Short and simple without any specifics.
How many on B4 believe, that right now, assuming "enough money for all possible treatment combinations available" a 100% certainty or near 100% certainty (in all but unusual circumstances) cure rate for cancer is available to the average member of the western society.
No specifics on what would, in your opinion, be needed. Only that such a way exists for those who wish to find and use it.
Yes and no. You can cure cancer in those whose soul wish it to be cured. You cannot cure those whose soul do not wish it to be cured.
Absolutely. There are lots of cures, and they don't take much money.
Of course cancer can be cured with money.
Cancer is a fungus. There is a cure for certain types that is accessible for those privy. For others, it can be cured spiritually and sometimes in combination with common known treatments.
(11-08-2012, 12:16 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Of course cancer can be cured with money.
Of course you're being sarcastic, but...If that were true, then all those celebrities wouldn't be dying from cancer.
(11-08-2012, 05:31 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2012, 12:16 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Of course cancer can be cured with money.
Of course you're being sarcastic, but...If that were true, then all those celebrities wouldn't be dying from cancer.
Of course you're being sarcastic, but I never said it will always cure cancer.
(11-09-2012, 01:19 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Of course you're being sarcastic, but I never said it will always cure cancer.
Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic, but I thought you were! So are you saying you're serious that enough money could cure cancer?
Sorry, I was just surprised. I don't believe any amount of money can cure cancer, ever.
(11-09-2012, 09:55 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ] (11-09-2012, 01:19 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Of course you're being sarcastic, but I never said it will always cure cancer.
Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic, but I thought you were! So are you saying you're serious that enough money could cure cancer?
Sorry, I was just surprised. I don't believe any amount of money can cure cancer, ever.
Cancer is one of the very few diseases which can be easily cured by money.
Money can make some happy enough to cure them.
The way i see it is that Cancer is the logical outcome of refusing to move / generate pleasure.
The logical reason for that is fear.
The logical reason for fear is tha tsomething will be taken away from you, or you will no be able to manifest what you want.
For most people in the "money" paradigm this can be, at least in theory, corrected by adding money /momentum.
So.
Without being a douche. The question was "can cancer be cured by making all things one earth available for unlimited amounts".
Love not being a thing that is a matter of availability but rather always accesible to all. And my question being how to get everyone to look at it as a possibility. For most the stated reason is stuff that can be cured by money.
Outside of that, best medical care in the world vs eating rocks when you're starving tends to have an impact on your outcome.
(11-10-2012, 07:38 AM)Cyan Wrote: [ -> ]The way i see it is that Cancer is the logical outcome of refusing to move / generate pleasure.
What kind of pleasure? (Hedonists cancer-free?)
(11-09-2012, 10:07 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Cancer is one of the very few diseases which can be easily cured by money.
Respectfully, zenmaster, I'm still having a hard time believing you're not joking. (Unless you consider a few months' remission followed by death to be a 'cure.')
By the way, I voted 'yes' in the poll because there is abundant evidence to show that virtually anyone can heal themselves of cancer. (Notice I said
heal themselves, which is active,
not be cured, which is passive and doesn't work at all.)
Money has almost nothing to do with it.
So, if you had left off the phrase 'with money' in your poll, I would still have voted yes. The average person can heal themselves of cancer, regardless of whether they have money. Though some money can sure make it easier, but it actually doesn't take much money, compared to the cost of conventional medical 'treatments' [sic].
Conversely, it's easy to prove that those with lots of money cannot buy a cure. The proof is all the wealthy celebrities who die from cancer after buying the 'best' allopathic treatments [sic] that money can buy.
(11-10-2012, 02:12 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ] (11-09-2012, 10:07 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Cancer is one of the very few diseases which can be easily cured by money.
Respectfully, zenmaster, I'm still having a hard time believing you're not joking. (Unless you consider a few months' remission followed by death to be a 'cure.')
If I'd said you can ground it up, mix it with baking soda and apply it to the lesion as a poultice, then I would have been joking. I can't believe you are serious when you say it can't be cured with money. It's like you'd have to have your head stuck in the sand to think otherwise.
(11-10-2012, 02:52 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]I can't believe you are serious when you say it can't be cured with money. It's like you'd have to have your head stuck in the sand to think otherwise.
