 10 Advanced Breast Cancer >patients, >> > commencing in mid- January of '93. When I last spoke with Dr. >Cone in >> > mid-Aug. '93, he stated that NCI declared that they had " No >Intention of >> > EVER CONDUCTING ANY RESEARCH on The Cone Cancer Treatment. " >> > >> > Why??? Could it be that the CCT uses inexpensive insulin and >thyroid plus >> > a restricted diet, available for 50 years? Since the insulin and >thyroid >> > is now " generic " no drug company would benefit from Curing Cancer >with the >> > CCT. Nobody would be able to charge $100-150,000/BMT. What did >NIH have to >> > lose by conducting research on the CCT? They funded research on >Laetrile >> > which had NO Scientific Basis for its mode of action! Why are >they AFRAID >> > of the CCT? Could they be afraid that CCT research would be the >LAST >> > research they ever conduct on Cancer Treatment?? >> > >> > Once the pressure from the Senators had subsided, NCI REFUSED to >> > evaluate >> > the >> > Curative Effect of the CCT! Does this sound like suppression...or >> > what?? >> > >> > The original information, that I received on the CCT, came from >the >> > American >> > Cancer Society in July, '90.....about 2.5 years after the first >TWO >> > patents >> > were issued (Feb. '88). I was amazed, when I asked Dr. Cone in >Aug. >> > '90, >> > about >> > research being conducted by or funded by the ACS. He declared >that >> > " No One " >> > was conducting any research on the CCT! Why?? What does the ACS >have to >> > lose? ....Fat salaries for executives of a Tax Exempt >Organization which >> > is the largest fundraiser in the U.S.! >> > >> > Can anyone honestly believe that the ACS has been unaware of the >CCT for >> > TEN years??....What else can this be but suppression? BTW, I am >prepared >> > to document any of the above claims....in court, if necessary. >> > >> > Next, in July of '95, the American Medical Association (AMA) >> > declared, at >> > the >> > urging of the American College of Radiology (ACR), that it is >> > " unethical " >> > for >> > any physician to " seek, secure or enforce patents on therapeutic >> > procedures. " >> > Wait a minute! What Therapeutic procedures could the ACR be >concerned >> > about? The ACR is comprised of about 90% Diagnostic Radiologists >and 10% >> > Radiotherapists......So, the Radio- therapists must be concerned >about >> > therapeutic procedures which are patented! Why?? Because a >Curative Cancer >> > Treatment, which is a patented therapeutic procedure, would >eliminate 99% >> > of their patients! Guess what Patented Cancer Treatment worries >> > them?.....The ONLY one available....the Cone Cancer Treatment! >> > >> > So now, any physician who uses the patented CCT in the U.S., will >run the >> > risk of losing his/her medical license....EVEN if the treatment >saves the >> > Cancer Victim's life!! (ACR Bulletin, 7-95, Pg 12) >> > >> > NOTE: The 3 patents are " Process Patents " which cover a procedure >or >> > method to achieve some objective. The requirements for such a >patent are, >> > basically: to assemble a widget, you begin with widget parts and >by >> > following a specific sequence of procedures, you assemble the >> > widget.....To make yellow paint, begin with specific components >and follow >> > a specific series of procedures to yield......yellow paint. The >processes >> > involved can be patented to protect special techniques required >to achieve >> > the end result. >> > >> > Hence, the Cone patents protect the intellectual property of the >> > techniques >> > required to produce tumor destruction by the CCT. Should Cancer >> > Victims die >> > while doctors avoid using the NON-TOXIC Cone patents but employ >> > patented >> > Chemotherapy drugs OR patented Radiotherapy machines? >> > >> > R.D. Hodgell, M.D., Pres. >> > Cancer Treatment Medical Services, Inc. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Get HUGE info at http://www.cures for cancer.ws, and post your own >links there. >> > Unsubscribe by sending email to cures for cancer-unsubscribe@e... or by >> > visiting http://www.bobhurt.com/subunsub.mv >> > >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2002 Report Share Posted April 30, 2002 Doubt this very much. Which American Indians, living where? Those eating a standard American junk food diet have similar disease statistics to everyone else. (Except for tribes such as the Pima, who when on reservations have sky-high rates of diabetes due to a genetic predisposition combined with the SAD diet). No statistics on cancer among N American Indians were collected before 1990, anyway. So who can say? Incidence of cancer generally among N American Indians is rising - and mortality rates from cancer are higher among some NA Indians than among any other US ethnic group. Simon. From: Joyce Inouye Hanna says that the American Indians are one of the greatest consumers of sugar. Yet, their cancer rate is very low. Why? She says they know their medicinal plants. So, it's what you eat--whether foods have natural medicines--that is the key issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2002 Report Share Posted April 30, 2002 From: Joyce Inouye <jinouy01@...