Big Pharma

[plumnuts]

The only ones who need them are the doctors who get large sums of money for pushing their crap. Do you know oncologists get over 50% of their incomes from the chemo drugs they push.

Health” insurance companies (i.e. they should be called “prescription drug” insurance companies) will gladly pay $350,000 for a cancer patient to use worthless orthodox treatments, but insurance companies will not pay $7,000 to $30,000 for an alternative cancer treatment which is 30 times more effective. Follow the money! Swampy

so save the insurance company $$$$ if you get cancer do not go see an oncologist.... "alternative cancer treatment which is 30 times more effective"??? I'm guessing math is not your strong point when you said that... perhaps the aluminum hat you are wearing is a little too tight?

 

[plumnuts]

Ever wonder why Willie Nelson is still going strong? (Cannabinoids)

probably more due to genetics than anything else... If you were correct then hard drugs would be good for you... just ask Keith Richards

 

[swampwater]

so save the insurance company $$$$ if you get cancer do not go see an oncologist.... "alternative cancer treatment which is 30 times more effective"??? I'm guessing math is not your strong point when you said that... perhaps the aluminum hat you are wearing is a little too tight?

Well first off I would never go near an oncologist in anything but natural medicine and to be even clearer in the only poll of oncologists found that over 90 % said they would never use the Chemo therapy they are selling to their patients if they got cancer! I guess they should know don't you. Ad a few more pertinent facts about cancer cures:


Dr. Munoz's therapy:

* Is 10,000 times more effective than standard chemotherapy...

* Doesn't cause nausea, hair loss or excessive weight loss...

* Draws cancer cells out of hiding and into the open where they're easily eliminated...

Most methods of chemotherapy rely on giving you the strongest possible dose that you can survive... This approach kills both healthy and damaged cells... then hopes your body can salvage itself after your insides have been poisoned (hopefully, along with the cancer).

But Dr. Munoz's technique relies on the fundamental weakness of cancer: what it feeds on.

Instead of giving strong doses of chemo, he injects a powerful natural hormone that literally starves the cancer cells out of hiding. While they're starving, he attracts the hungry cells with a fractional dose of chemotherapy that kills them.

This leaves minimal damage to healthy cells in your body, which is why you won't suffer from nausea or hair loss as with standard chemotherapy!

I guess I was a little of on my math alright, I guess it is a lot higher than 35 Times, my bad. Swampy

 

[swampwater]

Here is Another one for you Big Pharma Guys

I've warned you about the unknown risks of taking new drugs, but this newbie needs no wait-and-see. We already know how bad it is.

The FDA always talks about "risk" versus "benefit" when it approves a new drug. But even they are having trouble with the benefit part of this.

So if you have type 2 diabetes and your doctor says there's a new Rx you can try, here's what you need to know...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If at first you don't succeed...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FDA's buddies at Bristol-Meyers and AstraZeneca must have had a heck of a New Year's party. They had been trying for three years to get approval of Farxiga. Sorry...I have no idea how to pronounce it either but I know this: It "lowers blood glucose by altering how your kidneys work.

At first, the FDA said "no." It doesn't use that word very often, so you can imagine just how bad this drug is.

How bad? How about bladder and breast cancer? Or damage to the heart and liver? Or too low blood pressure? Urinary infections, anyone?

At the turn-down meeting last year, FDA officials said women taking Farxiga would up their breast cancer risk by four times. And guys could have a five-time greater chance of bladder cancer.

Still, the FDA also gave the drug makers a little wink and nod at that meeting, praising them for coming up with such an "innovative drug." One doc went so far as to say that Farxiga is "brilliant in its simplicity."

But to see how brilliantly wrong it was for the FDA to send this drug to the pharmacy shelf, just hear what they had to say about it the very first time.

Basically, the drug doesn't work very well.

While the real "benefits" of Farxiga were "modest" at best, it was even less effective for diabetics with kidney disease. And that's a big problem when we know the number-one cause of kidney disease is...diabetes.

