Answer to questions asked of me about my symptoms and herbal treatments

Discussion in 'Your Living Room' started by earshurt, Dec 1, 2010.

ATTN: Our forums have moved here! You can still read these forums but if you'd like to participate, mosey on over to the new location.

  1. earshurt

    earshurt New Member

    I don't do anything such as work for any companies or own any businesses. My family owns a good bit of rental property and all I do now days is manage the rental property.
  2. earshurt

    earshurt New Member

    That is a pretty fair misrepresentation but I think the premise behind all this is clear and i'm done discussing this minute point.

    edit* Actually that is close enough.
  3. Imnoscientist

    Imnoscientist New Member

    ??? It's not at all clear to me. I'm genuinely puzzled. ??? ???
  4. Imnoscientist

    Imnoscientist New Member

    So I did understand you correctly the first time?
  5. earshurt

    earshurt New Member

    More about candida

    In my opinion I believe...

    This doctor gets harassed by the big moneyed establishment for using baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) to "cure" cancer instead of "treating" it with chemo. He can prove it. He has video evidence and a track record. He cures people. He has cured patients in less than a week with baking soda.

    The vast majority of chemo patients die a brutal slow death by poisoning. Every person with cancer should be allowed to ask their doctor for this treatment, and should their doctor agree, the doctor should not be fined, stripped of his license, and jailed as a result, and this happens to many doctors that buck the big money carousel that never stops going round.

    My body is my body. I should have the right to do with it as I choose as should every human. The Senior Safety Researcher at the FDA bluntly stated that safety was only 5% of the criteria used in selecting drugs that are "legal" for me to get from my doctor. All that is not permitted is forbidden.

    If I so choose, I should be allowed to use anything I please to treat myself and items I may choose to use should not be excluded and made illegal. I trust my own mind enough to choose a safer remedy than remedies forced on me with a 5% safety margin and a 95% chance of being dangerous. Every human being should have this right.

    The chemo cancer business is in the trillions and has become an industry all to itself. This treatment, instead of being lawded and spread through the world, is loathed by the big moneyed establishment that only prospers in fabulous wealth and luxury at the expense of many suffering people dying from chemo each and every day. This treatment, like so many others that have been stamped with "needs more study" and put in the bottom left hand drawer, should be available to me if I desire to use it, and have my doctor help me use it if he agrees to.

    Instead, people like us, are left to their own devices to discover what we can. Without the internet we would be sunk and the big moneyed machine is trying to knock it all off the internet as fast as possible. Our resources are slowly disappearing.

    Dr. Mercola is not the doctor that uses baking soda to cure cancer, he sells products on the internet, but good doctors like Dr. Mercola who sell us healthy products are being harassed by the FDA every single day. I don't care if Mercola makes money helping people, all doctors have a right to earn a living, and they all charge money for what they do. I trust Mercola to give me something healthy because he does not bow to the FDA's 5 % piddly concern for my safety.

    If this treatment for cancer became mainstream, those castles on the French Riverra and 200 million dollar yachts, would have to be sold. Those 5 million dollar weddings, 150,000 dollar wedding cakes, 2 million dollar cars, would be history. And were the good suffering people of this country to realize why those luxuries exist they would not exist at all.


    This is not Dr. Mercola that does the baking soda cancer treatment, it is a different guy....

    "The fundamental reason and the motives that suggest a therapy with sodium bicarbonate against tumours is that, although with the concurrence of a myriad of variable concausal factors – the development and the local and remote proliferation of these tumours has a cause that is exclusively fungin".
    Dr. Tullio Simoncini

    Dr. T. Simoncini, an oncologist in Rome, Italy has pioneered sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) therapy as a means to treat cancer. The fundamental theory behind this treatment lies in the fact that, despite a number of variable factors, the formation and spreading of tumors is simply the result of the presence of a fungus.

    Sodium bicarbonate

    Sodium bicarbonate, unlike other anti-fungal remedies to which the fungus can become immune, is extremely diffusible and retains its ability to penetrate the tumor, due to the speed at which the sodium bicarbonate disintegrates the tumor. This speed makes fungi?s adaptability impossible, rendering it defenseless. The sodium bicarbonate solution is administered directly on the tumor, if possible. Otherwise, it can be administered by selective arteriography, which basically means selecting specific arteries through which the solution is administered, which subsequently dissolves the tumor.