> Date sent: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 08:49:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Sugar and Cancer > Hanna says that the American Indians are one of the greatest > consumers of sugar. Yet, their cancer rate is very low. Why? > She says they know their medicinal plants. So, it's what you > eat--whether foods have natural medicines--that is the key issue. > http://www.kroegerherb.com/ Hi, This is easy, the answer is simple. There is a big difference between feeding or promoting a tumor and causing a tumor. Tumor CAUSATION is different from tumor PROMOTION (tumor acceleration). Tumors are not caused by eating sugar. Tumors may be caused by medical X-Rays or " charred " meat or other factors. Existing tumors seem to be PROMOTED by sugar, xeno-estrogens and other factors. Gasolene will not start a car, electricity is needed to start a normal car, but gasolene will allow the car to accelerate, once it is started. moonbeam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2002 Report Share Posted May 1, 2002 I have a comment for Joyce on her remark about the American Indian's consuming a lot of sugar. I have been following this discussion on cancer and sugar, and I also recall Dr.Nieper's similar view on cancer and sugar, and I find that sugar makes the cancer cells grow, when you have it, of course, but nowhere have I seen that it is the direct cause of cancer, or of producing cancer. Have I missed the point somewhere along the line, Joyce, that sugar will cause cancer, or that cancer is a direct result of eating too much sugar ? Just wondering about this. If you have further information I would be happy to see it. Boswell Sugar and Cancer > >> Send reply to: cures for cancer@y... > >> > >> > The Cone Cancer Treatment > >> > Could it be that the CCT uses inexpensive insulin and thyroid plus > >> > a restricted diet, available for 50 years? Since the insulin and > >thyroid > >> > is now " generic " no drug company would benefit from Curing Cancer > >with the > >> > CCT. > >> > >> Hi Friend, > >> With great respect, I hope you dont post 10 > >emails every day, as > >> it takes a while to read them all. > >> You have certainly explained well why people with cancer dont > >take sugar. > >> Insulin therapy has been mentioned on this list several times > >before. > >> You explain Otto Warburg's work well. I am pleased that you also > >support oxygen > >> therapy, based on Prof. Warburg's work, as I also support the use > >of oxygen therapy, > >> via the dilute peroxide/dmso bath. See Protocol 1 for details. > >> > >> Yesterday I contacted a major organization that collects money > >to " find a cure > >> for Leukemia " . I asked them if they knew of any treatment that > >showed 85% to 90% > >> complete remission in APL Leukemia. They knew of no such treatment, > >even though > >> listmembers know of 3 clinical trials, with significant numbers of > >patients, that > >> showed Arsenic gave %85 to %90 complete remission in APL Leukemia. > >> > >> I asked them what they did with the money they raised, they said > >they provided > >> accomodation and travel expenses for patients to go to hospital and > >did a bit of > >> cellular research, but " RAN NO CLINICAL TRIALS " WITH THE MONEY > >RAISED to find a cure > >> for Leukemia...... > >> > >> moonbeam > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > by R. Hodgell, M.D. > >> > The Cone Cancer Treatment (CCT) is a U.S. Patented, > >scientifically > >> > sound, > >> > metabolic therapy which exploits the " Achilles Heel " metabolic > >defect of > >> > Cancer Cells. The Cancer Cell metabolic defect was first detected > >by > >> > double Nobel Laureat Otto Warburg in 1925, and consists of the > >inability > >> > of Cancer Cells to metabolize glucose into the TCA (Krebs) Cycle > >via the > >> > glycolytic pathway. The result is the metabolism of glucose to > >pyruvate, > >> > which is then converted to lactate and excreted from the cell. > >Cancer > >> > Cells have developed the ability to excrete lactate at a rate of > >100 times > >> > the rate of normal cell lactate