Mexico clinics

  What means and methods were

  What means and methods were used to beat the tumor back?   Any specifics, like what sort of diet and other practices were used.  Chemo/radiaton is hell and if there is something else that can be used either in conjuction with or as a specific stand alone process, I think it would serve all a great benefit to have it disclosed in detail. 

I did a little bit of reading

I did a little bit of reading and based on what there is the only people who've survived beyond the random and occassional spontanious remissions are those that were receiving standard treatment at the same time. There has been no scientific evidence with trials demonstrating that this mysterious diet does any good at all. If someone would post what it is and how it works, it might be worth looking into.  I doubt we'll get that.  It's in Mexico because it's banned here.  Gotta wonder why. 

 That old argument about big pharma not wanting a cure is BS.  If someone had a cure, a real cure, they'd be an overnight trillionare.  Not only that, the insurance companies would and are looking for a cheaper cure to this disease.  They pay out enormous amounts to hospitals as compared to the deductables and premiums we're being charged. It's in their interest to get this under control cost wise.  So, for the time being I'm a big skeptic of any alleged secret remedies but I'm open to something that will stand up to scientific scrutiny.

 

Me, too

Like Tru, I also know of only two people who have done it and both died. One within a year after her second time there and the other while he was there. But this wasn't the Gerson clinic. This was where they put you on a no sugar diet and even take your blood out and strip it of sugars. Something along those lines. I'm not sure exactly.

And it was very expensive.

Jan

darcher said:

I did a little bit of reading

I did a little bit of reading and based on what there is the only people who've survived beyond the random and occassional spontanious remissions are those that were receiving standard treatment at the same time. There has been no scientific evidence with trials demonstrating that this mysterious diet does any good at all. If someone would post what it is and how it works, it might be worth looking into.  I doubt we'll get that.  It's in Mexico because it's banned here.  Gotta wonder why. 

 That old argument about big pharma not wanting a cure is BS.  If someone had a cure, a real cure, they'd be an overnight trillionare.  Not only that, the insurance companies would and are looking for a cheaper cure to this disease.  They pay out enormous amounts to hospitals as compared to the deductables and premiums we're being charged. It's in their interest to get this under control cost wise.  So, for the time being I'm a big skeptic of any alleged secret remedies but I'm open to something that will stand up to scientific scrutiny.

 

False information is rampant out there.

I'm not sure what you're reading, but there is most certainly scientific evidence to show diet can cure and/or reverse almost any auto-immune disease known. There are studies that prove, and/or very strongly suggest, that highly processed foods, and other unhealthy foods actually CAUSE a lot of the auto-immune diseases we're getting; including cancer. To say there isn't any proof or evidence because the mainstream media isn't publishing it is just regurgitating a horrendously inaccurate, corporate-PR-go-to-response they all turn to when confronted with the questions about diet. There are better, safer, and easier ways to cure disease, but if you feel you need studies to prove it, they're definitely out there. One only has to wade through the distractions littering the Internet to find them. They're generally the studies that were privately funded or not funded by anyone who has a monetary interest in the outcome.

On the topic of big pharma...I don't see how a cure would benefit them much. Big pharma is a series of corporations that are in business for one reason alone: To make money. They aren't philanthropic, non-profit organizations who charge customers for a new drug until the cost of developing it is paid for then give it to their needy customers for free after that. It's not a conspiracy, it's a business. Thinking about them in any other way; such as a feeling entity that really cares whether you, me, or anybody dies is very naive and dangerous. It's what they've been counting on to make them the multi-billion dollar industry that they are. There may be money in curing illness if they could develop a pill that actually cured anything, but there's a helluva ton more money in band-aids that don't cure. Seriously, what's the better business model, the one where they charge a larger, one-time fee for the cure; or the smaller, monthly fee for life? The insurance companies are also big businesses and regardless of what they pay out, they still manage to make pretty nice profits. I've never heard of an insurance company actively looking for cures for anything, let alone dumping any of their profits into research. I don't see how they'd really benefit from that. Very few of them offer any efficient preventative treatments, either, so obviously their concerns are elsewhere.