    The treatment with Sodium Bicarbonate
    By admin, 2 October, 2010, No Comment

    A logical solution to the cancer problem, based on the arguments put forward so far, seems to stem from the world of fungi against which, at the moment, there is no useful remedy other than, in my opinion, sodium bicarbonate. The anti-fungins that are currently on the market, in fact, do not have the ability to penetrate the masses (except perhaps early administrations of azoli or of amfotercina B delivered parenterally), since they are conceived to act only at a stratified level of the epithelial type. They are therefore unable to affect mycelial aggregations that are set volumetrically and also when masked by the connectival reaction that attempts to circumscribe them.


    We have seen that fungi are also able to quickly mutate their genetic structure. That means that after an initial phase of sensitivity to fungicides, in a short time they are able to codify them and to metabolize them without being damaged by them – rather, paradoxically, they extract a benefit from their high toxicity on the organism.

    This happens, for example, in the prostate invasive carcinoma with congealed pelvis. There is a therapy with anti-fungins for this affliction, which at first is very effective at the symptomatological level but consistently loses its effectiveness with time.

    Sodium bicarbonate, instead, as it is extremely diffusible and without that structural complexity that fungi can easily codify, retains its ability to penetrate the masses for a long time. This is also and especially due to the speed at which it disintegrates them, which makes it impossible for the fungi to adapt so that it cannot defend itself. A therapy with bicarbonate should therefore be set up using a strong dosage, continuously, and in cycles without pauses in a work of destruction which should proceed from the beginning to the end without interruption for at least 7-8 days for the first cycle, keeping in mind that a mass of 2-3-4 centimeters begins to regress consistently from the third to the fourth day, and collapses from the fourth to the fifth.


    Generally speaking, the maximum limit of the dosage that can be administered in a session gravitates around 500 cm3 of sodium bicarbonate at five per cent solution, with the possibility of increasing or decreasing the dosage by 20 per cent as a function of the body mass of the individual to be treated and in the presence of multiple localizations upon which to apportion a greater quantity of salts.

    We must underline that the dosages indicated, as they are harmless, are the very same that have already been utilized without any problem for more than 30 years in a myriad of other morbid situations such as:

    Severe diabetic ketoacidosis [64]
    Cardio-respiratory reanimation [65]
    Peritoneal dialysis
    Pharmacological toxicosis
    Vascular surgery


    75% of doctors who get cancer refuse chemo for their own treatments

    75 percent of the doctors refuses chemotherapy themselves
    By admin, 2 October, 2010, No Comment

    The great lack of trust is evident even amongst doctors. Polls and questionnaires show that three doctors out of four (75 percent) would refuse any chemotherapy because of its ineffectiveness against the disease and its devastating effects on the entire human organism. This is what many doctors and scientists have to say about chemotherapy:

    The majority of the cancer patients in this country die because of chemotherapy, which does not cure breast, colon or lung cancer. This has been documented for over a decade and nevertheless doctors still utilize chemotherapy to fight these tumors.” (Allen Levin, MD, UCSF, “The Healing of Cancer”, Marcus Books, 1990).

    If I were to contract cancer, I would never turn to a certain standard for the therapy of this disease. Cancer patients who stay away from these centers have some chance to make it.” (Prof. Gorge Mathe, “Scientific Medicine Stymied”, Medicines Nouvelles, Paris, 1989)

    Dr. Hardin Jones, lecturer at the University of California, after having analyzed for many decades statistics on cancer survival, has come to this conclusion: ‘… when not treated, the patients do not get worse or they even get better’. The unsettling conclusions of Dr. Jones have never been refuted”. (Walter Last, “The Ecologist”, Vol. 28, no. 2, March-April 1998)

    Many oncologists recommend chemotherapy for almost any type of cancer, with a faith that is unshaken by the almost constant failures”.(Albert Braverman, MD, “Medical Oncology in the 90s”, Lancet, 1991, Vol. 337, p. 901)

    Our most efficacious regimens are loaded with risks, side effects and practical problems; and after all the patients we have treated have paid the toll, only a miniscule percentage of them is paid off with an ephemeral period of tumoral regression and generally a partial one” (Edward G. Griffin “World Without Cancer”, American Media Publications, 1996)