Farxiga works by making the kidneys get rid of glucose, and it keeps them from reabsorbing it too. So it's no surprise that it doesn't work too well if your kidneys aren't working too well.

And that has to make you ask why a drug like this would even be considered for diabetics -- the ones who are most at risk for failing kidneys.

And I'm certainly not the only one wondering.

In fact, the FDA said in its rejection letter to the drug companies that as a diabetic's kidney function decreases, there might be absolutely no benefit at all(!).

Nothing. Nada. No benefit. All risk.

The drug's makers still have to provide more studies, but those will come long after the fact. That is, after doctors write hundreds of thousands of prescriptions and millions of those pills are popped.

Don't you just love Big Pharma and Government collaboration Swampy

 

[plumnuts]

Well first off I would never go near an oncologist in anything but natural medicine and to be even clearer in the only poll of oncologists found that over 90 % said they would never use the Chemo therapy they are selling to their patients if they got cancer! I guess they should know don't you. Ad a few more pertinent facts about cancer cures:


Dr. Munoz's therapy:

* Is 10,000 times more effective than standard chemotherapy...

* Doesn't cause nausea, hair loss or excessive weight loss...

* Draws cancer cells out of hiding and into the open where they're easily eliminated...

Most methods of chemotherapy rely on giving you the strongest possible dose that you can survive... This approach kills both healthy and damaged cells... then hopes your body can salvage itself after your insides have been poisoned (hopefully, along with the cancer).

But Dr. Munoz's technique relies on the fundamental weakness of cancer: what it feeds on.

Instead of giving strong doses of chemo, he injects a powerful natural hormone that literally starves the cancer cells out of hiding. While they're starving, he attracts the hungry cells with a fractional dose of chemotherapy that kills them.

This leaves minimal damage to healthy cells in your body, which is why you won't suffer from nausea or hair loss as with standard chemotherapy!

I guess I was a little of on my math alright, I guess it is a lot higher than 35 Times, my bad. Swampy

Source??????????? Oh yea there is none, no repeatable scientific study... just a doctor working out of Mexico that only works for cash... and makes more money by standing on the back of his wagon and selling his snake oil to whom ever will buy it... Source??? for the oncologist not using chemotherapy if they get cancer? Oh yea again just making this crap up as you read it out of "the Spotlight" or some other paranoid rag that is suppose to be news.

Dr. Munoz and his kind are just as slimy as the late term abortion doctors that get cash for their serves... these so called cancer doctors sell their crap of **** to desperate people that sell and hock everything they have to try anything to live...even if it selling pipe dreams

 

[swampwater]

Source??????????? Oh yea there is none, no repeatable scientific study... just a doctor working out of Mexico that only works for cash... and makes more money by standing on the back of his wagon and selling his snake oil to whom ever will buy it... Source??? for the oncologist not using chemotherapy if they get cancer? Oh yea again just making this crap up as you read it out of "the Spotlight" or some other paranoid rag that is suppose to be news.

Dr. Munoz and his kind are just as slimy as the late term abortion doctors that get cash for their serves... these so called cancer doctors sell their crap of **** to desperate people that sell and hock everything they have to try anything to live...even if it selling pipe dreams

First off why don't you post some facts. Secondly You might stop relying on the same name calling defense the liberals use when they can't argue the facts
So stopping cancer for $20,000.00 by natural methods is selling snake oil but an oncologist charging $350,000.00 and than telling there is nothing more he can do is the proper method of medicine, I know who the Snake Oil salesman is. Since Munoz uses the same therapies pioneered by Dr Neiper in Germany here is some information from Dr. Neiper