As far as the cure making anyone rich...The cure can't make its discoverer an over-night trillionaire because no one can patent food (yet). No one can become a trillionaire if the cure is available to everyone for free. Those making money on cancer can't become trillionaires if everyone is cured, or stops getting cancer, either. Kind of a catch-22 situation. This fact became disgustingly clear to me when I first discovered the benefits of probiotics back in 2009. I had suffered with bowel issues since my ileostomy reversal, but my GI doctor kept offering band-aid solutions that didn't help, and sometimes made matters worse. When I asked him about probiotics, he refused to talk to me about them. My oncologist told me a patient died because he was taking probiotics...I was confused and a bit angry. How could two GI experts not know anything about the benefits of probiotics, and why wouldn't they tell me about them instead of letting me suffer excruciatingly as I had been???

I found out a few years later that the pharmeceutical companies figured out how to patent certain strain combinations of probiotics and that doctors were prescribing them. Suddenly probiotics were a good thing. This lead to a whole bunch of new discoveries about the big pharma/medical industry that I won't get into now. I just want to make a point that the wool really is being pulled over everyone's eyes. It's not necessarily a conspiracy, it's just a bunch of big businesses in bed with other big businesses to make profits. It isn't right and it isn't ethical, but it's how it is.

The doctors used to think I was one of those random, spontaneous flukes you're talking about, but now they've seen me survive my recurrences WITHOUT chemo, over and over again, and I'm seeing that some of them are FINALLY beginning to change the way they see and treat cancer. More and more people are refusing their doctor's good advice, and surviving. Many of them are surviving longer simply by doing nothing at all. Others are using time-tested diets such as the macrobiotic diet to keep their tumors stable. I've experienced curative effects by simply juicing regularly for a month, and doing the raw diet for five weeks. I'm maintaining NED with a vegan diet. The only issues I suffer with these days are the long term effects my original, standards-of-care treatments caused. Injury is a lot harder to fix than illness.

Being a skeptic is certainly healthy, and I was very skeptical in the beginning, but I was more skeptical about the toxins they were giving me. They attached an electronic pump to my port and handed me a hazmat kit in case any chemo leaked out. When it did leak out one day, they told me to wash my nightgown several times and wear the gloves and mask when cleaning it off the floor. This is what they're putting into our bodies!!! 

I understand the pressures the doctor's put us through, too. It was hard saying no, over and over again while they swore up and down that chemo was my best chance for survival. I never believed that and after coming onto this site and meeting two women who had survived without chemo, I began my research and discovered others who'd done the same. Then I read the books and articles, did the research, and started experimenting with myself. The rest is history. I haven't had chemo since 2008, despite having five recurrences since then. The last one that popped up in 2015 would have caused me to lose my colon, but five weeks of the raw diet got well rid of it. 

Don't get me wrong, chemo works for some. Others are put on a chemo roller coaster that I've never seen end with a positive outcome.

My hope is that everyone discovers the truth about diet and illness before they meet an untimely end to this disease that I believe is very, very, curable.

On a last note, I know a few people have tried these diets and didn't succeed. I know that in a lot of these failed cases those people simply weren't able to carry it on as long as they needed to. I hate to think this, but maybe they were already out of time. I'd like to think that anyone could survive using the raw diet no matter how close they are to death's door, but that probably isn't realistic. The raw diet isn't simple by any means, either. It takes a lot of dedication and altering of one's lifestyle to achieve success, but it's well worth it in the long run if a person can acclimate themselves to it. It took five weeks to get rid of a small tumor that was approximately a year old. It might take longer on the diet to get rid of a larger tumor, or multiple tumors. I would just monitor with scans every few months, like we have to do anyway, to see if it's making a difference. I also don't know if a change in diet will significantly help someone who's using chemo concurrently. From what I've heard from others, some changes in diet have helped alleviate chemo and rad symptoms, but that's all.

Best health and NED to you,

Krista

JanJan63 said:

Program

I once saw a program about people going to Mexico for alternative treatments and it was very interesting that many felt much better after. But they did tests on them and there was no improvement in their level of cancer development and some were worse off. But most of them felt better because mentally they thought they'd been treated and helped. So it worked like a placebo as far as their mental well being went.

