The machine to cure cancer: Myth or Reality?

[dedeleco]

I am of your opinion, for what is proven by a very large number of studies like caloric restriction, or rather not to eat to the maximum of satiety and to make sufficient regular exercise not to take too much stomach.
However, chloral hydrate is perplexing, even if the idea of ​​taking a harmless anticancer product to stop cells that are starting to derail seems credible.
Chloral hydrate with its three chlorines is not harmless, used over a century ago, it is one of these drugs such as mercury in mercurochrome, arsenic, lead, even bismuth, with some utility, but real poisons !!
Chloral is used chemically to make DDT and I am very skeptical about the lack of danger of these products with a lot of chlorine.
It is better to replace it with a cure of vegetables and fruits without danger with a small anticancer action, like carrot; broccoli, curcumin, red fruits etc ... proven by numerous studies and certain eating habits in certain regions of the world where we live older.
Finally it would be necessary to verify the assertions of Gernez, by looking for publications, as the madmen in the asylums did not have cancer !!!
This doctor recognizes it himself, he has published very little, which makes it difficult to verify carefully; he proposed "postulates" but little demonstrated and proven.

[bernardd]

Do not forget the anti-cancer action of simple magnesium chloride, shown by Pr Delbet, in addition to the beneficial actions on wound healing and the immune system, but unfortunately remaining without modern study.

At 5 € per kg, it does not attract labs ...

Magnesium chloride was available in unwashed sea salt, but dissolves in the first wash before sodium. And since we no longer eat anything "unclean" ... no more than the skins of the seeds ...

[Obamot]

It's not wrong, at the same time it's the big catch all this thread!

macrobiotic, besides I know some and they all have sickly facies and grayish complexion, obviously multi-targeted and their children are stunted and painful to see ...

Even if we cannot prove this sentence wrong, the neologism "multi-parented" is there to support the speech, but means absolutely nothing. We are deficient or not. Bar point. And that word would be confusing and not be explicit enough by the fact that any shortcoming can lead to others.

Professor Gernez's protocol, you know?
The latter is the discoverer of the stem cell (anyway!) And has developed a protocol that reduces the risk of developing cancer by almost 90%.

... frankly what an immense stupidity to make believe that! There are people affected by this terrible disease who might believe it by reading these lines and give them false hope by releasing their "guard". First of all, it would be archly wrong to believe that someone who would be completely squared and who would follow this protocol (or another) would not make a remission. It is illusory to believe that the ground would no longer be conducive to the development of cancer by the supposedly simple application of this protocol.

Besides, I am a bit scandalized by this new way of practicing forums which consists in not reading what the previous participants have written. Some would do better not to look at each other, they would be better able to capture the right information when it presents itself (rather than focusing on the information that will gratify their ego, because it conforms to their vision of things: yes it is very dangerous for them and potentially for others who could take their words literally ...)

Health care is not an area of ​​belief, but of skills.

I watched this video of Dr. Gernez, he never talks about CAUSES cancer (not even on wiki). All he says is that there was a paradigm about cancer, but anyway there are several ... So he does not provide any solution, if at all. one in the way it describes. And it has already been demonstrated above that not, since it is necessary to determine the causes and that it does not address the "ground".

I think the big mix continues in this thread. What is necessary is to reflect on priorities and not to engage in a discussion which is an endless story and which goes in all directions ...

In this same video, in the opening credits, Linus Pauling is mentioned. This is a serious lead (it has also been cited many times by Doctor C. Kousmine, who actually healed many patients with cancer, multiple sclerosis and all kinds of degenerative diseases without remission. including HIV).

But would she have said that her method made it possible to cure cancer at almost 90%? Certainly not. For that, there should be a positive contribution from all the patients, which is never acquired in advance. Reason why it will always be false to claim such a score in a disease such as cancer which depends so much on the psychic capacities of the individuals (and to go further from the chemical reactions catalyzed or not in their organism).

And there are other tracks over and over again ... Because research is advancing rapidly (what about the financial interests there behind ... let's still be cautious ...)

... so thank you for becoming a little more serious, it would be better to pay particular attention to the search for the causes and the means to remedy them ...

