On 25 Oct 2005 at 10:50, cesiumther...@yahoogroups.com wrote: > Catherine Coy wrote: > Duncan wrote: I think the reason Transfer Factor doesn't > always work fast or on the primary tumor was explained OK on > another group. White blood cells, and all the body's cells, > are charged the same as the cancer tumor. The larger the > mass, the more charge. This results in ionic repulsion which > is about the same as magnetic repulsion if the poles are > both north or both south. > > Good lord. > > Look, I agree that not enough is known about the electrical > properties, if any, of the human body,
A fairly complete explanation, brilliant in my view, is Dr. Steve Haltiwanger's "The Electrical Properties of Cancer Cells". We may not know enough but this is about as good as it gets. If you have reasonable comprehension of moderately technical documents, you really should learn from this one: http://RoyalRife.com/haltiwanger.html > but what you're > attempting to describe is already known--that is, surgery is > used in Cancer, Inc.'s arsenal to reduce tumor load so that > any type of cancer cell destruction results in less for the > medicine (in the case of Cancer, Inc., toxic chemicals) to > overcome. You have described the orthodox approach. However, the primary tumour expresses a potent inhibitor of secondary tumours, so when you remove the primary tumour, this inhibition is removed and the secondaries (if any) pop up like mushrooms. > There's lots of evidence that cancer is a response > to damage-DNA damage, to be specific. I wouldn't be too hasty in naming broken DNA as the cause of cancer. Cesium therapy is known to both kill cancer cells AND revert cancer cells to normal function. This indicates broken DNA, if it exists, can be repaired. This was pointed out by the study in which researchers replaced the contents of a mouse ovum with broken-DNA cancer, the product was normal healthy baby mice, and not "cancer mice". So much for the "broken DNA" theory. There's also evidence that indicates DNA damage is NOT a requirement for the cells to fail to mature and differentiate, resulting in cancer. I refer you again to Dr. Haltiwanger's document above that explains the molecular changes that will reliably result in cancer. He does mention cesium/high pH therapy and Otto Warburg's work. It's a fascinating document. How about Dr. Rober O. Becker's experiment that put kidney cancer cells from a frog into a salamander's leg? The cells became frog muscle cells in the salamander. So much for not being able to redifferentiate cancer cells. Actually "spontaneous remissions" probably redifferntiate many more cells than they kill. > It's more than just > biology that affects how fast a wound heals. The way a wound > heals will depend on many factors, both intrinsic and > extrinsic. Lifestyle and people's attitudes are also key > factors determining how fast a wound heals. For example, a > body that is dealing with poor nutritional intake, > infection, drug or alcohol issues, or poor inner hygiene > will have its healing process compromised. Anything that > helps your general health is going to help healing and > reduce scarring. So if you think of cancer as a "wound," > you're trying to "debride" the necrosis through surgery; > otherwise, the body has too much to overcome to create > healthy tissue. I have to disagree with surgery for reasons already mentioned. I don't think of cancer as a wound. In my view, the primary should only be removed if it's the only tumour; otherwise it should probably best be left alone. The contributory reasons for cancer and slow healing you mentioned I agree with; these are usually addressed as part of a program. > What I'm describing is the "trophoblastic" > theory of cancer. In any event, a multi-level marketing > product with no clinical conclusions and, from what I can > so, scant observational evidence, isn't going to get the job > done. John Beard's Trophoblastic Theory of Cancer, Parts 1 > and 2 http://www.cancerdecisions.com/062602_page.html > http://www.cancerdecisions.com/070202_page.html > http://www.whale.to/v/duffy2.html If, however, you can > provide REAL clinical studies or credible testimonials, I'm > ready to change my mind. Thanks for the links Catherine; I'm sure you'll enjoy the Haltiwange article. I have two of Dr. Moss' cancer books, and I use a metabolic enzymes blend in my practice. At least it makes more sense than surgery. I know the cesium police will get me for this further off-topic comment, but one of my clients who had a neck lump growing for six years finally had a biopsy and it was malignant. He used electrical power much like home-brewed GEIPE therapy because the tumour was easy to reach with the therapy. I haven't checked with him for awhile but at last contact it had shrunk from egg yolk size to pea size or smaller. He could still find it by feeling around but the point is that all he used was a little electricity. It cost him all of about $5 Canadian to cobble it up. Duncan Duncan -- The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