excretion, to prevent > >intracellular > >> > acidity that would result from metabolism of large amounts of > >glucose. The > >> > aborted metabolism of glucose is due to a geneticaly determined > >defective > >> > cofactor which prevents CoEnzyme A from metabolizing pyruvate and > >> > injecting it into the TCA Cycle. (I must apologize for not being > >more > >> > specific, but I forgot to bring all of my reference materials > >with me on > >> > my holiday travel) Due to the aborted metabolism of glucose, > >Cancer Cells > >> > obtain about 1/8th the energy from glucose as that which is > >obtained from > >> > each molecule of glucose by normal cells. As a result, Cancer > >Cells must > >> > rely upon metabolism of Free Fatty Acids (FFA) and Amino Acids > >(AA) via > >> > the TCA Cycle, for the majority of the energy requirements of > >their > >> > cellular survival functions. The CCT exploits the Cancer Cell > >metabolic > >> > defect by restricting the availability of FFA and AA for Cancer > >Cell > >> > energy while supplying precisely the energy required by ALL > >CELLS, in the > >> > form of glucose. Next, the metabolic rate is increased to force > >all cells > >> > to require increased energy for cell survival. The result is that > >Cancer > >> > Cells cannot obtain adequate energy/time frame to survive, while > >normal > >> > cells accept the increased metabolic rate without difficulty. The > >dying > >> > Cancer Cells supply the FFA and AA required for normal cell > >survival since > >> > the normal cell metabolism has an enhanced competitive advantage > >for > >> > utilizing the FFA and AA, due to about 8 times as much energy > >available to > >> > each normal cell, compared to the Cancer Cells. The remarkable > >feature of > >> > the CCT is the fact that the cell destruction is confined > >EXCLUSIVELY to > >> > the Cancer Cells! Therefore, there is NO TOXICITY to normal cells > >and no > >> > effect on the immune system OR the GI tract and NO hair loss! > >Contrary to > >> > the situation with chemo. and radiation, the effect of the CCT > >cell > >> > destruction is targeted precisely to Cancer Cells. Chemo. And > >radiation > >> > depend on the small difference in susceptability between normal > >and Cancer > >> > Cells, for the anti-cancer effect; ie: Cancer Cells MUST be more > >sensitive > >> > to the chemo./radiation than are normal cells, for the " selective " > >> > destruction of the Cancer Cells. The problem with this situation > >is: There > >> > is a " gray zone " of overlap between the sensitivity of normal and > >Cancer > >> > Cells, which produces destruction of normal cells along with > >whatever > >> > destruction occurs in Cancer Cells. Hence, the miserable > >complications of > >> > chemo./ radiation, which are totally ABSENT with the CCT. The ONLY > >> > toxicity of the CCT is due to the rapidity of tumor destruction, > >which can > >> > be controlled by the caloric mix of the restricted diet. The CCT > >version > >> > that we are using has been approved by Dr. Cone for use in the VA > >Pilot > >> > Project which was approved in June, 1995, then cancelled in July, > >1995, > >> > due to the AMA edict that it is " unethical for physicians to > >seek, secure > >> > OR ENFORCE patents on medical procedures. " (1) The AMA edict > >violates > >> > Federal Patent Laws by demanding that physicians IGNORE the > >patent rights > >> > of the patent holder by not honoring (ENFORCING) patent royalties > >OR risk > >> > losing their medical license for being " unethical. " The > >Hippocratic Oath > >> > requires that physicians " Do No Harm. " How is it possible to " Do > >No Harm " > >> > by preventing the use of a patented treatment (medical procedure) > >to save > >> > the lives of dying cancer victims? The CTMS application of the VA > >CCT > >> > protocol utilizes thyroid hormone, insulin injections and a high > >> > Carbohydrate diet which is carefully matched to the caloric > >demand of the > >> > patient. Previous patient results indicate that TOTAL destruction > >of tumor > >> > persists at least 6 months, when the patient carefully adheres to > >the CCT > >> > therapy. CTMS will recommend therapy be continuous until the > >patients are > >> > advised that it is safe to terminate the therapy (like > >hypothyroid or > >> > diabetic patients). Now, concerning the " CURE " issue. As you know > >from the > >> > info. The NCI recognizes treatment of patients who have > >> > recurrent/persistant measurable tumor after receiving all standard > >> > therapies, as a legitimate procedure for determining the > > " therapeutic > >> > effect " of the treatment, including