Skip to content or view screen version

Ilegal to cure cancer at the corporation known as United States

Toanangel | 26.08.2001 12:38

There are numerous known cures for cancer and other diseases like AIDS. Once they're proven effective and
receive a large following they become a target for destruction.

This is the true story of one man who took the challenge and fought for your Right to have access and knowledge of a cancer cure known as 714X.

Toanangel
- e-mail: pix108@frontiernet.net

Comments

Hide the following 2 comments

714x

26.08.2001 22:16

lets make this readily available. what does it contain? provide the pharmocolgy so that we can all succus and dilute. one of wilhelm reich's so-called crimes was treatment of cancer and he died in prison for this and other stuff. and the history of laetrile!. the drug conglomerates want cancer to continue to afflict us so they can sell the useless suppressive medicine. lets share techniques.

dwiight heet


Yes, let's cure cancer with distilled water

28.08.2001 06:04

If you can't get the science straight, and can't make a valid clinical study work...

You can always try to make a political issue out of it.

All of your talk of conspiracies is just straight out of the Quack Medicine Marketing Handbook.

If you can cure cancer, just do the following:

Produce a mere hundred patients of whom the following is true:

1.A life-threatening form of cancer had been diagnosed (by scientific means, not just by looking or asking questions) before treatment started.

2.The patient had undergone some form of treatment (whatever treatment you are testing, and only that method of treatment).

3.The patient was alive and free of that cancer 5 years after the treatment had finished.

Pay especial attention to points 1 & 3. There are well-proven, repeatable, generally accepted methods of diagnosing cancer- or ruling out such a diagnosis. Use them.

Proper follow-up is also essential. If you're going to claim a patient as an example of successful treatment, you not only need to demonstrate that there was something to treat in the first place, you need to demonstrate that the treatment had a significant, lasting benefit. If your methods work, this should not be an onerous requirement.

About point 2: if a patient has undergone multiple methods of treatment it makes attributing the outcome to any one of them essentially impossible.

That's about as simple a protocol as can be imagined. If you can't manage that, you're just proving that you have no "knowledge or understanding".

C'mon now, put up or shut up. Properly gathered and documented empirical evidence- that's all you need. If you can prove your claims, you're pretty much guaranteed a place in history right next to Jenner and Pasteur. If all you have to offer is maunderings about the horrible medical conspiracy, you can take your place over in the Quack Wing.

Mulberry Sellers