Do you suspect that natural cures for cancer are suppressed?

I disagree with you and think that the judge was bribed or pressured into allowing a white substance to be added to the water/ fuel so that the Stanley Meyer device would not work on that important day.

I think that it is wonderful though that you can be this naïve and trusting in the powers of be!

That is kind of heart warming ....... in a way?????!

http://www.politicalforum.com/opini...ite-substance-added-stanley-meyer-device.html

USA judge allows white substance to be added to Stanley Meyer device?



What do you personally think of this act?

Personally............. the judge in this case was either one of North America's most naïve justices or more likely......… he had gotten pressure from fairly high up...… to allow this travesty of justice to take place!

http://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/stanley-meyers-and-zero-point-energy.42388/

Fraud charges

Something just as bad was admitted by a high ranking government official in the Obama administration in the second Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski film. That official said that he really liked Dr. Burzynski's treatments and knew that they worked but...… he felt that their going on the market could cause something worse than the recession of 2008. Big Pharma stock prices are helping to keep the market up there at this time!

 

Percentage of what, gross income, net income, gross margin, net margin, EBIT?

If you do it on gross income, then the business may have income but still have a HUGE loss but you are still trying to tax them. Current corporate taxes are based on corporate income after deductions for expenses and certain other taxes, If there is no income there is nothing to tax. Are you proposing a business that lost money that year still pay taxes on something?

Again these deductions are not "subsidies", they are the cost of the business operating and income devoted to that should not be taxed you might as well be saying you want the employees to have their wages taxed at the corporate level and then tax that income again on their end. What if that additional tax you want when the company loses money and that tax is enough to out them out of business, what good does that do?

Granted it needs to be cleaned up into more of a flat tax, but it is how you get the the revenue that is going to be subject to that tax. There are LOTS of good deductions, like deductions for training, a company takes some of it's gross income and diverts it to training people how to do the work involved and gain the skills involved, should we tax that revenue that is diverted? Should we eliminate those government programs and departments that mange those programs that work hand in hand with local businesses to train and increase the workforce.

I support the Republican proposals to go to a MUCH simpler tax system whether a flat tax of the FAIR Tax

The EITC is a negative tax, a refundable credit. Even if you don't earn any income and pay no income tax you can get, that is why up to almost $40,000 now and particularly a family not only pays no income taxes they make income of the income tax system. So how would you deal with the people that make under that tax threshold of $10,000 or even make no income and replace what they get from the EITC? Or do you not?

 

It's never been proven to work by any one in any shape manner or form.

Popular Mechanics

The Truth About Water-Powered Cars: Mechanic's Diary
It's one thing for a car to run on air, but do the latest claims of hydrogen-turned-oxygen-turned-electricity propulsion hold water—or feed in to the hysteria of the gas crunch? In his biweekly online column, PM's senior automotive editor focuses his chemistry prowess on the case of miracle water fuel, then builds an HHO car himself.

From a startup snagging headlines to DIYers posting plans, water-powered cars have been all over the Web recently--not to mention stuffing my email inbox.

Yes, you can run your car on water. All it takes is to build a "water-burning hybrid" is the installation of a simple, often home-made electrolysis cell under the hood of your vehicle. The key is to take electricity from the car's electrical system to electrolyze water into a gaseous mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, often referred to as Brown's Gas or HHO or oxyhydrogen. Typically, the mixture is in a ratio of 2:1 hydrogen atoms to oxygen atoms. This is then immediately piped into the intake manifold to replace some of the expensive gasoline you've been paying through the nose for these last couple of months. These simple "kits" will increase your fuel economy and decrease your bills and dependence on foreign petroleum by anywhere from 15 to 300 percent.

There's even a Japanese company, Genepax, showing off a prototype that runs on nothing but water. On June 13 Reuters published a report on the prototype, complete with a now much-blogged-about video even showing an innocuous gray box in the Genepax vehicle'strunk supplying all the power to drive the car. All you have to do is add an occasional bottle of Evian (or tea, or whatever aqueous fluid is handy), then drive all over without ever needing gasoline.

So what do I think about all of this? Why haven't I tested and written about this stuff? It's certain to Change the World As We Know It ... right?

Rubbish.

The only real definitive claim Genepax makes on its Web site is that its process is going to save the world from global warming. (A request for comment was not returned at press time.) Their Water Energy System (WES) appears to be nothing more than a fuel cell converting the hydrogen and oxygen back into electricity, which is used to run to a motor that drives the wheels. Fuel cell technology is well-understood and pretty efficient at changing hydrogen and oxygen into electricity and water, which is where we came in, right? Except the hydrogen came from water in the first place--something doesn't add up here.

Here's the deal, people: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

There is energy in water. Chemically, it's locked up in the atomic bonds between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. When the hydrogen and oxygen combine, whether it's in a fuel cell, internal combustion engine running on hydrogen, or a jury-rigged pickup truck with an electrolysis cell in the bed, there's energy left over in the form of heat or electrons. That's converted to mechanical energy by the pistons and crankshaft or electrical motors to move the vehicle.