Another practitioner of cesium chloride was Hans A. Nieper, M.D., (1928-1998), who practiced in Hannover, Germany. I do not know his cure rate for Stage IV patients, but it was generally accepted that he had the highest cure rate for cancer patients in the world. Here is a partial list of his most famous patients:
• “Dr. Nieper’s patients included many world stars, royalty and politicians: Anthony Quinn, John Wayne, Yul Brynner, William Holden and Princess Caroline of Monaco. He advised the ailing ex-president Ronald Reagan [for his colon cancer]. But more importantly, he treated thousands of everyday people like you and me. Nancy Sinatra lavished praise on this great German physician: “He is a fabulous person, a recognized scientist, a marvelous doctor.” His patients both loved and respected him.”http://www.explorepub.com/articles/neiper1.html
But perhaps the greatest compliment to Dr. Nieper’s success with treating cancer patients with cesium chloride was the fact that many FDA executives, and many other orthodox cancer fighters sent their relatives and friends to Dr. Nieper to be treated for their cancer. Here is a quote by Dr. Nieper himself about this:
• “You wouldn’t believe how many FDA officials or relatives or acquaintances of FDA officials come to see me as patients in Hanover. You wouldn’t believe this, or directors of the AMA, or ACA, or the presidents of orthodox cancer institutes. That’s the fact.”Hans Nieper – http://www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes2.html (AMA Quotes – a page worth reading)Also at – http://www.whale.to/vaccine/fda2.html (FDA Quotes – a page worth reading)

Do you think these people were buying snake oil? OH and you can include Cher and Suzzane Sommers in the list above. Nice the FDA refuses you the treatment than go to Germany to get it.

Do you have any facts proving your side? Swampy

 

[swampwater]

You want a real good look at Fascism and the FDA here are a couple quick papers. Swampy

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes2.html

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/fda2.html

 

[plumnuts]

You want a real good look at Fascism and the FDA here are a couple quick papers. Swampy

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes2.html

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/fda2.html

okay I give up... you do not know what a scientific literature source is so your arguments are based upon your emotion, written half-truths, and quotes taken out of other writings... waste of my time

 

[swampwater]

okay I give up... you do not know what a scientific literature source is so your arguments are based upon your emotion, written half-truths, and quotes taken out of other writings... waste of my time

And your facts are? And your scientific literature is? And the half-truths are? Emotions? everything you post is emotion, you have posted no facts. And which Pharma company do you work for. Seems strange you skipped over the post just before the one you commented on, would you care to comment on that post? How about we look at zoloft and the state of Louisiana, do you have any comment on that. You don't have to give up just do some research and come up with facts! Swampy

It sounds like something straight out of a class B horror movie.

Secret documents, fudged records and a scheme to sell snake oil. Dangerous pharmaceutical-grade snake oil. If this was just the plot to a bad flick, at least we could take our popcorn and go home.

But sadly, that's not the case.

-----------------------------------------------
'The Pelican Brief'
-----------------------------------------------

At the end of October, the Louisiana Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Pfizer for fraudulent and deceptive marketing of its blockbuster antidepressant, Zoloft.

According to the complaint, early studies showed the drug worked no better than a placebo.

Well, not exactly. The complaint further states that the sugar pill was actually MORE effective!

The lawsuit says that the company deliberately -- yes, deliberately -- withheld that information from doctors, regulators and patients. They're also accused of misrepresenting the results in ghostwritten articles in medical journals and phony ads.

Some other choice tidbits from the complaint:

* In six major drug trials Pfizer submitted to the FDA, four showed no favorable results for Zoloft, and the two that did were later found to be flawed
* A memo from the company in 1992 stated that the drug "shows no trend to be better than placebo"
* Pfizer "deliberately concealed" information showing Zoloft was not effective

So it's a documented fact that Pfiizer execs knew that Zoloft was useless.

But this is much more than just corporate greed and deception. This one ranks right up there with the tobacco scandals. That's because Zoloft has left a superstorm path of death and destruction behind it since it first came on the scene in 1991.

Like all other antidepressants in its class, Zoloft contains that "black box" warning that it may cause "suicidal thoughts or actions." In fact, Brynn Hartman, the wife of Phil Hartman, was taking Zoloft when she killed the comedian, and then herself, in 1999. (That lawsuit was settled with Pfizer for an undisclosed sum.)

But it gets worse...