(it would perhaps be better if those who do not master a minimum of their subject to find out better before posting, and above all not to let us out of the "first truths" which in fact turn out to be bad avenues of investigation. PRIORITIES well placed, but that's just IMHO.)

[sen-no-sen]

Obamot, you confuse prevention and cure!
At no time was there any talk of talking about a method to cure cancer !!!!
If we follow your logic it would be like saying to a road accident victim that we can make the uprooted members be pushed back by driving slower ...

Obamot wrote:
it would perhaps be better that those who do not master a minimum of their subject better inform themselves before posting, and above all do not leave us "first truths" which in fact turn out to be bad avenues of investigation. well placed, but that's just IMHO.)

It is quickly judged ...

I think that having started this discussion is on the contrary interesting because a large number of people do not know what cancer is, and many of them are quite incapable of defining it!

[Obamot]

It was just as an example, I should not take my comments out of context.

Agree to reduce the food bolus, but only if there is a surplus and especially not by reducing the essential nutrients. Because this is where we get involved in the field of competition.

Let's be precise: you say Dr Gernez "professor" but of what? And or?
Then I don't understand very well? When you say (Dr) Gernez:

The latter is the discoverer of the stem cell (anyway!) And has developed a protocol that reduces risks by almost 90% to develop cancer.

Where do you place that on? Prevention? It's not clear. "Develop" cancer does not mean that we do not already have it, it may be benign and local ... What characterizes the for sustainable of cancer is metastasis.

How can we reduce the risk of developing cancer if not through prevention?

Besides, in general, I don't talk about prevention, but about "Early prevention" and especially "Prevention culture" (for those who read my posts, it's pretty clear.)

Obamot, you confuse prevention and cure!
At no time was there any talk of talking about a method to cure cancer !!!!

Ah but if, it is precisely in the title of this thread, it is therefore you who did not read well and who confuses prevention and cure suddenly:

Antoine Priore: electronic engineer who invented a cancer cure machine by radiation from magnetic and electromagnetic fields.

If we follow your logic it would be like saying to a road accident victim that we can make the uprooted members be pushed back by driving slower ...

... I am not very sure of the reasons for such an analogy, but that is correct for rare parts of the body which have the faculty to reconstitute themselves, such as the liver, provided that the square lobe is not not reached and that the general condition of the patient allows it ... Besides, it's Dr. Gernez who builds his discourse around stem cells ... so I really don't see the problem. The terrain is everything and I don't see anything contradictory in what I said:

— health care (which I have put in bold) concern both possible treatments and prevention.

Furthermore, whether from the perspective of prevention or treatment, I repeat:
- what matters is the search for the causes !!!

Without the discovery of these, we can try to treat someone, the disease will start again sooner or later if the causes remain.

It is quickly judged ...

And yet it is verified in practice. There is a lot of inconsistency on the part of some in their words, and it is they who go too far ... not me, I try rather to put the church in the middle of the village ... It is where I say that you have to be very careful about what you say and set priorities before embarking on hazardous theories.

I think that having started this discussion is on the contrary interesting because a large number of people do not know what cancer is, and many of them are quite incapable of defining it!

I repeat this discussion was started around "cancer cure", if you re-read my previous posts I said everything I thought about it. Now we can argue about the interest of prevention in the healing process: I maintain that it is essential since it concerns the field ... But even that is not everything.

To conclude, I would like to insist again on the question of the patient's profile and his psychology, which plays an enormous role in the prospects / prognoses of recovery ... the morgues are full of corpses or one can observe after autopsy , a considerable number of tumors which have disappeared by themselves during the life of the deceased .... And this without particular care. Amazing isn't it?

[sen-no-sen]

Hi Obamot.
I admit I did HS with the Gernez protocol or whatever its name for that matter (because similar method has existed for centuries ...)
, nevertheless I feel a certain bad faith in your words:

!)

But would she have said that her method made it possible to cure cancer at almost 90%? Certainly not.