chemo. And radiation. (The > >patient's > >> > residual tumor after previous standard treatment, constitutes > > " self > >> > control " for any effect produced by subsequent treatment.) Their > >> > requirement IS: Carefully DOCUMENTED evidence of AT LEAST 50% > >reduction of > >> > tumor in cases treated (by tumor type), to obtain approval for > >use as a > >> > " legitimate treatment " for specified tumors. The CCT routinely > >achieves > >> > 50% reductions in 4 weeks, but we are not interested in only 50%. > >> > Therefore, the controlled therapy is conducted for 8 weeks, with > >an > >> > additional 4 months of monitoring, to confirm total destruction > >and an > >> > expected " CURE " as long as the patients adhere to the CCT. So, we > >not only > >> > expect to obtain evidence of the required 50% reduction in tumor > >size, but > >> > we expect to confirm total destruction by 2-6 months! The primary > >reason > >> > that the CCT hasn't been previously approved by the NCI, is due > >to the > >> > lousy documentation of previously treated patients. CTMS will > >> > unequivocally correct that defect, to obtain NCI/FDA approval. > >Refr.: (1) > >> > American College of Radiology Bulletin 1995;7:12 D. > >Hodgell, M.D. > >> > Pres., Cancer Treatment Medical Services, Inc. (The patient may > >be a > >> > candidate for the FREE Curative Treatment Clinical Trial being > >conducted > >> > by Cancer Treatment Medical Services, Inc. @ 1-800-873-6304) > >> > rdhodgell@a... > >> > > >> > A suppression case in point.... after inviting Dr. Cone to > >present the > >> > research results published in the 3 patents, (under pressure from > >Sen. > >> > Pryor and Sen. Cranston) in Sept. '92, NIH promised Dr. Cone that > >NCI > >> > would initiate a " Pilot Project " to evaluate the efficacy of the > >Cone > >> > Cancer Treatment (CCT) by treating 10 Advanced Breast Cancer > >patients, > >> > commencing in mid- January of '93. When I last spoke with Dr. > >Cone in > >> > mid-Aug. '93, he stated that NCI declared that they had " No > >Intention of > >> > EVER CONDUCTING ANY RESEARCH on The Cone Cancer Treatment. " > >> > > >> > Why??? Could it be that the CCT uses inexpensive insulin and > >thyroid plus > >> > a restricted diet, available for 50 years? Since the insulin and > >thyroid > >> > is now " generic " no drug company would benefit from Curing Cancer > >with the > >> > CCT. Nobody would be able to charge $100-150,000/BMT. What did > >NIH have to > >> > lose by conducting research on the CCT? They funded research on > >Laetrile > >> > which had NO Scientific Basis for its mode of action! Why are > >they AFRAID > >> > of the CCT? Could they be afraid that CCT research would be the > >LAST > >> > research they ever conduct on Cancer Treatment?? > >> > > >> > Once the pressure from the Senators had subsided, NCI REFUSED to > >> > evaluate > >> > the > >> > Curative Effect of the CCT! Does this sound like suppression...or > >> > what?? > >> > > >> > The original information, that I received on the CCT, came from > >the > >> > American > >> > Cancer Society in July, '90.....about 2.5 years after the first > >TWO > >> > patents > >> > were issued (Feb. '88). I was amazed, when I asked Dr. Cone in > >Aug. > >> > '90, > >> > about > >> > research being conducted by or funded by the ACS. He declared > >that > >> > " No One " > >> > was conducting any research on the CCT! Why?? What does the ACS > >have to > >> > lose? ....Fat salaries for executives of a Tax Exempt > >Organization which > >> > is the largest fundraiser in the U.S.! > >> > > >> > Can anyone honestly believe that the ACS has been unaware of the > >CCT for > >> > TEN years??....What else can this be but suppression? BTW, I am > >prepared > >> > to document any of the above claims....in court, if necessary. > >> > > >> > Next, in July of '95, the American Medical Association (AMA) > >> > declared, at > >> > the > >> > urging of the American College of Radiology (ACR), that it is > >> > " unethical " > >> > for > >> > any physician to " seek, secure or enforce patents on therapeutic > >> > procedures. " > >> > Wait a minute! What Therapeutic procedures could the ACR be > >concerned > >> > about? The ACR is comprised of about 90% Diagnostic Radiologists > >and 10% > >> > Radiotherapists......So, the Radio- therapists must be concerned > >about > >> > therapeutic procedures which are patented! Why?? Because a > >Curative Cancer > >> > Treatment, which is a patented therapeutic procedure, would > >eliminate 99% > >> > of their patients! Guess what Patented Cancer Treatment worries > >> > them?.....The ONLY one available....the