PDA

View Full Version : Baking soda and maple syrup for cancer?


fruits&nuts
April 19th, 2011, 11:24 PM
"What?? Baking Soda and Maple Syrup??

**************************

Remember Dr. Tullio Simoncini and his treatment of cancer as a fungus? If not, you can reread an article called "Cancer Is A Fungus" in my August 2, 2007 newsletter. It's at:

www.Beating-Cancer-Gently.com/nl108.html

If you recall, I quoted several holistic physicians in that article including Dr. Mark Sircus. I interviewed Dr. Sircus for my web talk radio show a couple of weeks ago. We got to comparing notes. It seems we had both received a copy of the same magazine article from one of my readers. The article was entitled "Country Doctor Cures Cancer -- With Baking Soda & Maple Syrup!" There was no date on the article, but it was a syndicated article from Weekly World News written by George Sanford. The location (of all places) was Asheville, North Carolina, where I live.

The story told of Jim Kelmun, a 75-year old former truck driver and his success in helping people heal cancer using -- you guessed it -- baking soda and maple syrup. Seein' as how I'm a 76-year old former airplane driver who has helped a couple thousand people recover from cancer, I figured ol' Jim from Asheville and I had a lot in common and I better pass on his story (and Dr. Mark's reaction to it) to you, my loyal readers, and see what you think.

First, here's a short quote from the story, so you get the drift.

"'There's not a tumor on God's green Earth that can't be licked with a little baking soda and maple syrup!'

That's the astonishing claim of controversial folk healer Jim Kelmun -- who says his simple home remedy can stop and reverse the growth of deadly cancers.

[Kelmun]...has no medical degree and authorities are demanding that he stop dispensing his 'wonder drug' -- or face a prison sentence.

But his loyal patients swear by the man they fondly call 'Dr. Jim' -- and say he's a miracle worker.

'Dr Jim cured me of lung cancer,' declares farmer Ian Rodhouse, 64. 'Those other doctors told me I was a goner ahd had less than six months to live.'

'But the doc put me on his mixture -- and in a couple of months, the cancer was gone. It didn't even show up on X-rays.'

The gentle, silver-haired grandfather -- who has been preparing home remedies since 1954 -- says he first hit upon the miracle cure in the mid-1970's, when he was treating a family plagued by breast cancer.

'There were five sisters in the family and all of them passed away from the big C by age 50 -- except one,' he recalls.

'I asked if there was anything different in her diet. She told me she was partial to sipping maple syrup and baking soda.

'I figured, let me try it out on some of my other patients.'

Since then, 'Dr. Jim' has dispensed his mixture to more than 200 patients diagnosed with terminal cancer. Amazingly, he claims that of that number, 185 lived at least 15 more years -- and nearly half enjoyed a complete remission of their disease."

Well, you get the idea. When Dr. Sircus and I discussed this subject, it was obvious that the "goofy" article on "Dr. Jim" had made him put on his thinking cap (which is quite well worn -- Dr. Mark is one of the "thinkingest" docs I know). In fact, he sent me an article he had written on the subject that should interest any of you "battling" cancer.

You may recall that Dr. Sircus has a regimen for treating cancer which includes magnesium chloride, iodine, selenium and alpha lipoic acid. After reading of Dr. Simoncini's work, he added baking soda to his regimen. But even Dr. Simoncini recognized the limitations of his own baking soda treatment. Here's a quote from Dr. Simoncini:

"The therapeutic treatment of bicarbonate salts [baking soda] can be administered orally, through aerosol, intravenously and through catheter for direct targeting of tumors...[but it] can achieve positive results only in some tumors, while others - such as the serious ones of the brain or the bones - remain unaffected by the treatment."

Dr. Mark's thinking led him to an interesting hypothesis. What if, he said, baking soda and maple syrup worked just like IPT (Insulin Potentiated Therapy)? Here are some quotes from his article:

"IPT treatment consists of giving doses of insulin to a fasting patient sufficient to lower blood sugar into the 50 mg/dl. Then they inject lower doses of toxic chemo drugs [when the cancer cell] receptors are more sensitive and take on medications more rapidly and in higher amounts.

The bicarbonate/maple syrup treatment works in reverse to IPT. Dr. Tullio Simoncini acknowledges that cancer cells gobble up sugar so when you encourage the intake of sugar it's like sending in a Trojan horse. The sugar is not going to encourage the growth of the cancer colonies because the baking soda is going to kill the cells before they have a chance to grow.

The treatment is a combination of pure, 100% maple syrup [bulk Grade B from the health food store] and baking soda and was first reported on the Cancer Tutor site. When mixed and heated together, the maple syrup and baking soda bind together. The maple syrup targets cancer cells (which consume 15 times more glucose than normal cells) and the baking soda, which is dragged into the cancer cell by the maple syrup, being very alkaline forces a rapid shift in pH killing the cell.

The actual formula is to mix one part baking soda with three parts (pure, 100%) maple syrup in a small saucepan. Stir briskly and heat the mixture for 5 minutes. Take one teaspoon daily is what is suggested by Cancer Tutor but one could probably do this several times a day."