A lot of moms took the drug while pregnant, resulting in a slew of lawsuits over horrible birth defects. As you can imagine, there are a ton of lawsuits still pending.

Back in Louisiana, in addition to damages, fines, and penalties, the state wants Pfizer to stop ignoring laws that protect consumers. And on top of that, they want the drug maker to give back all the ill-gotten gains it made from selling Zoloft there.

Remember that Zoloft commercial that was animated with a sad, cartoon circle under a dark cloud? It ended by saying, "When you know more about what's wrong, you can help make it right."

Looks like the Pelican State is going to make Pfizer eat those words!
________________________________________

 

[plumnuts]

And your facts are? And your scientific literature is? And the half-truths are? Emotions? everything you post is emotion, you have posted no facts. And which Pharma company do you work for. Seems strange you skipped over the post just before the one you commented on, would you care to comment on that post? How about we look at zoloft and the state of Louisiana, do you have any comment on that. You don't have to give up just do some research and come up with facts! Swampy

It sounds like something straight out of a class B horror movie.

Secret documents, fudged records and a scheme to sell snake oil. Dangerous pharmaceutical-grade snake oil. If this was just the plot to a bad flick, at least we could take our popcorn and go home.

But sadly, that's not the case.

-----------------------------------------------
'The Pelican Brief'
--------------------------------------------

At the end of October, the Louisiana Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Pfizer for fraudulent and deceptive marketing of its blockbuster antidepressant, Zoloft.

According to the complaint, early studies showed the drug worked no better than a placebo.

Well, not exactly. The complaint further states that the sugar pill was actually MORE effective!

The lawsuit says that the company deliberately -- yes, deliberately -- withheld that information from doctors, regulators and patients. They're also accused of misrepresenting the results in ghostwritten articles in medical journals and phony ads.

Some other choice tidbits from the complaint:

* In six major drug trials Pfizer submitted to the FDA, four showed no favorable results for Zoloft, and the two that did were later found to be flawed
* A memo from the company in 1992 stated that the drug "shows no trend to be better than placebo"
* Pfizer "deliberately concealed" information showing Zoloft was not effective

So it's a documented fact that Pfiizer execs knew that Zoloft was useless.

But this is much more than just corporate greed and deception. This one ranks right up there with the tobacco scandals. That's because Zoloft has left a superstorm path of death and destruction behind it since it first came on the scene in 1991.

Like all other antidepressants in its class, Zoloft contains that "black box" warning that it may cause "suicidal thoughts or actions." In fact, Brynn Hartman, the wife of Phil Hartman, was taking Zoloft when she killed the comedian, and then herself, in 1999. (That lawsuit was settled with Pfizer for an undisclosed sum.)

But it gets worse...

A lot of moms took the drug while pregnant, resulting in a slew of lawsuits over horrible birth defects. As you can imagine, there are a ton of lawsuits still pending.

Back in Louisiana, in addition to damages, fines, and penalties, the state wants Pfizer to stop ignoring laws that protect consumers. And on top of that, they want the drug maker to give back all the ill-gotten gains it made from selling Zoloft there.

Remember that Zoloft commercial that was animated with a sad, cartoon circle under a dark cloud? It ended by saying, "When you know more about what's wrong, you can help make it right."

Looks like the Pelican State is going to make Pfizer eat those words!
________________________________________

being paranoid is a mental illness..

 

[swampwater]

being paranoid is a mental illness..

Wow such a brilliant comeback, can't argue with the facts so continue the name calling. What a liberal troll. Swampy

 

[polaris dude]

I've warned you about the unknown risks of taking new drugs, but this newbie needs no wait-and-see. We already know how bad it is.

The FDA always talks about "risk" versus "benefit" when it approves a new drug. But even they are having trouble with the benefit part of this.

So if you have type 2 diabetes and your doctor says there's a new Rx you can try, here's what you need to know...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If at first you don't succeed...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FDA's buddies at Bristol-Meyers and AstraZeneca must have had a heck of a New Year's party. They had been trying for three years to get approval of Farxiga. Sorry...I have no idea how to pronounce it either but I know this: It "lowers blood glucose by altering how your kidneys work.