Cone Cancer Treatment! > >> > > >> > So now, any physician who uses the patented CCT in the U.S., will > >run the > >> > risk of losing his/her medical license....EVEN if the treatment > >saves the > >> > Cancer Victim's life!! (ACR Bulletin, 7-95, Pg 12) > >> > > >> > NOTE: The 3 patents are " Process Patents " which cover a procedure > >or > >> > method to achieve some objective. The requirements for such a > >patent are, > >> > basically: to assemble a widget, you begin with widget parts and > >by > >> > following a specific sequence of procedures, you assemble the > >> > widget.....To make yellow paint, begin with specific components > >and follow > >> > a specific series of procedures to yield......yellow paint. The > >processes > >> > involved can be patented to protect special techniques required > >to achieve > >> > the end result. > >> > > >> > Hence, the Cone patents protect the intellectual property of the > >> > techniques > >> > required to produce tumor destruction by the CCT. Should Cancer > >> > Victims die > >> > while doctors avoid using the NON-TOXIC Cone patents but employ > >> > patented > >> > Chemotherapy drugs OR patented Radiotherapy machines? > >> > > >> > R.D. Hodgell, M.D., Pres. > >> > Cancer Treatment Medical Services, Inc. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Get HUGE info at http://www.cures for cancer.ws, and post your own > >links there. > >> > Unsubscribe by sending email to cures for cancer-unsubscribe@e... or by > >> > visiting http://www.bobhurt.com/subunsub.mv > >> > > >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2002 Report Share Posted May 1, 2002 Hi Moonbeam: Good answer on the " Indians, cancer, and sugar " , in which you state that the sugar is only a problem when there is cancer already present. But is it possible that an over consumption of sugar may be the cause of other health problems, perhaps leading to cancer ? On to-day's e-mail, to the group, you mentioned that detergents were not good. Dr.Hans A.Nieper, Germany, insisted that dishwashing detergents, and detergent rinses, were dangerous for the heart. The reason is this, and we must first observe what detergents for dishwashing do to the fat from the dishes in dish washing. Detergents in our system do the same thing, they alter the fats so that the heart cannot metabolize them . It is recognized that the heart needs about 75% of its energy from fat, while the skeletal muscles can get their energy from carbohydrates. When the detergents, which we consume from improperly rinsed dishes, enter out blood stream, they affect the fats in a like manner as they do in dishwashing, and it makes it impossible for the heart muscle to use the fat it requires for its energy. To the degree that the heart muscle energy source is short-circuited, so to speak, to that degree is the heart muscle weakened in its function, and can even cause the death of some or all of the heart muscle. The final rinse in a dishwasher, to make dishes sparkle, is a detergent and is not rinsed off. I see people, in their homes, washing dishes and observe that they are very careless about hand rinsing the dishes. Dr.Nieper, also said that such detergents contribute to diabetes. It is reported often, lately, that diabetes is now, in almost epidemic proportions. Boswell Sugar and Cancer > > > Hanna says that the American Indians are one of the greatest > > consumers of sugar. Yet, their cancer rate is very low. Why? > > She says they know their medicinal plants. So, it's what you > > eat--whether foods have natural medicines--that is the key issue. > > http://www.kroegerherb.com/ > > > Hi, > This is easy, the answer is simple. There is a big difference between > feeding or promoting a tumor and causing a tumor. > Tumor CAUSATION is different from tumor PROMOTION (tumor acceleration). > Tumors are not caused by eating sugar. > Tumors may be caused by medical X-Rays or " charred " meat or other factors. > Existing tumors seem to be PROMOTED by sugar, xeno-estrogens and other factors. > > Gasolene will not start a car, electricity is needed to start a normal car, but > gasolene will allow the car to accelerate, once it is started. > > moonbeam > > > > > > > > > Get HUGE info at http://www.cures for cancer.ws, and post your own links there. Unsubscribe by sending email to cures for cancer-unsubscribeegroups or by visiting http://www.bobhurt.com/subunsub.mv > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2002 Report Share Posted May 2, 2002 <cures for cancer > From: " Boswell " <eboswell@...