In summary, Dr. Sircus says:

"The maple syrup apparently enables and increases penetration of bicarbonate into all compartments of the body, even those which are difficult or impossible to penetrate by other means. These compartments include the central nervous system (CNS), through the blood-brain barrier, joints, solid tumors, and perhaps even the eyes. IPT makes cell membranes more permeable, and increases uptake of drugs into cells. The maple syrup will make tissues more permeable, too. It will transport the bicarbonate across the blood-brain barrier and every other barrier in the body for sugar is universally needed by all cells in the body...Both IPT and bicarbonate/maple syrup treatments use the rabid growth mechanisms of cancer cells against them."

There you have it, folks. Can you imagine this mixture harming you? Two or three teaspoons a day? Would I try it? You bet. It meets all my criteria: simple, effective, inexpensive and available anywhere in the world.

Incidentally, Dr. Sircus has moved baking soda/maple syrup up to Number Three in his regimen -- right behind magnesium chloride and iodine.

Thanks, Dr. Sircus, for your magnificently open mind and flexibility in applying your knowledge to new ideas. Well, according to Jim Kelmun, it's no new idea -- just another suppressed cancer treatment that works."

http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/health/disease/news.php?q=1205445089

ellenr
April 20th, 2011, 04:23 AM
Gary Null (famed nutritionist) was recently taling about maple syrup-
how wonderful it is.
He said it is anti-oxident, and actually kills cancer cells.

darwinslair
April 20th, 2011, 06:15 AM
<smile> two things I happen to have a lot of on-hand.

Tom

rockpilefarmer
April 20th, 2011, 08:21 AM
Hmm, natural, inexpensive-surely worth a try. Preventative as well? Gonna do it.

AcidRain23
April 20th, 2011, 02:06 PM
Oh geez, where to begin with this!?

The treatment is a combination of pure, 100% maple syrup [bulk Grade B from the health food store] and baking soda and was first reported on the Cancer Tutor site. When mixed and heated together, the maple syrup and baking soda bind together. The maple syrup targets cancer cells (which consume 15 times more glucose than normal cells) and the baking soda, which is dragged into the cancer cell by the maple syrup, being very alkaline forces a rapid shift in pH killing the cell.


Ok ok, so the maple syrup and baking soda bind together? How? Chemically?!? What chemical in the maple syrup is the baking soda binding with? Last time I checked sugar and baking soda do not chemically react. At least, not just by mixing them together and heating.

Also, maple syrup is going straight to the cancerous cells??? This makes no sense. The sugars have to be broken down in your gut and then absorbed into your bloodstream. (I hope no one is mainlining maple syrup! :eek:) Futhermore, any small quantity of baking soda is going to be neturalized by your stomach acid (which has a PH of 2). Oh wait, I forgot, it is "bound" to the maple syrup (by magic?).

If baking soda kills cancer cells, then why aren't doctors injecting tumors with it?

Also, cancer is a FUNGUS??? Huh? Where is this coming from?!?!? Cancer is definitely NOT A FUNGUS. We know what cancer is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer) Don't we have some nurses and doctors on this forum? Hello???

Tutter
April 20th, 2011, 02:24 PM
I was going to say something, but then I figured, if people want to drink maple syrup and baking soda, let 'em. What do I care?

RozieDozie
April 20th, 2011, 02:28 PM
Oh geez, where to begin with this!?



Ok ok, so the maple syrup and baking soda bind together? How? Chemically?!? What chemical in the maple syrup is the baking soda binding with? Last time I checked sugar and baking soda do not chemically react. At least, not just by mixing them together and heating.

Also, maple syrup is going straight to the cancerous cells??? This makes no sense. The sugars have to be broken down in your gut and then absorbed into your bloodstream. (I hope no one is mainlining maple syrup! :eek:) Futhermore, any small quantity of baking soda is going to be neturalized by your stomach acid (which has a PH of 2). Oh wait, I forgot, it is "bound" to the maple syrup (by magic?).




If baking soda kills cancer cells, then why aren't doctors injecting tumors with it?

Also, cancer is a FUNGUS??? Huh? Where is this coming from?!?!? Cancer is definitely NOT A FUNGUS. We know what cancer is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer) Don't we have some nurses and doctors on this forum? Hello???

Party Pooper. :p :D

You know how sometimes you hear something that you know makes no sense but you feel it might be worth a try?

This sort of rings true to me.... Don't ask me why; I have no idea.

AcidRain23
April 20th, 2011, 02:30 PM
I mean its not like its going to hurt anyone or anything- BUT- it may keep some from seeking actual treatment. And the fact that someone is profitting off of this makes me ill.

RozieDozie
April 20th, 2011, 02:40 PM
I mean its not like its going to hurt anyone or anything- BUT- it may keep some from seeking actual treatment. And the fact that someone is profitting off of this makes me ill.

I agree with both of those points. Hubs has CLL, a chronic form of cancer, and we've tried alternative treatments. But chemo is the only thing that keeps his tumors at bay and it's so hard on his body. He was allergic to a new "better" chemo drug last summer and almost didn't make it through. I guess I'm just always looking for a "simple" solution that maybe we've missed.