    After all, and for the overwhelming majority of the cases, there is no proof whatsoever that chemotherapy prolongs survival expectations. And this is the great lie about this therapy, that there is a correlation between the reduction of cancer and the extension of the life of the patient”. (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)

    Several full-time scientists at the McGill Cancer Center sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used – while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy.” (Philip Day,

    Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)

    Doctor Ulrich Able, a German epidemiologist of the Heidelberg Mannheim Tumor Clinic, has exhaustively analyzed and reviewed all the main studies and clinical experiments ever performed on chemotherapy …. Able discovered that the comprehensive world rate of positive outcomes because of chemotherapy was frightening, because, simply, nowhere was scientific evidence available demonstrating that chemotherapy is able to ‘prolong in any appreciable way the life of patients affected by the most common type of organ cancer.’ Able highlights that rarely can chemotherapy improve the quality of life, and he describes it as a scientific squalor while maintaining that at least 80 per cent of chemotherapy administered in the world is worthless. Even if there is no scientific proof whatsoever that chemotherapy works, neither doctors nor patients are prepared to give it up (Lancet, Aug. 10, 1991).

    None of the main media has ever mentioned this exhaustive study: it has been completely buried” (Tim O’Shea,

    “Chemotherapy – An Unproven Procedure”)

    “According to medical associations, the notorious and dangerous side effects of drugs have become the fourth main cause of death after infarction, cancer, and apoplexy” ( Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998)


    As a side note.....Candida causes vasculitis causes infarction.
  6. Taximom5

    Taximom5 New Member

    This is interesting info on cancer treatments. I am very ignorant about this subject, but have two colleagues who are each undergoing chemo for breast cancer.

    One is also following the "anti-cancer diet" recommended by Russell Blaylock, and is doing far better than her doctor had hoped. (This "anti-cancer diet" is basically an anti-candida diet, combined with avoiding all dairy and non-organic foods.)

    This is her second round of cancer; she had previously had masectomy and radiation. Now it has spread to liver and bones, but her oncologist is very excited about how well she is doing since starting the diet.

    So I am left wondering many things. Could there be a role for chemo if combined with the "anti-cancer diet?" Or could the "anti-cancer diet" make chemo unnecessary?

    And where are the studies showing that chemo is effective? I'm assuming that there must be some somewhere--where did they come from? Are they funded by the government, or by the company that produces them? Were they ever looked at and interpreted by independent scientists?

    While I believe that the scientists who developed these therapies were truly trying to find a way to save lives (just like with vaccines), is it possible that the studies showing effectiveness (if there are any) have the same problem as the studies showing effectiveness of vaccines?

    It seems the more we learn about these topics, the more questions there are.
  7. June-

    June- New Member

    There are always more questions. That's how science progresses. But I am very skeptical of promotion of an anti anything diet based on anecdotes vs the current state of the medical community. I would never ever ever - ever - encourage anyone with a life-threatening illness to ignore their doctors advice because I saw something that said something.

    I think it is a sign of seriousness and sincerity to understand our own limitations and not put other people's lives at risk by claiming to know more than we do. There are always some people who will think people do know what they claim to know just because they speak with authority.
  8. Taximom5

    Taximom5 New Member

    Well, my understanding is that Blaylock's diet is not based on hearsay, but on valid research. He's a retired neurosurgeon. Here's his bio on wikipedia: I do note that the "science-based" community accuses him of being a fraud, and they insist he is wrong about the toxicity of things like MSG, fluoride, and aspartame.

    However, my colleague is following his diet recommendations with her oncologist's approval. Interestingly, my other colleague goes to an oncologist in the same practice--but HER oncologist tells her that she must NOT follow that diet, and must not change anything in her diet/routine/lifestyle without his permission.

    She is not doing nearly as well as the other gal, but I can't lay that on the diet, because they have different kinds of cancer, and at different stages, and are not receiving identical chemo treatments.