Problem: It takes exactly the same amount of energy to pry those hydrogen and oxygen atoms apart inside the electrolysis cell as you get back when they recombine inside the fuel cell. The laws of thermodynamics haven't changed, in spite of any hype you read on some blog or news aggregator. Subtract the losses to heat in the engine and alternator and electrolysis cell, and you're losing energy, not gaining it--period.

But enough about Genepax, which is sort of tangential to my main thesis here, and on to a more common topic in my mail que: HHO as a means of extending the fuel economy of conventional IC engines.

HHO enthusiasts--from hypermilers to Average Joes desperate to save at the pump--suggest that hydrogen changes the way gasoline burns in the combustion chamber, making it burn more efficiently or faster. Okay, there have been a couple of engineering papers that suggest a trace of hydrogen can change the combustion characteristics of ultra-lean-burning stratified-charge engines. Properly managed H2 enrichment seems to increase the burn rate of the hydrocarbons in the cylinder, extracting more energy. However, these studies only suggest increases in fuel economy by a few percentage points and don't apply unless the engine is running far too lean for decent emissions. That's a long way from the outrageous claims of as much as 300-percent improvements in economy that I see on the Internet and in my mailbox.

There's no reason to believe that even more modest increases claimed by some of the ads could be achieved by a conventional, computer-controlled automobile engine running under closed-loop driving--that is, the computer's ability to sample the oxygen output of the engine's exhaust in real time and slew the fuel/air ratio for big mpg and small emissions. The combustion chamber events are far different in the type of ultra-lean-burn engines where hydrogen enrichment has been seen to help. Ultra-lean means there's a lot of extra oxygen around for the hydrogen to have something to react with--far more than the very modest amount we're sucking in from the typical homebrew hydrogen generator made from a Mason jar. And remember, these studies deal with hydrogen enrichment under closely-controlled lab conditions, not spraying an uncontrolled amount of hydrogen-oxygen mixture into your air cleaner.

I'm building a water-electrolyzer car--right now. The electrolysis cell assembly is on my workbench and ready to install, so stay tuned for the test results soon. If it works, then you can believe the hype.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a3428/4271579/

I prefer not to believe in snakeoil salesmen.

So tell if it was even conceivable to make such an engine then why would the BIG HUGE auto-companies develop it? The one that did it first and patented it would wipe all the other companies out or at the least be selling them engines. They're not stupid you know, if the could do it the WOULD be doing and reaping the profits.

 

Net income seems fair enough.

I think we could establish a rate that would negatively affect the least number of businesses. The specific rate itself has plenty of room for discussion, however.

I suppose we would need to evaluate the net benefits of each of these programs to see if they are worth the associated tax expenses.

In principle, I like the FAIR tax, but we need to dramatically cut spending before converting to that.

I don't believe in subsidizing families over individuals. I think it makes more sense to just have tax rates that are reasonable without the use of credits or deductions. If someone ends up having a kid they can't afford, that's not something society should subsidize. They just need to figure out a way to deal with it.

If it's any consolation, I do believe we should loosen things up a bit on nonprofits, so that charity can more effectively attend to society's needs. I just think the welfare state as it is does not sustain itself.

 

So we're back to the deductions for the cost of doing buiness, wages, supplies, equipment, services etc.

It certainly needs to be lower than it is to make our business more competitive in the world economy.

And that's why we have them and they are deductions.

Those cuts need to be made regardless, the levels the Democrats took spending since 2007 are just unbelievable and they want EVEN MORE.

We subsidize the individuals in those families.

What if they have a sick parent they can't afford and now they are a dependent.

I like the FAIR Tax with the prebate determined by how many dependents on the income. If not that a Flat tax with a standard deduction for each individual in the household.

See I believe it is IMPERATIVE to our society to encourage families and especially the nuclear family. We have seen the results of societies and cultures that do not and it has been a disaster.

And I agree it cannot and we are about to hit that point where over half the voters are so dependent on government they have become it's slaves. But then loosening things up on non-profits means keeping those deductions to business and individuals who contribute to and support these charities and that means less money to the charity. Actions has consequences. That is one of the problems I DO have with the Flat or FAIR tax. If the average deduction on contributions, especially large donations, is 25% then that means the donors may well cut back their contributions 25% in order to stay within their budgets.

How do we make that up to the charities? Government send more tax revenue to charities? Government choosing who to send taxpayer dollars to instead of the businesses and individuals deciding which charities are worthy of that money? Imagine the fraud that would be involved in that system.

Perhaps if a business or individual contributes to a 501 charity they can submit a voucher to the government and get a refund equal to their marginal rate or a rate between the marginal and effective? Yeah there could be some fraud there but better the charities receiving the funds do so on the basis of the intelligence and concern of the individuals and business rather than the totally inept government.

Let's hope we can keep the Republican Congress and a Republican President with a veto proof Senate or a Senate President willing to play hardball like Reid and get a real rebate on this and real reform passed and watch the economy take off.