At first, the FDA said "no." It doesn't use that word very often, so you can imagine just how bad this drug is.

How bad? How about bladder and breast cancer? Or damage to the heart and liver? Or too low blood pressure? Urinary infections, anyone?

At the turn-down meeting last year, FDA officials said women taking Farxiga would up their breast cancer risk by four times. And guys could have a five-time greater chance of bladder cancer.

Still, the FDA also gave the drug makers a little wink and nod at that meeting, praising them for coming up with such an "innovative drug." One doc went so far as to say that Farxiga is "brilliant in its simplicity."

But to see how brilliantly wrong it was for the FDA to send this drug to the pharmacy shelf, just hear what they had to say about it the very first time.

Basically, the drug doesn't work very well.

While the real "benefits" of Farxiga were "modest" at best, it was even less effective for diabetics with kidney disease. And that's a big problem when we know the number-one cause of kidney disease is...diabetes.

Farxiga works by making the kidneys get rid of glucose, and it keeps them from reabsorbing it too. So it's no surprise that it doesn't work too well if your kidneys aren't working too well.

And that has to make you ask why a drug like this would even be considered for diabetics -- the ones who are most at risk for failing kidneys.

And I'm certainly not the only one wondering.

In fact, the FDA said in its rejection letter to the drug companies that as a diabetic's kidney function decreases, there might be absolutely no benefit at all(!).

Nothing. Nada. No benefit. All risk.

The drug's makers still have to provide more studies, but those will come long after the fact. That is, after doctors write hundreds of thousands of prescriptions and millions of those pills are popped.

Don't you just love Big Pharma and Government collaboration Swampy

Could I get a source please? My girlfriend's father is a drug rep for Bristol-Meyer and according to him this drug is very beneficial and he was pretty excited about it. He said that it will replace a lot of other medications and make it easier for diabetics. You are right about it's mode of action it pulls sugar into the urine and inhibits the re-uptake so you pee it out. But since only 10-40% of diabetics get kidney disease it will still work on 60-90% of the population. He also said that in the first trial run with 1,000 people taking it 6 did develop bladder cancer(which is one of the best in terms of treatment), but on the next trial or two there were no incidences of bladder cancer. I heard nothing about breast cancer. He went into greater detail than this, but I don't remember the specific receptor he said it works on, and I am not 100% about the trial numbers either but I think that was around what he said.

I am not saying your not correct, I would just like to know what the source is that gave you that information since my source is most likely a little biased since his source was bristol meyers.

 

[swampwater]

That was from a HSI alert I got a couple of weeks ago. It's Health Sciences Institute of Baltimore. Most all Naturalpathic physicians and practitioners belong to the institute. I got the address originally from my physician Dr. Jonathan Wright at the Tahoma clinic. Hsionline

 

[polaris dude]

Sorry I am not buying it. I can't trust a website that says at the bottom "diabetes is a boldfaced lie" "go from type 2 diabetic to no diabetic in 6 weeks!" It's funny you wouldn't trust the FDA all of the people working there are highly qualified but you trust a website that could be run by a bunch of wanna be journalists for all you know

 

[swampwater]

Sorry I am not buying it. I can't trust a website that says at the bottom "diabetes is a boldfaced lie" "go from type 2 diabetic to no diabetic in 6 weeks!" It's funny you wouldn't trust the FDA all of the people working there are highly qualified but you trust a website that could be run by a bunch of wanna be journalists for all you know

Sorry but I do know a few of the members of the board including Dr. Jonathan Wright of the Tahoma Clinic, Dr. William Douglass and Dr. Sinatra as well as Dr. Sears. And if you saw something you didn't believe did you actually read the article or was it a sponsored add, I did not see that when I went to the site. Oh and if you want more articles on the FDA from other sources I have lots of them. Funny no one has answered the post I put on from Dr. Neiper.
Swampy