Was that really necessary? I was sincere when I asked if you were joking. No jab intended.
Apparently, we live in different worlds, with different understandings of what cancer is, and different definitions of the word 'cure.'
Expensive, allopathic 'treatments' don't cure cancer. Statistically, those who get those 'treatments' don't live any longer than those who do nothing at all, when you look at life expectancies past 5 years. That's hardly a cure!
In contrast, there is abundant evidence that many, many thousands of people who were left for dead by the medical establishment turned to inexpensive, alternative healing protocols, and were genuinely healed...still alive decades later and in vibrant health...not like those who get chemo etc. only to have the cancer recur or come back in another part of the body. (And yes, some of those people were quite wealthy, and were still left for dead after spending a fortune on chemo etc...then were healed for pennies a day.)
I stand by my assertion that your case lacks substance, because clearly there are plenty of wealthy people dying from cancer.
Edit: The idea that a cure can be 'bought' presupposes that such a cure exists in the first place. If anyone knows of such a cure, please do let us know!
To my knowledge, there is no such thing. Therefore it cannot be available for any amount of money.
There are, however, numerous ways one can heal oneself of cancer.
Ever hear of Chemotherapy? It's like you have no idea that cancer can be completely cured. Hundreds of thousands completely cured in the ultimate sense of the word. Yep, with money paid.
(09-05-2012, 06:40 PM)godwide_void Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2012, 10:15 PM)jacrob Wrote: [ -> ]Hello Godwide_Void, what are your thoughts on cancer therapy by Edgar Cayce which reccomends shining an ultra-violet light through a piece of green glass onto the body. Are there any other metaphysical practices one could undertake on behalf of someone with cancer that would be effecacious? If you have anything you could say on this topic please do so. Thanks
It is highly recommended that every medical or health-related suggestion provided by Edgar Cayce be considered as very accurate and supremely effective in the methods he listed, as his advice sought not only to treat the subject's ailments symptomatically, but rather the information he provided revolved around factors which would ultimately heal the root cause of the debilitating factor. The reason for the consideration of his advice as accurate and effective lies solely in the nature of the source which he drew upon when providing his diagnosis, that being what has been termed the Akashic Records. Thus, the capacity for fallibility or error was not present, mainly in regards to readings which focused upon medical diagnosises as opposed to prophecies, given his unconscious state which allowed the information to flow without interference from any mental or personal obstruction.
The suggested therapeutic practice provided by Edgar Cayce is sufficient enough to combat and eventually subside cancer, and it should be noted that the individual who is afflicted with cancer avoid the modern medical practice known as 'chemotherapy' as this holds the extreme potential to greatly exacerbate the cancer. Carcinogens and products which contain the substance 'propyl alcohol' should also be avoided. A diet comprised of predominately raw foods will also allow the body better leeway in healing the cancer. As is expected, a supplementary metaphysical practice to hasten the manifestation of a reality whereby the cancer is erased is the focusing of intent and will towards the generation of such a reality, as the power of thought is always readily available to aid in any endeavor.
Lol, go ahead with chemotherapy if you ever get cancer if you think it will do any good. In reality, it's tantamount to bleeding with leeches in the Middle Ages. The only reason it works on anyone is through the doctor(healer) relationship and the patient's belief the treatment will work (essentially the placebo effect).
(11-11-2012, 01:14 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, go ahead with chemotherapy if you ever get cancer if you think it will do any good.
lol indeed.
(11-11-2012, 01:14 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ] (09-05-2012, 06:40 PM)godwide_void Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2012, 10:15 PM)jacrob Wrote: [ -> ]Hello Godwide_Void, what are your thoughts on cancer therapy by Edgar Cayce which reccomends shining an ultra-violet light through a piece of green glass onto the body. Are there any other metaphysical practices one could undertake on behalf of someone with cancer that would be effecacious? If you have anything you could say on this topic please do so. Thanks
It is highly recommended that every medical or health-related suggestion provided by Edgar Cayce be considered as very accurate and supremely effective in the methods he listed, as his advice sought not only to treat the subject's ailments symptomatically, but rather the information he provided revolved around factors which would ultimately heal the root cause of the debilitating factor. The reason for the consideration of his advice as accurate and effective lies solely in the nature of the source which he drew upon when providing his diagnosis, that being what has been termed the Akashic Records. Thus, the capacity for fallibility or error was not present, mainly in regards to readings which focused upon medical diagnosises as opposed to prophecies, given his unconscious state which allowed the information to flow without interference from any mental or personal obstruction.