> Date sent: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 21:24:32 -0600 Subject: Re: Re: Sugar and Cancer Send reply to: cures for cancer > Hi Moonbeam: > Good answer on the " Indians, cancer, and sugar " , in which you state that > the sugar is only a problem when there is cancer already present. But is > it possible that an over consumption of sugar may be the cause of other > health problems, perhaps leading to cancer ? Hi , One is probably more likely to get cancer from eating burnt meat than from eating sugar. If you give the children a lot of sugar they will likely loose their teeth, if you give them a lot of chest X-Rays they will probably get breast cancer 20 or 40 years later, yes that much time lag, says Professor Godfman. If I put gasolene on some timber nothing will happen. If I put gasolene on burning timber a lot will happen. Sugar does not cause cancer, but fuels existing cancer. It was actually on this list who first alerted me to the dangers of detergents, ask him how they harm the blood. Poor immune systems lead to cancer, DNA damage leads to cancer, nothing harms DNA as efficently as nuclear radiation. Everyone gets cancer, but in most people that cancer is destroyed at the microscopic stage by the immune system, so the cancer is never noticed. Any persistant viral, bacterial or parasitic infection can lead to cancer, through the long term over production, at one spot, of toxic immune products that are supposed to be killing the germs, but can end up damaging DNA. moonbeam > On to-day's e-mail, to the group, you mentioned that detergents were not > good. Dr.Hans A.Nieper, Germany, insisted that dishwashing detergents, and > detergent rinses, were dangerous for the heart. The reason is this, and we > must first observe what detergents for dishwashing do to the fat from the > dishes in dish washing. Detergents in our system do the same thing, they > alter the fats so that the heart cannot metabolize them . It is recognized > that the heart needs about 75% of its energy from fat, while the skeletal > muscles can get their energy from carbohydrates. When the detergents, > which we consume from improperly rinsed dishes, enter out blood stream, > they affect the fats in a like manner as they do in dishwashing, and it > makes it impossible for the heart muscle to use the fat it requires for > its energy. To the degree that the heart muscle energy source is > short-circuited, so to speak, to that degree is the heart muscle weakened > in its function, and can even cause the death of some or all of the heart > muscle. > > The final rinse in a dishwasher, to make dishes sparkle, is a detergent > and is not rinsed off. I see people, in their homes, washing dishes and > observe that they are very careless about hand rinsing the dishes. > > Dr.Nieper, also said that such detergents contribute to diabetes. It is > reported often, lately, that diabetes is now, in almost epidemic > proportions. > > Boswell > Sugar and Cancer > > > > > Hanna says that the American Indians are one of the greatest > > > consumers of sugar. Yet, their cancer rate is very low. Why? > > > She says they know their medicinal plants. So, it's what you > > > eat--whether foods have natural medicines--that is the key issue. > > > http://www.kroegerherb.com/ > > > > > > Hi, > > This is easy, the answer is simple. There is a big difference > between > > feeding or promoting a tumor and causing a tumor. > > Tumor CAUSATION is different from tumor PROMOTION (tumor acceleration). > > Tumors are not caused by eating sugar. Tumors may be caused by medical > > X-Rays or " charred " meat or other > factors. > > Existing tumors seem to be PROMOTED by sugar, xeno-estrogens and other > factors. > > > > Gasolene will not start a car, electricity is needed to start a normal > car, but > > gasolene will allow the car to accelerate, once it is started. > > > > moonbeam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get HUGE info at http://www.cures for cancer.ws, and post your own links > > there. > Unsubscribe by sending email to cures for cancer-unsubscribeegroups or by > visiting http://www.bobhurt.com/subunsub.mv > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 Maybe that's why I CRAVED M & M Peanuts and my tumor was really fast growing... Carole Sugar and cancer [hsibaltimore.com] THIS WEEK IN THE HSI HEALTHIER TALK COMMUNITY Sugar is to cancer as fertilizer is to plants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 Could someone please explain to my why the docs would suggest people with cancer consume drinks like Ensure, Boost, etc. They have so much sugar and since cancer supposedly thrives on sugar it just doesn't seem to be the thing to do. I know that when one is