Anyhow, Mr. Hubs is getting this concoction with his breakfast in the morning, by golly.

AcidRain23
April 20th, 2011, 02:45 PM
History
The baking soda myth begins with a man named Tullio Simoncini, who practiced at an alternative clinic in the Netherlands. In October 2007, charges were brought against Simoncini when a 50-year-old breast cancer patient he treated was admitted to an Amsterdam hospital, where she died within days. Her death was determined to be of unnatural causes: injection of sodium bicarbonate--baking soda. Further investigation revealed that Simoncini's medical license had been revoked in Italy. Unawares, the Netherlands clinic allowed him to administer harmful baking soda treatments to cancer patients through a variety of unorthodox methods: injection, catheterization and orally. The Netherlands Health Inspectorate determined baking soda to be hazardous and ineffective, and warned that any physician using Simoncini's procedure would be investigated.


More: http://www.ehow.com/about_5243067_baking-soda-cancer-cure.html

puttgirl
April 20th, 2011, 02:50 PM
I have no problems with people researching and self medicating, but when you are injecting people with baking soda without a medical license-I'd hope you'd be facing imprisonment.

GennyL
April 20th, 2011, 03:08 PM
I have no problems with people researching and self medicating, but when you are injecting people with baking soda without a medical license-I'd hope you'd be facing imprisonment.

I agree, injecting anything and in mega doses. I researched & cross Researched and seen a lot but I think there's value in all info. seems a tsp of baking soda in a glass of anything is harmless as I know many peeps who do that for indigestion but straight up 1-3 part syrup is a bit much. I've also read some cancer is caused by bacteria for what it's worth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylor

1st a condition, then disease n when dumb as* Dr don't listen.

RozieDozie
April 20th, 2011, 03:09 PM
More: http://www.ehow.com/about_5243067_baking-soda-cancer-cure.html

Good Grief! He injected it? Hmmm... I'll just mix a little syrup and bicarb and put it in a spoon...

uprooted_kentuckian
April 20th, 2011, 03:55 PM
Snake oil, but it shouldn't hurt anything so long as people don't use it to replace proven treatments.

fruits&nuts
April 20th, 2011, 07:37 PM
If baking soda kills cancer cells, then why aren't doctors injecting tumors with it?

Also, cancer is a FUNGUS??? Huh? Where is this coming from?!?!? Cancer is definitely NOT A FUNGUS. We know what cancer is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer) Don't we have some nurses and doctors on this forum? Hello???

No, we don't know what cancer is. No we don't know what causes disease.

And some doctors ARE injecting tumors with baking soda.

fruits&nuts
April 20th, 2011, 08:04 PM
I mean its not like its going to hurt anyone or anything- BUT- it may keep some from seeking actual treatment. And the fact that someone is profitting off of this makes me ill.

Actual treatment? You certainly have a warped sense of humor. Doctors are lousy at treating most cancers. They're real good at billing for it though. If doctors could only keep the money when the patient lived, they wouldn't even try to treat cancer.

And doctors HATE people who treat themselves with non approved modalities. They would rather see people die than live by using an alternative treatment. And I'm not exagerrating. There are hundreds of examples of doctors trying to stop people from using safe alternative treatments. The latest example is when doctors have tried to block people from using intravenous vitamin C for cancer treatment and other medical problems. The AMA exists in large part to make sure no one uses alternative therapies. They have a monopoly to protect.

reubenT
April 20th, 2011, 10:44 PM
They have a monopoly to protect.


Do they ever!! which is why the man who declared, and proved, that "there is no such thing as an incurable disease" spent some time in prison, just because he was curing people who'd been sent home to die by the monopoly, and they didn't like it.

fruits&nuts
April 20th, 2011, 10:47 PM
The worst thing you can do in the AMA's eyes is to cure someone if you're not a member of their club. Only members of their club are allowed to cure anyone.

GennyL
April 20th, 2011, 10:57 PM
Actual treatment? You certainly have a warped sense of humor. Doctors are lousy at treating .............The AMA exists in large part to make sure no one uses alternative therapies. They have a monopoly to protect.

You got that right....."You're not Pregnant-you have an infection" well 10 days on Doxy and I sure wasn't "with child" for long!!!!!!!!!!!! can we mutter Educated Idiots....

fruits&nuts
April 20th, 2011, 11:11 PM
"The American Medical System Is The Leading Cause Of Death And Injury In The United States"

Doctors kill over 500,000 people every year.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed.htm

warmwxrules
April 21st, 2011, 04:27 PM
For how I understand it, cancer is fueled by sugar.

I've done some research on this over the years.
Google Warburg hypothesis

If I had cancer, or was scared of getting it, avoiding sugar might be part of the plan. Also avoid chemicals that mimic hormones (estrogen/bpa) and make sure you eat a lot of broccoli/sprouts. Don't forget to add some mushrooms into the mix.

Just my nickel of advice.

AcidRain23
April 22nd, 2011, 10:27 AM
Actual treatment? You certainly have a warped sense of humor. Doctors are lousy at treating most cancers. They're real good at billing for it though. If doctors could only keep the money when the patient lived, they wouldn't even try to treat cancer.