The suggested therapeutic practice provided by Edgar Cayce is sufficient enough to combat and eventually subside cancer, and it should be noted that the individual who is afflicted with cancer avoid the modern medical practice known as 'chemotherapy' as this holds the extreme potential to greatly exacerbate the cancer. Carcinogens and products which contain the substance 'propyl alcohol' should also be avoided. A diet comprised of predominately raw foods will also allow the body better leeway in healing the cancer. As is expected, a supplementary metaphysical practice to hasten the manifestation of a reality whereby the cancer is erased is the focusing of intent and will towards the generation of such a reality, as the power of thought is always readily available to aid in any endeavor.
Lol, go ahead with chemotherapy if you ever get cancer if you think it will do any good. In reality, it's tantamount to bleeding with leeches in the Middle Ages. The only reason it works on anyone is through the doctor(healer) relationship and the patient's belief the treatment will work (essentially the placebo effect).
Actually, Me, specifically, was referring to:
Good quality organic raw food costs.
Good quality safe and free housing costs.
Good quality care (washing, bathing, etc costs).
Good quality information costs tremendously.
Good quality doctors/healers, cost.
etc etc etc.
The money part isnt the key. The key is the idea of "if you have infinite money, that is to say, access to everything planet wide that you could get, from free /cheap to ultimately expensive /rare. Could you categorically say that assuming the patient isnt "near to death right now" such a patient could be cured. If the best healers/physicians/people of this category exerted all their influence upon that one specific patient. The reason for such could be that the patient gives billions to charity, for example"
I hope that clarifies a bit of what i mean and gets us to stop focusing solely on "chemotherapy and the likes" because its neither here nor there.
Predictably, the zealots surface with their handwaving about alternative treatments, ignoring the actual question.
Interestingly 66% beleive in free will in this question while 33% believe in determinism.
Edit:
Actual numbers when scrolled up:
68.75%
31.25%
Back to you soon on this actually relevant poll.
(11-11-2012, 12:36 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Predictably, the zealots surface with their handwaving about alternative treatments, ignoring the actual question.
Calling people names is a violation of
guideline #1.
(11-11-2012, 01:00 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Ever hear of Chemotherapy? It's like you have no idea that cancer can be completely cured. Hundreds of thousands completely cured in the ultimate sense of the word. Yep, with money paid.
That's
despite chemo, not because of it.
Chemo is the established 'treatment' by the established medical monopoly only, and is considered not only ineffective but deadly dangerous by the alternative health community. To call someone a
zealot just because they have a different paradigm about health is extremely rude.
Even the allopathic medical community doesn't call chemo a 'cure.' They call it a 'treatment' and for every person who healed despite the chemo, there are countless others who got a recurrence, or who died anyway after being poisoned by the chemo. There is abundant evidence that many people actually die from the chemo, not the cancer itself.
To presuppose chemo is a 'cure' in a discussion about cancer would be akin to presupposing the bible is the authoritative 'word of God' in a discussion about the Creator.
(11-11-2012, 01:14 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, go ahead with chemotherapy if you ever get cancer if you think it will do any good. In reality, it's tantamount to bleeding with leeches in the Middle Ages. The only reason it works on anyone is through the doctor(healer) relationship and the patient's belief the treatment will work (essentially the placebo effect).
Absolutely!
And now, even the medical monopoly is forced to admit that chemo actually causes more cancer:
Chemo Can Actually Cause Cancer
Quote:Cancer-busting chemotherapy can cause damage to healthy cells which triggers them to secrete a protein that sustains tumor growth and resistance to further treatment, a study said Sunday.
Researchers in the United States made the "completely unexpected" finding while seeking to explain why cancer cells are so resilient inside the human body when they are easy to kill in the lab.
They tested the effects of a type of chemotherapy on tissue collected from men with prostate cancer, and found "evidence of DNA damage" in healthy cells after treatment, the scientists wrote in Nature Medicine.
Chemotherapy works by inhibiting reproduction of fast-dividing cells such as those found in tumors.
The scientists found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival.