 

[polaris dude]

Sorry but I do know a few of the members of the board including Dr. Jonathan Wright of the Tahoma Clinic, Dr. William Douglass and Dr. Sinatra as well as Dr. Sears. And if you saw something you didn't believe did you actually read the article or was it a sponsored add, I did not see that when I went to the site. Oh and if you want more articles on the FDA from other sources I have lots of them. Funny no one has answered the post I put on from Dr. Neiper.
Swampy

I believe the school is 100% legit. But is that the school website? I would have thought the website would be a .edu or .org usually if it isn't it is a knock off and it was an ad but it was an add for the website to go to another article.
Also which article are u talking about? I don't see which one you are talking about
Edit: just found it I'll look it up either later today or tomorrow after my test I've never heard of cesium chloride before.

 

[Jeff C]

I tell you what Swampy. When you get cancer someday, you go your route, and hopefully you will beat this terrible disease. I hope you do.

YOu made your point, why argue any further? What is it to you if people on this forum choose to follow your advice or not? You put the information out there, people can believe it or not believe it. Why keep on arguing?

The bottom line for most people who come down with some form of cancer is this (Keep in mind that right after diagnosis, people are scared, don't have good alternative medicine information and reliable statistics in which to intelligently make a life decision with):
1. Who's statistics are you going to trust anyway?
2. What if I make the wrong decision and this alternative medicine does not work?
3. WHO CAN I TRUST?

Most people would rather use proven statistics (Whatever they are) to help guide their therapy decision, than anecdotal evidence from small samples.

In other words most people probably think: "Ok, so this chemo therapy route has a 40% chance of working, 4 in 10. Ok, those are not great odds, but maybe, just maybe I might be one of those 40%. On the other hand, I can use this natural remedy that these other people tried, and there is a 50% chance (Here is the problem, of how many people were used to make this claim, were they my age? Did they have my same background, did they have my same family history, and on and on)"

"If I choose this natural method, and it does not work, will it be too late to get the traditional chemo?"

Those and dozens of other questions are in the minds of very scared people who have to make a decision that will either kill them or save their lives.

Given the vacuum of lack of good scientific research on the natural remedy side, most people will stay clear of those treatments because they tend to not believe in them because of the very lack of good numbers that they trust in.

What kind of heartless ba$tard sits back and mocks these peoples decisions to use the best available treatment given the information that is available?


I know there are plenty of serious issues at the FDA, but Swampy, people are doing what they think is the best for THEM at the time the information is dispensed.

 

[swampwater]

I tell you what Swampy. When you get cancer someday, you go your route, and hopefully you will beat this terrible disease. I hope you do.
Not to worried about that, do my best to prevent rather than treat.

YOu made your point, why argue any further? What is it to you if people on this forum choose to follow your advice or not? You put the information out there, people can believe it or not believe it. Why keep on arguing?
Ha Ha obviously I didn’t or everyone would agree. I keep arguing because our governments continually destroy our rights with all the unconstitutional alphabet agencies whether it is FDA, EPA, Dept of Education etc. These agencies, and the president, destroy our rights daily through lying, fraud and monetary manipulation of those who should be seeking the truth. At the base of all this criminal activity are two things, Money and Power. The problem will not be solved and will get exponentially worse until the American people, which includes by the way some on this forum, pull their heads out of the sand and wake up to the destruction of our country and begin to actually act rather than regurgitating the liberal media. Actually I don’t care to force anyone to take any treatment, after all this is a free country, but when I gain knowledge I feel it is my duty to pass it along and believe me I have spent 40 years intensively studying these issues. I have seen one of my physicians wrongly attacked and had his offices ransacked, his computers and files confiscated and charged simply for injecting natural vitamins in his patients, and not just by the FDA, they were joined by local law enforcement supporting these federal thugs. To be clear he was cleared of all charges but that didn’t make up for the Gestapo raid on his office and the loss of patients files for a long period of time, how would you like it if you had a grievious disease and they took all documentation from your doctor, he would have to start from the beginning as he would not have info even on what he was prescribing. There is no constitutional authority for the government to limit any treatment I wish to use but the FDA with your tax dollars does it every day, again look at the previous post with Dr. Neipurs statements.