And doctors HATE people who treat themselves with non approved modalities. They would rather see people die than live by using an alternative treatment. And I'm not exagerrating. There are hundreds of examples of doctors trying to stop people from using safe alternative treatments. The latest example is when doctors have tried to block people from using intravenous vitamin C for cancer treatment and other medical problems. The AMA exists in large part to make sure no one uses alternative therapies. They have a monopoly to protect.

Ok, granted current cancer treatments suck. And parts of the medical industry are corrupt, I'm not arguing that. But lets not be gullible- this is obvious hoodoo. And there is a thriving hoodoo industry- supplements, herbs, books, etc. This doesn't mean that all alternative therapies are bunk. But a lot are, and there are many hucksters out there waiting to bilk the masses out of their pennies. And though they may seem harmless, can lead to negative outcomes like this quack injecting people with baking soda. Any kind of 'miracle cure' like this should set off instant alarms.

uprooted_kentuckian
April 22nd, 2011, 01:44 PM
Actual treatment? You certainly have a warped sense of humor. Doctors are lousy at treating most cancers. They're real good at billing for it though. If doctors could only keep the money when the patient lived, they wouldn't even try to treat cancer.

And doctors HATE people who treat themselves with non approved modalities. They would rather see people die than live by using an alternative treatment. And I'm not exagerrating. There are hundreds of examples of doctors trying to stop people from using safe alternative treatments. The latest example is when doctors have tried to block people from using intravenous vitamin C for cancer treatment and other medical problems. The AMA exists in large part to make sure no one uses alternative therapies. They have a monopoly to protect.

You must be saying this research is a lie.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/survival/fiveyear/

fruits&nuts
April 22nd, 2011, 07:16 PM
Ok, granted current cancer treatments suck. And parts of the medical industry are corrupt, I'm not arguing that. But lets not be gullible- this is obvious hoodoo. And there is a thriving hoodoo industry- supplements, herbs, books, etc. This doesn't mean that all alternative therapies are bunk. But a lot are, and there are many hucksters out there waiting to bilk the masses out of their pennies. And though they may seem harmless, can lead to negative outcomes like this quack injecting people with baking soda. Any kind of 'miracle cure' like this should set off instant alarms.

It certainly might be hoodoo.

I agree with your analysis expressing doubt as to how this could work (that's why I put a ? after the title of the thread), but that doesn't mean there may not be a mechanism at work that we don't understand. I don't like to trash treatment ideas just because the mainstream analysis can't explain something. I had doubts about flax oil and cottage cheese as a cancer cure but it looks like it might actually work.

kefirmaven
April 23rd, 2011, 02:51 AM
I agree with both of those points. Hubs has CLL, a chronic form of cancer, and we've tried alternative treatments. But chemo is the only thing that keeps his tumors at bay and it's so hard on his body. He was allergic to a new "better" chemo drug last summer and almost didn't make it through. I guess I'm just always looking for a "simple" solution that maybe we've missed.

Anyhow, Mr. Hubs is getting this concoction with his breakfast in the morning, by golly.Rozie, you might get something out of Dr. David Servan-Schreiber MD's approach that would help hubs, its a combo of alternative and conventional. My Mom has completely done the alternative and did very well. She did have the lumps surgically removed. http://www.anticancerbook.com/

Dr. Servan-Schreiber's story: http://www.anticancerbook.com/story.html

Then Mercola had this recently in a newsletter http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/23/dr-nicholas-gonzalez-on-alternative-cancer-treatments.aspx

kefirmaven
April 23rd, 2011, 03:14 AM
It certainly might be hoodoo.

I agree with your analysis expressing doubt as to how this could work (that's why I put a ? after the title of the thread), but that doesn't mean there may not be a mechanism at work that we don't understand. I don't like to trash treatment ideas just because the mainstream analysis can't explain something. I had doubts about flax oil and cottage cheese as a cancer cure but it looks like it might actually work.Everything like that, "natural" is a huge threat to the "cancer industry."

ellenr
April 23rd, 2011, 04:06 AM
Another point about conventional cancer treatments is that over several years every poll I've seen that asks doctors -
what would you recommend if you or a loved one had cancer -
Never do they say they would do chemo - esp. the oncologists.

kefirmaven
April 23rd, 2011, 09:11 AM
Another point about conventional cancer treatments is that over several years every poll I've seen that asks doctors -
what would you recommend if you or a loved one had cancer -
Never do they say they would do chemo - esp. the oncologists.You're right.

fruits&nuts
April 23rd, 2011, 09:34 AM
I agree with both of those points. Hubs has CLL, a chronic form of cancer, and we've tried alternative treatments. But chemo is the only thing that keeps his tumors at bay and it's so hard on his body. He was allergic to a new "better" chemo drug last summer and almost didn't make it through. I guess I'm just always looking for a "simple" solution that maybe we've missed.

Anyhow, Mr. Hubs is getting this concoction with his breakfast in the morning, by golly.

There must be a hundred ways to fight cancer naturally and many have a better anecdotal track record than chemotherapy. Many can also be used with chemotherapy.

Zinc deficency is a commmon factor in some leukemia patients, especially in men, who tend to be chronically zinc deficient.