My previous post made reference to this you wrote above!
The you understands that the said protocol cures cancer, while it only prevents it!
And as the saying goes, better warn you than cure!
The protocol is in terms of a change.!!!
It acts on the cancer cell, which at the rate of 4 divisions per year follows an exponential progression 1-2-4-8-16-32-64 etc ...

the idea of ​​the protocol is to get rid of its nascent cells (like a fire which is easily extinguished with a glass of water in the first seconds of its development but which becomes an uncontrollable fire if nothing is done) is done in the next few minutes.) Do you understand the analogy?

Still sorry for the HS, but please: internet is an extraordinary knowledge tool, however the practices which consists in typing a name on a search engine and which leads to a pre digest digest on wiki, is not enough to judge in 5 minutes the work of a man who dedicated his life to science!

[kistinie]

Thank you for all this very interesting information.


A cancer patient earns a minimum of € 100.000 for the medical industry. This detail should not be forgotten.

Historically, alternative methods proposed by doctors or not have been very expensive for inventors.

William Reich, dedicated electromagnetic machine, prison and destruction of his books. Death in prison.
Doctor Hamer (cancer specialist), somatic approach to cancer, prison, and refusal to study his work. Has been hiding since.

[Obamot]

Thank you Kistinie for this light ... Indeed, the sheep who want to stand out pay a heavy price ...

Hi Obamot.
I admit I did HS with the Gernez protocol or whatever its name for that matter

Well then. It's good, we are friends now ...

because similar method has existed for centuries ...

There you should document your comments ... It could be interesting.

nevertheless I feel a certain bad faith in your words

Personal attack?

The you mean

I do not mean anything, I respond to what I thought I understood. If we agree on prevention, all the better. It turns out that we can go further, but that risks becoming esoteric. Now if this protocol works it should be applied right? Where are the clinical trials? How to proceed? In which circumstances? What about the protocol if we don't deal with the causes? It’s all vague.

I understand the exponential side, but basically how to back off ... it's very vague. I would not ask better to know more, but that they leave me the right to remain doubtful in the absence of more information and taking into account my modest knowledge ...

internet is an extraordinary knowledge tool nevertheless the practices which consists in typing a name on a search engine and which leads to a pre digest digest on wiki, is not enough to judge in 5 minutes the work of a man who dedicated his life to science!

I do not see what I could find more than what is available in particular through the university library and its network interconnected with several universities ...

So enlighten us with precise information and results, and we will talk about it again ...

Because the internet can also be used to disseminate all kinds of more or less scientific and / or effective things.

[sen-no-sen]

Well then. It's good, we are friends now ...
??? you may have been mad at me!

because similar method has existed for centuries ...

Dietary restriction (as part of a well controlled practice!) Yes, it has existed for centuries (example of the hermits of Mount Wudang in China who practices a special diet associated with diets and the practice of martial arts, number of 'between them become centenarians and have an unusual physical condition).

You take the study of Doctor Gernez for pseudo science it looks like, the studies he conducted were not funded because they hampered the systems in place.
Concerning the clinical study, he noticed that the schizophrenics treated with chloral hydrate (sedative and also a light antimitotic) developed significantly less cancer, even without the latter practicing the said protocol in its entirety.
Oddly, the schizophrenics subsequently treated with largactyl (which is not an antimitotic but which as a sedative was more effective) developed roughly the same number of cancers as the national average.

Then you talk about the causes of cancer:
-There is the genetic factor (we are not at all equal on this point, with the famous genetic capital, factor in how much determining).
- the environmental factor (pollution, food, etc.)
-the psychological factor (it plays a fundamental role both in development and in healing after treatment).
the list is not exhaustive of course, but it would take hours for everything to be detailed.

To act on the causes we would have to change our entire society !!!
Stop intensive cultivation boosted by agro-chemistry, stop the sale of diesel vehicles, vector of micro-particles (even if petrol is not left out), even review the contraceptive pill which causes very many cancers (breasts , cervix) see the studies of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (which depends on the WHO) on subject.
In short there is work !!!

[Obamot]

To act on the causes we would have to change our entire society!

That's right, but basically it is "us" that must be changed, because when we have done so, society will de facto change. This is a bit like what is happening, but there is a big recovery which constitutes a big brake. The problem is therefore cultural (and toc it joins the debate on two other sons for a better future ...).
I accept the contract ... towards a better future?
PBS