losing weight and can't eat properly something is better than nothing but I would think they would suggest whey or something that would be more nourishing to the body. I have a friend who is having problems eating and the doc said to drink Ensure with ice cream in it!!!!!!!!!! I wonder why he didn't suggest some of the green drinks or veggie drinks with a bit of nutrition. What am I missing here? -Biz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 most of doctors,do not look at the all picture,they only can solve one problem at a time.it became so bad that a gp here in the netherlands has a board in his waiting room that in every consult the patient can bring one problem. > > Could someone please explain to my why the docs would suggest people with cancer consume drinks like Ensure, Boost, etc. They have so much sugar and since cancer supposedly thrives on sugar it just doesn't seem to be the thing to do. > > I know that when one is losing weight and can't eat properly something is better than nothing but I would think they would suggest whey or something that would be more nourishing to the body. > > I have a friend who is having problems eating and the doc said to drink Ensure with ice cream in it!!!!!!!!!! I wonder why he didn't suggest some of the green drinks or veggie drinks with a bit of nutrition. > > What am I missing here? -Biz > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 I just went through this very same thing with my mom. She had breast cancer and the doctor and staff recommended all of the sugary stuff. After talking with them, it was very apparent that it is ignorance from lack of education and experience. All of these people have their patients best interest at heart. They were wonderful with me and my mom, but didn't have a clue about anything other than pushing the pills and waiting/supporting during the cancer journey. So, since our pharmacy companies don't push anti-sugar, little is known or taught. It's up to us to educate our doctors.... [low dose naltrexone] Sugar and Cancerlow dose naltrexone > Could someone please explain to my why the docs would suggest people with cancer consume drinks like Ensure, Boost, etc. They have so much sugar and since cancer supposedly thrives on sugar it just doesn't seem to be the thing to do.> I know that when one is losing weight and can't eat properly something is better than nothing but I would think they would suggest whey or something that would be more nourishing to the body.> I have a friend who is having problems eating and the doc said to drink Ensure with ice cream in it!!!!!!!!!! I wonder why he didn't suggest some of the green drinks or veggie drinks with a bit of nutrition.> What am I missing here? -Biz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 The insurance companies are also a big part of this. They dictate to the doctor what protocols they will defend if the doctor is sued for malpractice and which ones they will deem to not be approved and drop their insurance. Of course the insurance companies are involved with the pharmaceutical companies and the AMA. The organic food industry obviously needs a stronger and more well funded lobby! Garnet rbarna dejazzd.com wrote: > > > I just went through this very same thing with my mom. She had breast > cancer and the doctor and staff recommended all of the sugary stuff. > After talking with them, it was very apparent that it is ignorance from > lack of education and experience. > > All of these people have their patients best interest at heart. They > were wonderful with me and my mom, but didn't have a clue about anything > other than pushing the pills and waiting/supporting during the cancer > journey. So, since our pharmacy companies don't push anti-sugar, little > is known or taught. It's up to us to educate our doctors.... > > [low dose naltrexone] Sugar and Cancer > low dose naltrexone > > > > >> Could someone please explain to my why the > > docs would suggest people with cancer consume drinks like Ensure, Boost, > etc. They have so much sugar and since cancer supposedly thrives on > sugar it just doesn't seem to be the thing to do. > >> I know that when one is losing weight and can't eat properly something > is better than nothing but I would think they would suggest whey or > something that would be more nourishing to the body. > >> I have a friend who is having problems eating and the doc said to > drink Ensure with ice cream in it!!!!!!!!!! I wonder why he didn't > suggest some of the green drinks or veggie drinks with a bit of nutrition. > >> What am I missing here? -Biz > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.