Selenium is widely known to help fight cancer. It also makes chemotherapy safer and more effective:

http://www.naturalnews.com/016446.html

Higher levels of vitamin C and D are associated with lower cancer levels.

Pancreatic enzymes, which can be purchased at any health food store, have been indicated as an aid in fighting many types of cancers.

Red clover (dried or sprouts) has been used in many cultures to fight cancer and has most recently been used as a component in a tea Jason Winters used to beat his terminal cancer. The cancer fighting herb tea Essiac also contains red clover.

Protocel works for many cancers. I don't know about CLL.

This site has a wealth of information about alternative cancer treatments:

http://alternativecancer.us/#Types

Tutter
April 23rd, 2011, 02:59 PM
Another point about conventional cancer treatments is that over several years every poll I've seen that asks doctors -
what would you recommend if you or a loved one had cancer -
Never do they say they would do chemo - esp. the oncologists.

Really? I've never seen a poll like that, I'd be interested in seeing one if you can provide a link.

puttgirl
April 23rd, 2011, 03:31 PM
Another point about conventional cancer treatments is that over several years every poll I've seen that asks doctors -
what would you recommend if you or a loved one had cancer -
Never do they say they would do chemo - esp. the oncologists.

Reminds me of my sister when a doctor recommends any treatment-she always asks what would they do if it was their mother.

fruits&nuts
April 23rd, 2011, 04:17 PM
Really? I've never seen a poll like that, I'd be interested in seeing one if you can provide a link.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=63&contentid=4846&page=2

Tutter
April 23rd, 2011, 05:36 PM
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=63&contentid=4846&page=2

Referring to the questionnaire discussed in the link, I was able to track down the original. It was from 1985, so it's a bit out of date.

More recent surveys show increased willingness to accept chemotherapy (like this one from 1997 http://www.cancernetwork.com/display/article/10165/66128 and this one from 1991 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1977523/pdf/brjcancer00072-0193.pdf)

The study from 1991, “Oncologists vary in their willingness to undertake anti-cancer therapies,” pertains to many kinds of cancer and cancer stages, from early stage to terminal, as well as to experimental therapies. It shows percentages as high as 98% of doctors willing to undergo chemotherapy, while the remaining 2 % were uncertain, and none answered “definitely no” or “probably no” to chemotherapy.

WillysWoodPile
April 23rd, 2011, 05:39 PM
Snake oil, but it shouldn't hurt anything so long as people don't use it to replace proven treatments.

Exactly, Snake Oil sold under the guise of a sugar pill. It's just like that episode of M.A.S.H. where Colonel Potter gave some patients sugar pills but told the story [lie] that it was the medicine for their cure, but they had run out of the real medicine. It's all about the salesmanship. Total quackery.

"Look into my eyes. Even though this is just a capsule filled with [maple] sugar and baking soda it will make you better, cure you"....

fruits&nuts
April 23rd, 2011, 06:11 PM
Referring to the questionnaire discussed in the link, I was able to track down the original. It was from 1985, so it's a bit out of date.

More recent surveys show increased willingness to accept chemotherapy (like this one from 1997 http://www.cancernetwork.com/display/article/10165/66128 and this one from 1991 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1977523/pdf/brjcancer00072-0193.pdf)

The study from 1991, “Oncologists vary in their willingness to undertake anti-cancer therapies,” pertains to many kinds of cancer and cancer stages, from early stage to terminal, as well as to experimental therapies. It shows percentages as high as 98% of doctors willing to undergo chemotherapy, while the remaining 2 % were uncertain, and none answered “definitely no” or “probably no” to chemotherapy.

So basically, doctors are getting stupider?

fruits&nuts
April 23rd, 2011, 06:12 PM
Exactly, Snake Oil sold under the guise of a sugar pill. It's just like that episode of M.A.S.H. where Colonel Potter gave some patients sugar pills but told the story [lie] that it was the medicine for their cure, but they had run out of the real medicine. It's all about the salesmanship. Total quackery.

"Look into my eyes. Even though this is just a capsule filled with [maple] sugar and baking soda it will make you better, cure you"....

Good to know which side you're on. Now we all know to do the opposite.

WillysWoodPile
April 23rd, 2011, 06:34 PM
Good to know which side you're on. Now we all know to do the opposite.

I love you too.

uprooted_kentuckian
April 23rd, 2011, 08:37 PM
Exactly, Snake Oil sold under the guise of a sugar pill. It's just like that episode of M.A.S.H. where Colonel Potter gave some patients sugar pills but told the story [lie] that it was the medicine for their cure, but they had run out of the real medicine. It's all about the salesmanship. Total quackery.

"Look into my eyes. Even though this is just a capsule filled with [maple] sugar and baking soda it will make you better, cure you"....

Yep....and I really miss that show after all these years.

uprooted_kentuckian
April 23rd, 2011, 08:39 PM
So basically, doctors are getting stupider?