"The increase in WNT16B was completely unexpected," study co-author Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle told AFP.
The protein was taken up by tumor cells neighboring the damaged cells.
"WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumor cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy," said Nelson.
In cancer treatment, tumors often respond well initially, followed by rapid regrowth and then resistance to further chemotherapy.
Rates of tumor cell reproduction have been shown to accelerate between treatments.
"Our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells ... may directly contribute to enhanced tumor growth kinetics," wrote the team.
The researchers said they confirmed their findings with breast and ovarian cancer tumours.
(11-11-2012, 07:20 AM)Cyan Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, Me, specifically, was referring to:
Good quality organic raw food costs.
Good quality safe and free housing costs.
Good quality care (washing, bathing, etc costs).
Good quality information costs tremendously.
Good quality doctors/healers, cost.
etc etc etc.
The money part isnt the key. The key is the idea of "if you have infinite money, that is to say, access to everything planet wide that you could get, from free /cheap to ultimately expensive /rare. Could you categorically say that assuming the patient isnt "near to death right now" such a patient could be cured. If the best healers/physicians/people of this category exerted all their influence upon that one specific patient...
I hope that clarifies a bit of what i mean and gets us to stop focusing solely on "chemotherapy and the likes" because its neither here nor there.
Ah, excellent clarification. The OP didn't assume that cure=chemo.
The clarification was necessary, because, apparently, some people do assume that cure=chemo. And that's fine. But if we're going to discuss this, it's reasonable to get our terms clearly defined.
With your explanation, Cyan, I would say catagorically
yes.
Killing Cancer Not People
(11-11-2012, 01:14 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, go ahead with chemotherapy if you ever get cancer if you think it will do any good.
My friend, lol-ing about this is a bit... ouch.
Here is an interesting article from the Science-Based Medicine blog:
Why haven’t we cured cancer yet?
Quote:Why haven’t we cured cancer yet?
Sounds like, as of the writing of this article (14 Feb 2011) there is no (scientifically) known cure for cancer, in general.
Quote:Cancer is not a single disease, and cancers are different
A salient point.
Quote:Mechanisms of carcinogenesis are not simple
Of course, they are only considering
physical mechanisms. We might also consider:
46.15 Wrote:46.15 Questioner: How does cancer do this learn/teaching when the entity developing cancer has no conscious idea of what is happening to him when he develops cancer?
Ra: I am Ra. In many cases catalyst is not used.
The author concludes:
Quote:I close with the same question with which I opened. Why haven’t we cured cancer yet, anyway? Yes, I know it’s a bit of a misleading question, given that we can actually cure quite a few cancers, including several leukemias and lymphomas, which are curable with chemotherapy and radiation, and solid tumors like breast and colorectal cancer which are curable with a combination of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Unfortunately, although we do fairly well (and in some cases very well) against early stage cancer, we don’t do so well against stage IV metastatic disease, particularly solid tumors
Based on this, it looks like medical scientists would consider "several leukemias and lymphomas" curable with chemo and radiation, and "solid tumors like breast and colorectal cancer" curable with the addition of surgery.
I suppose it all rests upon how they are defining a "cure" in the context of cancer. Perhaps this article can shed some light on the subject:
Cancer: Cure vs. Remission
Quote:We’re often asked about the meaning of certain terms that are used in talking about cancer. Because cancer is so varied and its treatment so complex, the list of cancer-related terms is enormous. For that reason, the National Cancer Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), maintains a thorough dictionary of cancer terms, and each of the HealthTalk cancer networks also contains a glossary, such as this breast cancer glossary.
One area of particular interest is the question of the difference between cancer cure and cancer remission. Doctors almost never use the term cure; rather, they usually talk about remission.
Complete remission means that there are no symptoms and no signs that can be identified to indicate the presence of cancer. However, even when a person is in remission, there may be microscopic collections of cancer cells that cannot be identified by current techniques. This means that even if a person is in remission, they may, at some future time, experience a recurrence of their cancer.
Partial remission means that a large percentage of the signs and symptoms of cancer are gone, but some still remain. Complete remission would therefore be better than partial remission because with partial remission the chances of recurrence are higher.