    So I honestly don't know exactly what to believe, except that it is important to keep asking questions, even if it means questioning or even disagreeing with the current state of the medical community.
  9. Taximom5

    Taximom5 New Member

    Where is the dividing line between debating a subject and expressing an opposing opinion?
  10. Imnoscientist

    Imnoscientist New Member

    Debate involves to and fro, with evidence in support of one's own views and evidence in rebuttal of the other's. Expressing an opinion is simply that. My opinion is that Dr Simoncini is wrong. I'm not telling anyone else they should think differently.
  11. jim1884again

    jim1884again advocating baldness be recognized as a disability

    are posts disappearing because they are perceived to be contentious? and yes, where is the dividing line between debate and simply expressing an opposing opinion? sometimes folks who come here take much of what is said as gospel and make important medical decisions based partially on what they read here--much of what is propagated has very little validity and applies to a very small number of sufferers (I am making this statement in reference to the boards in general)--examples--herbals, chiropratic, vitamin C, antivirals--all these may have helped some sufferers but there is scant evidence there is any widespread applicability for treatment for the majority of folks here--cause and effect relationships are implied or overtly stated when any relatively well trained scientist (all REAL scientists are trained to be skeptical) would find it nearly impossible to firmly establish a link between the proposed treatment and the outcome---so what are we left with? personal testimonials from people who have varying levels of sophistication and training and who often make claims based on a sample of one--"I did this and I felt better; ergo, A led to B"--ever heard the terms like intervening variables, hypothetical construct, chance (a really tough one to understand)

    this has been the story of the boards since I came here six years ago--I accepted it as the reality and culture of this particular corner of cyberspace--healthy and less than healthy, productive and counter productive, polite or downright mean spirited at times--all these applied, but the site survived and prospered--lately, there was enough dissension and unpleasant discourse Ray felt the need to intervene--I like Ray and have no ill will towards him, but I have never felt he should have to be bothered with babysitting us (I have written this statement at least two dozen times)--since he has chosen to, it might be argued that the site has become a bit more civil, but if it is at the expense of people being censored rather than simply banned, then those who Ray perceives to be stirring rather than contributing get their remarks zapped? threads get locked?

    as I have always said, I get away from this place when I allow things to piss me off, and that is where I am right now--Ray doesn't want debate and he decides where the line is between that type of exchange and simply presenting reasonable skepticism--I have kept my mouth shut countless times (a feat for me given how much of an opinionated BSer I am)--now, my relative silence has been broken by the things that others may see as improvements to the way things are done here at don't see it that way, but I don't pay the bills here
  12. Wino

    Wino Resident Honey Badger

    This is not meant as any offense to earshurt, as he and I have been civil to one another via PM.

    But I see absolutely NO difference in what he posts -- regardless of prefacing it with saying "it's only my opinion" -- and what INS posts from a differing point of view, yet only INS posts get whacked. Ray, I understand your position that this is not a "debate" forum, but only a "support" forum. Yet many of these exchanges involving earshurt and Taximom have absolutely nothing to do with support, and are clearly all about debating that conventional medicine is evil/useless/harmful/etc. Why are those OBVIOUS debate posts allowed to survive, while any posts questioning the basis of the premise get whacked for being not conducive to the site?
  13. June-

    June- New Member

    Maybe it is a matter of whoever posts first. The first person is stating opinion. Counters to that begin a debate. It is concerning to me though that people can post literally anything and not have it challenged. It takes away from the credibility of the majority of the contributions to this forum which are very well presentd and helpful to those who suffer imo.

    I always thought the standard should be objectivity and civility towards all by all rather than lack of dissenting opinions. But it's not my forum.
  14. Imnoscientist

    Imnoscientist New Member

    I have not debated in this thread. The closest I came was saying I thought the baking soda cures cancer doctor is wrong. I don't even know how that is contentious or a debate - the guy has been struck off for Pete's sake. And I said it was only my opinion, just like earshurt says his posts are just his opinion. I also suggested that the massive cancer post was off topic. That's it. I don't know why but that post disappeared.

    Had I wanted to debate there are literally tens of thousands of words in this thread from which I could have chosen. I did not do that. I DID post about two parts of the grab and run sheet that did and do continue to concern me greatly. Those are parts 7 and 25 - about witholding information from your doctor. That is extremely reckless and potentially life threatening advice. Earshurt says 'these are my thoughts only, not advice'. That is disingenous. It is called a 'grab and run sheet' it contains lengthy advice, not musings or feelings - why would someone grab and run with thoughts and feelings??