I'm sorry to be blunt, but pursuing alternative therapies and avoiding proven treatments is pure ignorance. If you get cancer, and I hope you don't, by all means, pursue the alternative therapies.

uprooted_kentuckian
April 23rd, 2011, 08:40 PM
I'll ask again, is this research a lie???? If so, support your opinion.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/survival/fiveyear/

TxBullnettle
April 24th, 2011, 01:25 AM
I'm sorry to be blunt, but pursuing alternative therapies and avoiding proven treatments is pure ignorance. If you get cancer, and I hope you don't, by all means, pursue the alternative therapies.

Wow U know proven treatments. I hope U don't mean screening. Check out Susun Weed. I would rather her have a first look at my mom than the american PHD if she had breast cancer. Alternative therapies help prvent cacer and under the care of someone trained may stop them. *** I'll take cancer treatment from a confederate field doctor. If todays doctors traded place with them with all their new age knowhow and had to use the same(confederate) supplies. More guys would be dead.

Soda and maple syrup sounds like something to drop in the compost tea

uprooted_kentuckian
April 24th, 2011, 08:07 AM
Wow U know proven treatments. I hope U don't mean screening. Check out Susun Weed. I would rather her have a first look at my mom than the american PHD if she had breast cancer. Alternative therapies help prvent cacer and under the care of someone trained may stop them. *** I'll take cancer treatment from a confederate field doctor. If todays doctors traded place with them with all their new age knowhow and had to use the same(confederate) supplies. More guys would be dead.

Soda and maple syrup sounds like something to drop in the compost tea

Do you care to respond to the research I linked? We used to have a woman who posted on here. I don't want to get into specifics, but she was just as convinced as you that conventional cancer treatments don't work. To believe that, both of you must refuse to either read or believe the statistics that prove conventional treatments efficacy. At any rate, she passed away quite some time ago. Your mentioning a confederate field doctor, a doctor who by training didn't even understand the human body yet and didn't even realize bacteria existed, is quite bizarre.

uprooted_kentuckian
April 24th, 2011, 08:10 AM
There is a place for people like susun weed, but it is alongside conventional treatments in life threatening situations, not instead of.

TxBullnettle
April 24th, 2011, 02:39 PM
Thanks for bringing up a deceased member knock on wood. Mentioning a confederate doctor was in reference to his knowledge of alternative therapies wich was greater than his counterpart and present day as well. As far as bacteria I'm sure he(Confederate doctor) drunk raw milk and enjoyed it.
The basis of our medicine is in bacteria, germs etc thats were we have fundamental difference in treatments so no I cant respond. One of the ingredients in my grandmas cold/flu/whatever tea would be old cow chips. Mullein, mint, lemon, honey, da chips wrapped tight in something like cheescloth or pantyhose etc. It worked is all I can say, may be it was the bacteria?
But we both know something is wrong with cancer rates. I say eat what your anscestors ate. We are getting this *@it through exposure food, air, water, waves, solar, paint, toys everything. soon to be Japan and its imports? So no I won't wear a pink ribbon and support the system but I will learn as much information as I can about clean food, medicine and living and try to pas it on.

fruits&nuts
April 24th, 2011, 03:38 PM
Avoiding proven treatments? There are very few proven treatments with respect to many cancers and none at all for others. What's the proven treaten for pancreatic cancer? Why couldn't Patrick Swayze's doctors find it? Going to a mainstream doctor to be treated for pancreatic cancer is a death sentence.

People aren't looking for alternatives when there are proven treatments. They are looking for alternatives when mainstream mediciene has nothing to offer which is quite frequent when it involves cancer, heart disease, diabetes, MS, and at least a dozen other serious diseases.

uprooted_kentuckian
April 24th, 2011, 05:13 PM
Avoiding proven treatments? There are very few proven treatments with respect to many cancers and none at all for others. What's the proven treaten for pancreatic cancer? Why couldn't Patrick Swayze's doctors find it? Going to a mainstream doctor to be treated for pancreatic cancer is a death sentence.

People aren't looking for alternatives when there are proven treatments. They are looking for alternatives when mainstream mediciene has nothing to offer which is quite frequent when it involves cancer, heart disease, diabetes, MS, and at least a dozen other serious diseases.

You're changing your tune from when you said:

"Actual treatment? You certainly have a warped sense of humor. Doctors are lousy at treating most cancers. They're real good at billing for it though. If doctors could only keep the money when the patient lived, they wouldn't even try to treat cancer.

And doctors HATE people who treat themselves with non approved modalities. They would rather see people die than live by using an alternative treatment. And I'm not exagerrating. There are hundreds of examples of doctors trying to stop people from using safe alternative treatments. The latest example is when doctors have tried to block people from using intravenous vitamin C for cancer treatment and other medical problems. The AMA exists in large part to make sure no one uses alternative therapies. They have a monopoly to protect. "

Alabamy
April 24th, 2011, 05:56 PM
I'm sorry to be blunt, but pursuing alternative therapies and avoiding proven treatments is pure ignorance. If you get cancer, and I hope you don't, by all means, pursue the alternative therapies.

This.

Alabamy
April 24th, 2011, 05:59 PM
If alternative treatments could cure cancer then cancer would be cured. It's that simple F&N. Thanks to science and the early detection it allows, people are surviving cancer at a much higher rate than they did in the 40s and 50s.

uprooted_kentuckian
April 24th, 2011, 05:59 PM
It's funny that we tend to agree on scientific issues. Still kinda makes you want to take a shower though, huh?