Doctors will sometimes refer to 5-year cure rate or a 10- or more year cure rate. What they really mean by this is a 5- or more year remission rate. The longer the remission time lasts, the greater the possibility that the cancer actually has been cured, but there are cases of cancer recurrence many, many years after remission begins. So if the doctor says there is a 95 percent 5-year cure/remission rate for a particular cancer, it means that after five years, 95 percent of people with that cancer will still be in remission (meaning that you have an extremely high likelihood of not having a recurrence for at least five years). With people living longer and longer, doctors can now often give remission rates for 10, 15 or even 20 years. In many ways, the approach to most cancer treatment is to make it a chronic disease that lasts for many years.
So can we ever really talk about a cancer cure? In general, the answer is no. Practically speaking, however, the odds of a recurrence may be so low that the person is essentially cured. To put it another way, depending on your age, the doctor may tell you that the odds of your dying of cancer are lower than are your odds of dying of something else. Let’s say the doctor says there is an 80 percent remission rate for your cancer at 10 years. But at your age and health status, there is a 90 percent chance of death due to cardiovascular disease within that 10-year time. You could say your cancer was cured, but it wouldn’t necessarily be a very joyous occasion.
When talking to your doctor about your prognosis (the course and outcome of your disease), be sure to find out exactly what he/she is talking about. If they use the term cure, ask if they really mean remission. If they use the term remission, ask if it’s complete or partial. And if they do talk about remission, ask about the rates at 5, 10 or 20 years. This will help give you an idea of the odds of cancer recurrence within your lifetime.
Interesting that the author said: "In many ways, the approach to most cancer treatment is to make it a chronic disease that lasts for many years."
We might also consider whether recurrence of cancer is connected to a continued failure to use catalyst.
(11-11-2012, 02:32 PM)rie Wrote: [ -> ] (11-11-2012, 01:14 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, go ahead with chemotherapy if you ever get cancer if you think it will do any good.
My friend, lol-ing about this is a bit... ouch.
I wasn't "lol'ing" at cancer, I was lol'ing at zm's response/opinion on the matter which is a regurgitation of the status quo. I find that funny because exactly the same behavior as believing leeches/bloodletting helped your health somehow during the Middle Ages.
(11-11-2012, 01:00 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Ever hear of Chemotherapy? It's like you have no idea that cancer can be completely cured. Hundreds of thousands completely cured in the ultimate sense of the word. Yep, with money paid.
One additional drawback to cancer treatment research (as a subset of cancer research which would include investigation into cancer cells themselves, and how they form and are propagated in the body) is that there are several, potentially influential factors, which are typically not controlled for:
1. Diet. Even the "lamestream" American Cancer Society recommends dietary improvements.
2. Attitude. How does an individual respond to the catalyst of "having cancer"?
3. Expectations. For example, has a person watched somebody else be treated for cancer, and how did the outcome influence their expectations?
4. Exercise. Did a person change their activity level? How so, and to what degree?
5. Hydration. What is the quantity and quality of water consumed by the individual?
6. Support. How much of an effect (for good or for ill) does the person's social circle have?
7. Psychological. If there is an unprocessed, or partially processed, event which contributed to the development of cancer, has this been resolved?
(11-11-2012, 04:03 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]One additional drawback to cancer treatment research (as a subset of cancer research which would include investigation into cancer cells themselves, and how they form and are propagated in the body) is that there are several, potentially influential factors, which are typically not controlled for:
1. Diet. Even the "lamestream" American Cancer Society recommends dietary improvements.
2. Attitude. How does an individual respond to the catalyst of "having cancer"?
3. Expectations. For example, has a person watched somebody else be treated for cancer, and how did the outcome influence their expectations?
4. Exercise. Did a person change their activity level? How so, and to what degree?
5. Hydration. What is the quantity and quality of water consumed by the individual?
6. Support. How much of an effect (for good or for ill) does the person's social circle have?
7. Psychological. If there is an unprocessed, or partially processed, event which contributed to the development of cancer, has this been resolved?
I would add:
8. Detoxification. Many cancers are exacerbated by environmental poisons. (As evidenced by increased cancer rates in certain areas or after toxic spills, radiation, etc.)
9. Spiritual/Use of Catalyst. We know from Ra that cancer can be a manifestation of unresolved anger. We also know that everything is catalyst.
Apparently my catalysts love one another at 2/3rds effiency.
*points at voting results*