Vaccines. Also you can reduce the risk of development by avoiding known risk factors. Oh, and we know what cancer is, uncontrolled growth of cells that invade/destroy tissue.
all-natural, non-toxic cancer cure
- Thread starter china
- Start date
Vaccines. Also you can reduce the risk of development by avoiding known risk factors. Oh, and we know what cancer is, uncontrolled growth of cells that invade/destroy tissue.
Of course you have to try to cure the cases that do exist, but wouldn't it be much better if there was no need to say anything to the young girl/boy?
Influenza was the last one. They're available at work for free. Haven't had a booster in a while. My tetanus titer is probably getting low.
Are these not the same people that gave us Thalidomide? You know the little pill that magically makes morning sickness go away. And we should trust them.
The objective of Naturopaths is to find the cause of the cancer. Cure the cause you cure the disease. While the medical profession just seeks to fix the result instead of looking for the cause. Partly this is our society's fault with demands for instant gratification without making lifestyle changes.
Therein lay the problem and most of the problems involving pharmaceuticals - horrendous side effects. Humans are living tissue, not synthetic. Dumping synthetic material into living tissue is not all that smart. Living tissue requires living tissue to survive. Can your body be nourished with synthetic food? Cancer has become an epidemic because of junk food, toxic air and water. Treating it with synthetics may give it temporary relief but in the majority of cases, it eventually returns, not always in the same place, because the root cause is never sought. Holistic medicine treats the whole person, mind, body and spirit (emotions). Allopathic medicine is to specific to just the physical.
Nope. Poor attempt at moving goal posts by the way.
The objective of Naturopaths is to use holistic approaches which minimize the amount of surgery or drug treatment needed.
That's nonsense...where do you get this stuff from? Go ahead, and pick any medical journal. Go read through the abstracts, you'll find plenty of applied research addressing the pathology of disease. In fact pathology wouldn't exist if the medical profession did not address the cause.
Having read many posts by both you and Taxslave, I think your wisdom could be enhanced if you paid attention more to what taxslave is saying. :smile:
You just reminded me; my polio-tet booster shot is way overdue. Gotta get in there and get it. Last time was when some nitwit (me) left a 2x4 with a nail sticking up, on the lawn. shyte, that hurt.
I think their number one endeavour is profit, by many of them. Of course some do as you say, but I think the "cures", not individual cases so much as for the epidemic, lies more in diet and lifestyle. I find there is absolutely too much of the "drugstore mentality" these days because people have gotten themselves into such a state that radical action is needed. Taking all these drugs now is not a sane substitute for eating potato skins and apples peels 25 years ago and maintaining a strenous exercise regimen. I think Taxslave was addressing the situation as a whole. I think there are many wise doctors but there's also pill pushers. Just speaking for myself I have been on very mild blood pressure medication for half my life to maintain acceptable levels, but I also limit salt intake, limit red meat consumption and get two hours of exercise every day and watch my weight (girth) I think if I didn't do those things I'd either be on much stronger medication or would have already either succumbed or been badly comprised by heart attack or stroke.
All of them.
Yes, cancer is by and large an environmental disease.
I won't disagree. In fact all medical professionals advise their patients to mitigate known risk factors...but they can't force them to do so. There's still a genetic component of course, that risk can't be removed.
You've said before that you require drugs for blood pressure, I think it was. Some people require treatments even after living healthy lives filled with rigorous exercise and eating nutritious diets.
Well, I was going by the words he used...not what I think he was addressing. He has been repeating the same nonsense that many people do. Myths and falsehoods about cancer are commonplace.
Ahh, yes I remembered you saying this once before. It's not insane that you take these drugs to maintain homeostasis. That's life, the bodies mechanisms break down. It's good that you have adjusted your lifestyle, but as with so many others, you still require pharmacology to stay healthy.
People are living longer because of the advances in medical knowledge, with immunization programs, better hygiene, better nutrition, surgical methods, and drugs. That poses new challenges that should be addressed. They are being addressed.
Years ago we had willow bark, mullen, mud and cedar and by some stroke of luck and a willingness to do so, people recovered. Now we have chemistry and experts - and still need strokes of luck and the will to live. Have we advanced? I wouldn't go closing doors and burning bridges....
How many recovered? I would bet money that the morbidity rates for any malady/condition/disease you can think of have gone down...except in the cases where people are now ignoring immunization programs, allowing diseases that were under control to creep back into the public health arena.
Possibly, I'm a worrier, and when I get up in the morning and there's tasks to do, I either have to get at them or at least have a schedule worked out before I can relax. I think if I could get past these traits my b.p. would be normal w/o medication. Getting back to taxslave, I think he's a cynic as I am. I think it's a natural trait for people to over value themselves (I used to be that way, until I realized it's not what you earn but how you spend it) and people like taxslave & myself resent being on the paying end of other people's delusions of what they are worth. (Sorry if I'm being presumptuous, taxslave)
What do you call recovered? Is the rest of a lifetime on drugs and living with side-effects while waiting for return engagements as good as it gets?
For some it is. Is it worth it to be rid of an infection that probably would have killed you?
There's the catch, isn't it? If you're taking meds to maintain dormancy, then you're not "rid" of it, are you?