There was a post on here recently about a member who had passed and it was mentioned that he'd tried all sort of alternative therapies. The biggest problem is that one must really stay on traditional therapies while also using the alternative and then how can anyone say which one actually worked? Some people's cancer just doesn't progress much, others aren't so lucky. In a disease where so little is known and there are so many variables and nobody's journey seems to go the same way it's impossible to say what's actually working and what isn't.

Jan 

.But they did tests on them

.But they did tests on them and there was no improvement in their level of cancer development ... mentally ... helped...placebo

mmmm, I'm cautious about all providers' claims being inflated, altmed being more varied and less documented.  

Achievement of reliable improvement in survival increase by measurement, design and feedback in real time  simply isn't how clinical oncology is setup. Current practices generate very incomplete data with lot of iatrogenic noise and artifacts. Incidentally this is a much more favorable sales situation for pharma and providers.    

Quality of life can be improved with or without improvements in cancer reduction or survival; many approved cancer treatments reduce quality of life, temporarily and often permanently. Placebo effect or a cancer cure are  not the only ways quality of life can be improved.    

 

The biggest problem is that one must really stay on traditional therapies while also using the alternative and then how can anyone say which one actually worked? 

In some cases with high quality, high intensity data and consistent treatment periods, it's pretty obvious with several on-off cycles.  E.g. if one component or set of components is "off" treatment with everything else on when measured effectiveness soon deteriorates, where effectiveness is then measurably restored when resupplied again.  Also lab kill trials on viable personal tissue and predictive markers are helpful.

tanstaafl said:

.But they did tests on them

.But they did tests on them and there was no improvement in their level of cancer development ... mentally ... helped...placebo

mmmm, I'm cautious about all providers' claims being inflated, altmed being more varied and less documented.  

Achievement of reliable improvement in survival increase by measurement, design and feedback in real time  simply isn't how clinical oncology is setup. Current practices generate very incomplete data with lot of iatrogenic noise and artifacts. Incidentally this is a much more favorable sales situation for pharma and providers.    

Quality of life can be improved with or without improvements in cancer reduction or survival; many approved cancer treatments reduce quality of life, temporarily and often permanently. Placebo effect or a cancer cure are  not the only ways quality of life can be improved.    

 

The biggest problem is that one must really stay on traditional therapies while also using the alternative and then how can anyone say which one actually worked? 

In some cases with high quality, high intensity data and consistent treatment periods, it's pretty obvious with several on-off cycles.  E.g. if one component or set of components is "off" treatment with everything else on when measured effectiveness soon deteriorates, where effectiveness is then measurably restored when resupplied again.  Also lab kill trials on viable personal tissue and predictive markers are helpful.

This was a program I saw

This was a program I saw before I had cancer so I can't give any specific details, just what I remember happening on the show. So the place they went to could no longer exist or it could actually be a better place now. I have no idea, I was just giving my two cents worth. If these places were very successful people would be raving about them all over the place, though, so that tells me that they're not having that much success. 

I'd love to hear that there is some real hope from some place somewhere and would spend everything we had if that were the case. But we can't afford to spend over $15,000 to try something that may or may not work. 

If there is ever any definitive proof that it works, sign me up.

JanJan63 said:

This was a program I saw

This was a program I saw before I had cancer so I can't give any specific details, just what I remember happening on the show. So the place they went to could no longer exist or it could actually be a better place now. I have no idea, I was just giving my two cents worth. If these places were very successful people would be raving about them all over the place, though, so that tells me that they're not having that much success. 

I'd love to hear that there is some real hope from some place somewhere and would spend everything we had if that were the case. But we can't afford to spend over $15,000 to try something that may or may not work. 

If there is ever any definitive proof that it works, sign me up.

We try to keep our

We try to keep our "investments" under $1000 or so.  

Rather than only rely on medical studies with scattershot populations, I try harder to focus on similar targets with actual personal data and better measured results.  We chip away, with some sizeable hits, rather than expect a magic bullet from a source with conflicting priorities.