Those and dozens of other questions are in the minds of very scared people who have to make a decision that will either kill them or save their lives.Maybe traditional medicine should stop scaring them and give them the truth.

Given the vacuum of lack of good scientific research on the natural remedy side, most people will stay clear of those treatments because they tend to not believe in them because of the very lack of good numbers that they trust in.
The only vacuum is in the minds of those who refuse to open their minds and find the truth. All Naturpathic physicians use published scientific studies research and literature to a degree well beyond the average doctor. The studies, research and trials are there for anyone to read you just have to want to find it, ask the physician and he will show it to you.

What kind of heartless ba$tard sits back and mocks these peoples decisions to use the best available treatment given the information that is available?I am not mocking anyone, as I said this is a free country, They should be allowed to seek any treatment they deserve but don’t equate that with them getting the best available treatment given the information that is available because they are not getting the best information available! Ask Suzzane Summers. Swampy

 

[polaris dude]

First off why don't you post some facts. Secondly You might stop relying on the same name calling defense the liberals use when they can't argue the facts
So stopping cancer for $20,000.00 by natural methods is selling snake oil but an oncologist charging $350,000.00 and than telling there is nothing more he can do is the proper method of medicine, I know who the Snake Oil salesman is. Since Munoz uses the same therapies pioneered by Dr Neiper in Germany here is some information from Dr. Neiper


Another practitioner of cesium chloride was Hans A. Nieper, M.D., (1928-1998), who practiced in Hannover, Germany. I do not know his cure rate for Stage IV patients, but it was generally accepted that he had the highest cure rate for cancer patients in the world. Here is a partial list of his most famous patients:
• “Dr. Nieper’s patients included many world stars, royalty and politicians: Anthony Quinn, John Wayne, Yul Brynner, William Holden and Princess Caroline of Monaco. He advised the ailing ex-president Ronald Reagan [for his colon cancer]. But more importantly, he treated thousands of everyday people like you and me. Nancy Sinatra lavished praise on this great German physician: “He is a fabulous person, a recognized scientist, a marvelous doctor.” His patients both loved and respected him.”http://www.explorepub.com/articles/neiper1.html
But perhaps the greatest compliment to Dr. Nieper’s success with treating cancer patients with cesium chloride was the fact that many FDA executives, and many other orthodox cancer fighters sent their relatives and friends to Dr. Nieper to be treated for their cancer. Here is a quote by Dr. Nieper himself about this:
• “You wouldn’t believe how many FDA officials or relatives or acquaintances of FDA officials come to see me as patients in Hanover. You wouldn’t believe this, or directors of the AMA, or ACA, or the presidents of orthodox cancer institutes. That’s the fact.”Hans Nieper – http://www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes2.html (AMA Quotes – a page worth reading)Also at – http://www.whale.to/vaccine/fda2.html (FDA Quotes – a page worth reading)

Do you think these people were buying snake oil? OH and you can include Cher and Suzzane Sommers in the list above. Nice the FDA refuses you the treatment than go to Germany to get it.

Do you have any facts proving your side? Swampy

Alright I am back as promised and I looked it up. The first link you provided is broken and didn't work, and the other 2 links are not credible sources in the slightest.

I googled cesium chloride however and I found what was said on cancer.org
http://www.cancer.org/treatment/tre...cine/herbsvitaminsandminerals/cesium-chloride

It looks promising, but if you look at the harms it can cause heart palpitations and even death due to cesium acting as potassium. Not to mention Cesium has a half life of 42 days in the body(according to cancer.org)

http://www.cancertutor.com/alkaline/

This link made more sense, BUT as far as I can tell it is based on the false premise that cancer cells work through fermentation, which is false they use glycolysis which would mean that they would not in fact be more acidic which is how the site says cesium works.