Alabamy
April 24th, 2011, 06:00 PM
Are you hitting on me?

uprooted_kentuckian
April 24th, 2011, 06:02 PM
If alternative treatments could cure cancer then cancer would be cured. It's that simple F&N. Thanks to science and the early detection it allows, people are surviving cancer at a much higher rate than they did in the 40s and 50s.

F&N is quite simple on anything like this. If you agree with the gov. or a chemical company or a pharmaceutical company or a researcher or a doctor or an association like the AMA, then you my friend are a corporate shill, an idiot, someone who either can't read the junk science he wraps himself in or can't understand it because - well, we're back to being idiots.

Think what you want F&N, you really look pretty fringe on these issues. (Be careful, I heard there are black helicopters in the area).

WillysWoodPile
April 24th, 2011, 06:11 PM
Do you care to respond to the research I linked? We used to have a woman who posted on here. I don't want to get into specifics, but she was just as convinced as you that conventional cancer treatments don't work. To believe that, both of you must refuse to either read or believe the statistics that prove conventional treatments efficacy. At any rate, she passed away quite some time ago. Your mentioning a confederate field doctor, a doctor who by training didn't even understand the human body yet and didn't even realize bacteria existed, is quite bizarre.

Of interesting note is that I had an ancestor in the Revolutionary War..
.
Here is the relevant passage I wanted you to see:
a book entitled "The Healing Art" A History of the Medical Society of New Jersey by Fred B. Rogers. During the Revolutionary War, Charles Gamberton was wounded and treated by Dr. Charles Gilman, of Woodbridge, who later had a son who married into the family. On p. 42 of the book, Dr. Gilman stated, "I received a crease wound to the back of the hand. Painful, it would not heal and exuded laudable pus. In camp at Newburg, I spilled some rum on the hand quite accidentally for I had had too much to drink. I covered the wound and in two days I noticed no odor. I removed the cover and the wound was healing. Thereafter, all wounds were soaked in rum cloths before covering." Down the page Dr. Gilman goes on the say, "Tight compression was the treatment for bayonet wounds and to staunch the flow of blood. When Woodbridge Sergeant Charles Gamberton was shot in the face at the Battle of Monmouth, his teeth stopped the ball and he spat it out. Dr. Gilman wrapped Gamberton's face tightly with a compression bandage, and the cheek wound healed quickly."

Alabamy
April 24th, 2011, 06:14 PM
Yea, I've already been accused by F&N of being a corporate shill. I take it as a IDig right of passage.

fruits&nuts
April 24th, 2011, 06:23 PM
Yea, I've already been accused by F&N of being a corporate shill. I take it as a IDig right of passage.

When you shill for corporate interests, you are a corporate shill. it's not really complicated.

Don't worry about it. The Democrat party is full of corporate shills. Democrats love Monsanto, fracking and fluoride.

uprooted_kentuckian
April 24th, 2011, 06:39 PM
Of interesting note is that I had an ancestor in the Revolutionary War..
.
Here is the relevant passage I wanted you to see:
a book entitled "The Healing Art" A History of the Medical Society of New Jersey by Fred B. Rogers. During the Revolutionary War, Charles Gamberton was wounded and treated by Dr. Charles Gilman, of Woodbridge, who later had a son who married into the family. On p. 42 of the book, Dr. Gilman stated, "I received a crease wound to the back of the hand. Painful, it would not heal and exuded laudable pus. In camp at Newburg, I spilled some rum on the hand quite accidentally for I had had too much to drink. I covered the wound and in two days I noticed no odor. I removed the cover and the wound was healing. Thereafter, all wounds were soaked in rum cloths before covering." Down the page Dr. Gilman goes on the say, "Tight compression was the treatment for bayonet wounds and to staunch the flow of blood. When Woodbridge Sergeant Charles Gamberton was shot in the face at the Battle of Monmouth, his teeth stopped the ball and he spat it out. Dr. Gilman wrapped Gamberton's face tightly with a compression bandage, and the cheek wound healed quickly."

I wonder what they thought the rum did?

puttgirl
April 24th, 2011, 06:43 PM
When you shill for corporate interests, you are a corporate shill. it's not really complicated.

Don't worry about it. The Democrat party is full of corporate shills. Democrats love Monsanto, fracking and fluoride.


Guess what? This Democrat doesn't-I could say the same for you too, if you pay taxes or collect SSI, or just about anything if you go by that reasoning.

32bantam
April 24th, 2011, 06:50 PM
I wonder what they thought the rum did?

When it comes to rum, I prefer internal use.

WillysWoodPile
April 24th, 2011, 06:52 PM
I wonder what they thought the rum did?
I don't think he/they had any time to serious study on why rum made wounds heal faster versus no rum: remember...they were in a war at that time.
Of course in hindsight we know that alcohol kills germs. Back then he just knew that it "healed wounds faster" and that there was no smell as associated with wounds without "rum bandages" that exuded puss.

uprooted_kentuckian
April 24th, 2011, 06:54 PM
Oh, I know, but he was a scientist at heart. He had to have myriad theories running around his mind. It would be interesting to know.

