Just to be clear, is this your real stance on the subject ( i.e. cancer ) or are you just beeing sarcastic?

genuine ty this is kind of the purpose of this thread areyourite? It seems great from the tidbits I've read as it looks like the proper way to retain nutrients while cooking, and since I had never heard about it my curiosity is piqued.

If I go out on what appears to be the deep end I'm usually being serious. Yes I believe that cancer (and tumors) are your body's way of giving you the middle finger while providing you the chance to detox and heal yourself. In some ways, cancer is a miracle that showcases how unreal amazingly the human body communicates with the mind.

If you can figure out a way to starve the cancerous cells without destroying all the healthy ones in the meantime, you will usually be fine. The purpose of chemo treatment is to destroy everything, which is why people often go into remission after "successful" chemo because they keep poisoning their body after the cancer goes away. The naturopathic approach attempts to retain the healthy cells while isolating and destroying the cancerous ones.

If you have a problem with weeds growing in your front yard, you would not be wise to set the whole lawn on fire.

So a virus induced cancer is not possible on a perfectly healthy body? I really don't follow you, considering that most cases of cancer are not related to "the will of the body". If a virus has oncogens that immortalize the cells, you can be as healthy as you want, but the infected cell is still going to flip out.

It's not like cells are creatures able to turn "cancer" on or off depending on their state of mind or the pollution in their environment.

That would be correct under the assumption that there are currently other effective means to cure the weeds. Do you really think that doctors prescribe chemio because they like it? It's currently the best way to guarantee some positive effects.

If there were better means, like pulling the weeds by hand, they would be used.

Yea we come from different schools of thought obv. Would recommend watching this documentary for anyone interested in learning about a different viewpoint on cancer as this isn't really the thread for it, although I will comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DW-twcOQcE

Starts out sluggish but gets interesting.

I come from the school of thought of how the cells work. There can obviously be differences of opinion on how to proceed with a cure ( also considering the rudimental state of the cures ), and everyone is free to rely on his body alone to cure everything ( which is possible ), but you can't dispute that even the healthiest can get a cancer after beeing infected by some particular types of viruses.

Cancer isn't the expression of the cell that something is wrong with you, cancer is the expression that something is wrong with the cell itself. Be it the methabolic process or the DNA itself.

The body has no interest of "giving you the middle finger" by damaging itself in an irreversible way.

But I guess this really isn't the right place.

Welp. The heck do you think I'm doing? There are currently other effective means to cure the weeds, regardless of how authoritative you may believe you sound. Like I said, you come from a different school of thought. That's why MDs don't take two years of a naturopathy course. Other people have, or at least have looked into it heavily.

The best way? The naturopathic way is 1000x cheaper and if done correctly, works more effectively on people. I have talked to people first hand who cured themselves through a stringent detox consisting of mostly alkaline water and raw organic green juices and other raw vegan foods while heavily reducing or eliminating sugar intake. These types are like ghosts to the public because most don't know that this stuff actually goes on.

Believe what you want, but I don't have any reason to just make this up unless I thought it might be beneficial to the 1 in 100 who might say "hmm" and look into it to potentially help themselves or others.

Again, what causes cancer?

Why would anyone who is already immuno-compromised and psychologically withered choose chemo or radiation (admitted poison used in WW1 whose possibly side effects include cancer) over organic, raw alkaline foods and a heavy boost of vitamin C and other supplements? Why would someone go out of their way to destroy healthy cells when they could just starve the cancerous cells?

You seem to use the word "healthy" liberally. My definition of healthy is fairly stringent because almost all of it pertains to a fairly strict diet.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...5_chemo11.html

Oops. Love the Orwellian title of this article as well.

I dont care if my food is organic but I refuse to drink sink water

Why? Is something wrong with fluoride, lead, arsenic, chromium, chlorine, and recycled pharmaceuticals? You think you're better than everyone else?

Where are the large scale studies though? (Honestly, I'd love to see some)

I don't care about the reasoning behind one cure or another. I don't care if you think its poisoning your body. I don't care if other people think its caused by genetic mutations. I think its important that some people dedicate time and energy into understanding the causes - but ultimately I care about what treatments are most effective at dealing with the problem.

That's the problem with almost all of the crap that you (and some others) have said in this thread. You try to use your personal views of how something works, or facts about what something is, and use it as proof that it's effects on people are bad. But I want to see actual evidence that says "Treatment A gets rid of this form of cancer 75% of the time vs. Treatment B that gets rid of this form of cancer 54% of the time".

Anything else is stupid mental masturbation meant to make someone feel good about themselves.

your_doom,
Your point breaks down because youre associating giving someone cancer through a virus to them then having a lot of that cancer immediately. The body in DCJ approach fights off the growth of cancer at any stage the cancer is in. So just as a healthy body doesnt allow for the development of cancer it is also capable of fighting it should it develop. The amount doesnt matter because the body's goal is always to reduce the total amount. The assumption is a perfectly healthy body is capable of doing this, the challenge is how to find out how to obtain that perfect health profile. Ideas like eating organic food and holistic medicine make a lot of sense because it is believed they treat the source and not the symptoms.

ty

This is inane statement since I assume you'd just say that a body that gets cancer obviously wasn't "perfectly healthy". So it's either inane or just plain wrong.