Regardless from your source and the last one I linked both said that some doctors have had wild success. I think I might talk to my professors about it on Monday and see what they think of it.

http://www.livescience.com/42266-death-alternative-cancer-treatment-cesium-chloride.html

Another case of it killing someone. Although if it could cure someone in less than a year it could work maybe?

 

[swampwater]

Alright I am back as promised and I looked it up. The first link you provided is broken and didn't work, and the other 2 links are not credible sources in the slightest.

I googled cesium chloride however and I found what was said on cancer.org
http://www.cancer.org/treatment/tre...cine/herbsvitaminsandminerals/cesium-chloride

It looks promising, but if you look at the harms it can cause heart palpitations and even death due to cesium acting as potassium. Not to mention Cesium has a half life of 42 days in the body(according to cancer.org)

http://www.cancertutor.com/alkaline/

This link made more sense, BUT as far as I can tell it is based on the false premise that cancer cells work through fermentation, which is false they use glycolysis which would mean that they would not in fact be more acidic which is how the site says cesium works.

Regardless from your source and the last one I linked both said that some doctors have had wild success. I think I might talk to my professors about it on Monday and see what they think of it.

http://www.livescience.com/42266-death-alternative-cancer-treatment-cesium-chloride.html

Another case of it killing someone. Although if it could cure someone in less than a year it could work maybe?

Well I am glad you seem open to further research on Alternative medicine and it appears
You are apparently moving into the medical or pharmaceutical field. With OB Care I would
Question whether either field will be very lucrative. I would definitely recommend doing
Some research in Natural Medicine and the Tahomaclinic.com would be a great starting
Point as Dr. Wright is arguably the godfather of natural medicine.

Alright I am back as promised and I looked it up. The first link you provided is broken and didn't work, and the other 2 links are not credible sources in the slightest.
Credible in whose opinion?

I googled cesium chloride however and I found what was said on cancer.org
http://www.cancer.org/treatment/trea...esium-chlorideDid you Pass over some of my previous post?

Back in 1987, Dr. Nieper let a man named Jeff Harsh interview him for a video documentary. After commenting that “President Reagan is a very nice man,” Dr. Nieper declared:
“You wouldn’t believe how many FDA officials or relatives or acquaintances of FDA officials come to see me as patients in Hanover. You wouldn’t believe this — or directors of the American Medical Association (AMA), or American Cancer Society (ACS), or the presidents of orthodox cancer institutes. That’s the fact.”
Well, that’s America’s cancer establishment for you.
• Elizabeth Taylor
• Cher
• Princess Haja of Jordan
• Siegfried and Roy
• Suzanne Somers
• Jennifer Lopez (who financed her aunt’s successful cancer treatment in Germany)
• Jack Cassidy (the bass player from the Jefferson Airplane rock group)
• George Hamilton
• William Holden
• Anthony Quinn
Suzanne Somers had surgery and radiation in America for her breast cancer in 2001. Naturally her doctors wanted her to follow up these treatments with highly toxic chemotherapy. They were appalled when she said “no.” Instead, she opted for mistletoe, a German herbal therapy that worked well for her.
I already mentioned President Ronald Reagan’s May 1985 trip to Germany for cancer treatment. Reagan chose Germany because of Dr. Nieper’s reputation as the No. 1 cancer doctor in the world.

And you consider the CancerTutor.com a credible site?
Another case of it killing someone. Although if it could cure someone in less than a year it could work maybe? Did you actually read the entire article, I doubt most Natural Physicians would encourage a client medicating themselves without complete physician involvement, oh and do they have any other horror stories or is this the only one?

These unconstitutional agencies operate as governments of their own, not answerable to anyone, use pseudo science (EPA and global warming) (FDA using studies performed by the companies they are supposed to regulate) and a whole lot money and contracts changing hands including federal grants and forced purchase of products and commodities. I have many more articles that strengthen my position if you wish to see them. In any case please keep an open mind and a strong curiosity in the field you choose. Swampy