    I know Ray has said no-one should advocate for others - we are all adults who can make up our own minds, use our own judgement etc. True. But people see words on a forum which looks official and contains lots of good and sound advice. In amongst it they read this thread and if there's no-one saying 'it might be wrong' or 'that doctor has been struck off' then it's not unreasonable to suggest that there might be some sick, vulnerable people who read this stuff and believe it and follow it. Eating yoghurt and turmeric is one thing but lying to your own doctor is another. Bad things can happen. For me to say so is not a debate and it is not stirring the pot.

    Being supportive is not the same as blind acceptance. If a friend of mine has cancer and tells me he wants to treat it with baking soda it is not "support" for me to say "go for it!". Support would be to say "that's an unusual treatment, have you discussed it with your doctor and have you researched all your options?". If he says "yes I have and this is what I want to do" THEN I say "go for it".
  15. Taximom5

    Taximom5 New Member

    Are you saying earshurt has been banned?
  16. KTabc

    KTabc Cheese Head Dumbass

    What makes this board so great, in my opinion!, is the diverse information available AND the debate. We are not children here. We are adults--take what works for you and come back and report on it so people can learn and decide for themselves.

  17. Imnoscientist

    Imnoscientist New Member

    Not to my knowledge.

    I was referring to (former) Dr Tullio Simoncini. His licence to practice medicine has been revoked.
  18. earshurt

    earshurt New Member

    Grab and run sheet edited. Added megadose vitamin c, how could I have left that one out? Doing....Added food allergy. Added hyperinsulemia. Changed slightly my view on psych ward.
  19. earshurt

    earshurt New Member

    I had not intended on answering to this and i'm surprised I bother. But I want people to realize that simply because someone has a license that says "doctor" one day and does not have one the next day does not negate the video on this doctors site that proves with empirical evidence that he can knock out a cancer tumor in less than a week with baking soda. I don't need his video evidence anyway. He is maligned because he bucked a broken system and that does not negate the fact that baking soda will kill a cancer tumor in mere days. Credentials or lack of don't change this empirical fact that baking soda kills candida fungus and cancer tumors.

    Simply saying the word "wrong" does not change the video on this doctor's site. It does not change the fact that there are people walking around healed instead of being slowly poisoned to death until they die miserably from chemo as almost all of them do. If you want to bring information forth that seems to indicate that sodium bicarbonate will not infiltrate a cancer tumor so rapidly that fungus cannot mutate, or some other SPECIFIC REASONS why this TREATMENT will not work I will be happy to entertain it. If we figure out that sodium bicarbonate will not kill fungus rapidly then I will gladly state the same. Accuracy is all that really matters to me. You're the plaintiff, make your case, "wrong" is not a case. If you are correct we need to correct the record. A piece of paper that says "M.D. is dropped from you credentials" does not make a case. I agree sources are a valid thing to question, in this case these minor things don't make a case.

    Your problem with me, and the reason you follow me around incessantly, without engaging if thoughtful discussion about the efficacy of specific treatment is because you hate my philosophy. Yes it is my philosophy that our mainstream medical system is woefully lacking and broken down to a point that it is become more nonfunctional by the day. I lack confidence in the system. You disagree. I don't care if someone has an M.D. by their name or not. Some of the best medical discoveries on the entire planet were made by people with no formal training whatsoever. Solari said Megadose Vitamin C helped. John Of Ohio said his protocol helped. Henry Sullivan said NUCCA helped. Pappajoe said candida diet helped. I believe them all. Not because they said it, but because I studied their method. They are not doctors. All I care about is one thing....

    does it work.....if it does, I could care less who discovered the fact that it does, what their credentials are, etc...

    I don't follow you around and scream "no no no no no no" every time you post. I try to take it with grace because it does not bother me. Actually it does readers a service because it gives me a chance to come back with hard core proof of what I allege and it is a better demonstration of the broken system. It detracts from the forum experience, but it doesn't bother me.
  20. earshurt

    earshurt New Member

    I will try to ignore more of the same as the facts allow but I felt it necessary to protect and preserve the record on the fact that baking soda is one of the most effective fungus killers and tumor killers on planet earth. This is important information of a crucial nature.

Share This Page