WillysWoodPile
April 24th, 2011, 07:08 PM
Oh, I know, but he was a scientist at heart. He had to have myriad theories running around his mind. It would be interesting to know.

I am going to be purchasing the book in the near future. I will let you know what I find out.

Terry

AcidRain23
April 24th, 2011, 09:08 PM
Avoiding proven treatments? There are very few proven treatments with respect to many cancers and none at all for others.

Thats well and good but then how do you come to the conculsion that the alternatives are any better?

AcidRain23
April 25th, 2011, 10:56 AM
That is to say- you should be applying the same level of skepticism that you do for mainstream medicine to alternative medicine. Why? Because anyone can claim anything! If I said I had a quartz crystal that could instantly cure blindness would you believe me?

There is a saying in science "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

uprooted_kentuckian
April 25th, 2011, 01:15 PM
Absolutely.

fruits&nuts
April 25th, 2011, 09:16 PM
There is a saying in science "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

It's a lame and fraudulent saying because they don't. There is no scientific definition that tells us what an extraordinary claim might be. It's a totally subjective standard used by the majority viewpoint to keep the minority viewpoint down.

All claims of any kind whatsover simply require credible substantive evdience. Science doesn't change because a theory is in the minority or the majority.

There is no scientific definition of an "extraordinary claim" because science doesn't recognize such distinctions. Fallible men with agendas make up those kind of distinctions, but they don't exist in real science.

fruits&nuts
April 25th, 2011, 09:19 PM
Thats well and good but then how do you come to the conculsion that the alternatives are any better?

First, there are areas where mainstream medicine has no answers at all, so why not try an alternative?

Second, even in areas where mianstream medicine has some answers, we will never know if the alternatives are better until we try them.

Third, some of the alternatives absolutely are better. One of the links I provided earlier pointed to the research being done on pancraetic cancer that is far more productive than the mainstream treatments.

uprooted_kentuckian
April 25th, 2011, 09:33 PM
Good grief. This is precisely why I don't discuss science with F&N or economics with SS. It is an utter waste of time.

GennyL
April 25th, 2011, 09:40 PM
I wonder what they thought the rum did?

rum, vodka, corn liquor yada yada is Alcohol...don't hurt quite as much as iodine but disinfects/sterilizes none the less. Is why a Qt of Vodka goes camping/hiking etc. to this day.

Silverbeard
April 25th, 2011, 09:48 PM
Good grief. This is precisely why I don't discuss science with F&N or economics with SS. It is an utter waste of time.

Hey don't blame me if simple math eludes you, and i keep bringing up variables you cant let in your reality while still up holding your warped view of the dollar. You never even make points. You just repeat that everyone is wrong. If I string together more then a thought or two, you seem lost. To even engage you in dialogue I have to keep it to really short sentences and only a few of them. your hardly the only one here that applies to though.

fruits&nuts
April 25th, 2011, 09:59 PM
Hey don't blame me if simple math eludes you, and i keep bringing up variables you cant let in your reality while still up holding your warped view of the dollar. You never even make points. You just repeat that everyone is wrong. If I string together more then a thought or two, you seem lost. To even engage you in dialogue I have to keep it to really short sentences and only a few of them. your hardly the only one here that applies to though.

He won't read links. He may be aware that the concept of logic exists but has no idea what it is or how to use it. And if something is not a talking point of the republcian party, don't expect him to agree with it.

WillysWoodPile
April 25th, 2011, 10:14 PM
Good grief. This is precisely why I don't discuss science with F&N or economics with SS. It is an utter waste of time.

I can't even discuss science with real scientists because they are ALL biased by their preconceived worldview.
They believe they are animals and that the earth & universe is millions and billions of years old, even though science and the Bible clearly contradict this.
They can't comprehend that they were made in the image of God and that the genealogies in the Bible only culminate in about 6,000 years of history.

TxBullnettle
April 25th, 2011, 10:14 PM
If alternative treatments could cure cancer then cancer would be cured. It's that simple F&N. Thanks to science and the early detection it allows, people are surviving cancer at a much higher rate than they did in the 40s and 50s.

Thanks to science and early detection people are catching cancer at a higher rate than they did in the 40's and 50's

AcidRain23
April 26th, 2011, 11:10 AM
It's a lame and fraudulent saying because they don't. There is no scientific definition that tells us what an extraordinary claim might be. It's a totally subjective standard used by the majority viewpoint to keep the minority viewpoint down.

All claims of any kind whatsover simply require credible substantive evdience. Science doesn't change because a theory is in the minority or the majority.

There is no scientific definition of an "extraordinary claim" because science doesn't recognize such distinctions. Fallible men with agendas make up those kind of distinctions, but they don't exist in real science.

Ok, very well- what is the 'credible substantive evidence' that this claim is true?
Moreover, perhaps there is not a metric by which we can label something an "extraordinary claim" but are you suggesting that the claim that ordinary baking soda and maple syrup when heated together and taken by the spoonful cure cancer, in this specific case, is not extraordinary?