Of course. I think many of us would agree with the bolded part. It's just ridiculous to take it to the extreme that some people do. Or to assume that its the best answer in all situations.

I cured my cancer with electrolytes

ITT, fairytale science.

LOL acidosis is not a more evolved term for scurvy. Scurvy is vitamin C deficiency leading to collagen break down (the stuff in your skin and connective tissue that requires vitamin C for production/maintenance). Acidosis is a general term for reduced pH of the blood. Also, water is supposed to be pH 7 (neutral), putting lime or lemon in water would reduce the pH (acidifying it), and a pH of 9-9.5 is alkali. FURTHER, if everyone had some form of acidosis, we would all be hyperventilating to compensate which would drive our blood pH back to 7.4 where it should be. This is like, the most ******ed thing anyone has ever said. If any post discredits you, this is it.

no

having a healthy body doesn't lower the chance of getting cancer to 0. That simple sentence on which you base everything is wrong. The body will not always and automatically kill malfuncitoning cells. Don't think that as soon as the first cell malfunctions and is immortalized, that alarms ring in the entire body. It just doesn't work that way.

You can raise the chance of getting various forms of cancer by getting in contact with "non-healthy" stuff ( as an example ), but no matter how fit you are, you can NEVER lower the chance to 0. Be it a virus, be it a metabolic malfunction in the cell, be it a mutation in the wrong point caused by oh so many sources, be it a simple protein, the chance of getting cancer WILL ALWAYS be above 0.

A cell is not perfect, no matter your physical condition. A simple error can ruin everything. And the body will not always be able to fix it.

How you cure yourself is none of my business, but you got to get the fundamentals right first. After that, everyone can believe in whatever he wants, that's the entire reason placebos exist.

dude I really don't know how to sugar coat this but you are waaaaay far away from where you need to be in terms of understanding reality. Steer clear of statistics because every individual case or study can be manipulated and obviously no individuals are the same given the massive amount of variables involved in a person's life. Form your own statistics by asking questions, picking up on patterns in real life, and delving into new subjects.

Try finding out what is poison and what isn't. Try figuring out why people grew their own food for so long and why that sort of food generally isn't what shows up in your supermarket. Try figuring out why some people are obese and why some are skinny.

Again I have spent a lot of time reading about nutrition and alternative medicine because I had a decent amount of health problems growing up and realized at a young age that doctors make mistakes and I always felt like a number to them rather than a human being. When I figured out that eliminating soda from my diet reduced my heartburn and acid reflux problems immensely, I just kept going.

I treated myself like a lab rat and still do from time to time. I'm giving most doctors the proverbial middle finger because I think I can do what they do better when it comes to preventative medicine because I put in the work and simply think they're wrong about a bunch of ideas. When I see people getting it wrong over and over to the point where it personally affects my health and those around me, I have no choice but to do it on my own.

I had that barrier of uncertainty up for a little while but just kept reading and asking knowledgeable people questions rather than looking for the cure-all answer. It was easy for me because I quickly learned through years of gambling and other enterprises that the cookie cutter/widely accepted approach usually isn't the best.

and I don't feel "good" about this, I get lambasted constantly by far less informed people who feebly attempt laughable, elementary psychological warfare tactics on me, and more importantly I waste valuable time I could be using to work on bashing my head against a brick wall. A few other people in here get it and I guarantee you they're not crazy or stupid, far from it.

We really don't mind if you get back to work now.

oh hi. all you needa do is look up "cancer and acidosis" n look up "lemon and alkalizing". but also hey in reference to hyperventilation, at least cases of asthma are going down amirite. fat people don't usually breathe heavily either. maybe why not look up "alkalize asthma" while at it. srsly am I smarter than you lolz na prolly not.

course i can't make 200k a year curing people instead of destroying them so u got me there, but i'll still keep doing it n making kewl friends as i go

we = some sort of medical board? don't worry you'll always have a job lying to yourself and others

You please get the fundamentals right. No where does me saying the body's goal is to reduce total cancer have any relation to your rambling. The first step in problem solving is always going to be IDENTIFICATION. Since identification and detection is not automatic of course there will be a lag time and chance for growth. Not once did I say that cancer cannot have a period of growth in a healthy body. HELLO THAT WOULD BE ******ED TO THINK THAT. If you thought that I would hold then opinion that cancer can never exhibit growth in a healthy body then you were thinking ******edly.

"having a healthy body doesn't lower the chance of getting cancer to 0." Did I say that? The assumption is that a healthy body is capable of lowering the total cancer count. So I didn't even make that point but I'll defend it anyway. Of course having a healthy body lowers the chance of getting cancer to zero. If it lowers the amount of total cancer, then it is lowering it towards zero. I'm sorry I wasn't aware that the point you were trying to make is that reducing a positive value doesn't bring it closer to 0.

Fundamentals....

I look at this thread like I view talking to telemarketers. I get some perverse pleasure out of it and I feel like I'm doing society a good deed by keeping an annoying person out of their hair.

DCJ, do you walk around with a gas-mask on? How do you sleep at night knowing what you are inhaling every day?