 

The last time we had a Republican Congress with a Republican President, the economy created a massive real estate bubble that later led to the biggest bank bailouts ever.

I don't have much faith in either party, but in general, the government tends to be best during gridlock.

 

No they did not, the last time the Republicans controlled the Congress they produced the surplus, with policies the Democrat President opposed but was finally forced to sign onto. Then there was a recession, as is part of our normal economic cycle and the the Republican Congress and Republican President took proper measures to help mitigate the effects and create a VERY STRONG recovery hitting a one year $400B deficit and then rapidly bring that down to a paltry $161B.

THEN the Democrats gained control of the Congress in 2007 and in just TWO YEARS took that paltry $161B deficit to a WHOPPING $1,400B , a 16 times increase in just two years increasing spending 9% in 2008 and then 18% in 2009, and kept the deficit over $1,000B for the next four years and then blame the Republicans for the sequester which brought it back down. The Democrats never even came close to the WORST Republican deficits let along come close to that paltry $161B they inherited.

 

I have never read of the whole thing being explained in this way before!

Wow!

And to some degree............. a willingness to take a serious look at extreme cases such as this........ is one of the reasons why the G. O. P. may be tapping into better ideas on economics?!

IF...… physicians......… truly wanted to see their patients benefited the most....... while experiencing the least amount of pain.... they would take a more serious look at this type of phenomena and figure out how this could be added as a back up to conventional therapies?!

https://www.facebook.com/imsoblesseddaily/videos/586237854873676/

Boy who cant walk and talk miraculously healed

 

I thought I should let you know that I quoted you over into this discussion...…


http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=450785&page=5&p=1066052049#post1066052049

Bluesguy........ if The Donald were to come out with an explanation for the spiraling national debt that would end the Mentality of Poverty that Americans have.....(in comparison to what is theoretically possible).... can you see this shift resulting in the release of lots of information on remedies and cures that will result in many diseases being beaten .... or at least dramatically reduced..........?

The lack of research into promising cures............. is related to the national debt........ that in a sense seems to have been deliberately decided on by leaders in finance????!


http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...fear-donald-might-turn-out-another-j-f-k.html

Some powerful people fear The Donald might turn out to be another J.F.K!

 

V. P. Joe Biden sure has something interesting to say on this issue.

 

See it makes a lot of sense if youre going to go through the conspiracy theory route. But to assume that someone already made the cure for cancer is kind of irresponsible. Even if some guy did make it and was withholding it for economic or political reasons, it shouldn't stop you from either trying to develop your own cure for cancer nor should it be any consolation/anger inducement should you have cancer and expect a cure.

 

There is no profit in any drug or cure that cannot be patented. Of course drug companies oppose them and use the FDA to ban their being promoted. No one can offer ANY product to address cancer without FDA permission.

 

The OPer wrote a poll that offers no opportunity to vote anyway but in favor of the OP's opinion. I guess the OPer thinks this is cleverly tricky.

The number of Americans who disagree with the OPer is in the tens of millions. The OPer also is ignorant about drugs as well. The majority of prescription drugs are refinements of natural remedies that work without the refining. However, the change can be patented. The FDA only approves the refined form - outlawing offering the natural form. Having a total monopoly protected by the government the drug company then can make up the natural drug 1000%, 10,000%, whatever they want. Pay anything the drug company wants or die - the perfect extortion via government protected monopoly - when a person could buy the same drug in natural form for 1 cent a dose.

 

Good comments!

A perfect example of this are the eight natural sugars written about...... as well as spoken of by
the late Rayburn Goen M. D. and Dr. Ben Carson.

What is your opinion.... is Rayburn Goen M. D. lying....... .or terribly exaggerating his own personal
experience in post #3 here?

http://www.politicalforum.com/health-care/453165-why-would-dr-ben-carson-make-such-claims.html
Why would Dr. Ben Carson make such claims?


.......

My point is this......... the eight natural sugars... each in their pure form......
cannot be patented so..........
although one company has a patent on any substance that combines.....
two or more of the natural sugars......

any company can come forward with each or any or all of the eight
nutritional sugars.... in their pure form.... that company that has a patent
on the combined form..........

cannot stop that company from offering a low cost pure knock off...........

(Glucosamine sulfate is a form of one of the eight nutritional sugars.....
manapol / mannose... is a second one that you may have heard of. Aloe vera
juice... available at Walmart for about ten dollars per gallon... seems to be a good
source of manapol / mannose)!

 

It is an extremely bias set of poll questions because there is no simple "yes" option without agreeing to attach an extreme negative to that choice. Simply, the poll offers no option of answering yes without the condition set to answering yes without agreeing you are then voting for "worse."

 

Then by all means please begin a new poll with better questions.....
please let me know when you begin it because I would like to participate as best as I can.

For the record... my wife and I both viewed the online version of this film a couple of years ago....
we were shocked.... and I do suspect that you will want to take a look at this before beginning
a discussion somewhat like this.

http://www.burzynskimovie.com

 

Here is the first video.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annot...&feature=iv&src_vid=DCcV1xiJUbk&v=rBUGVkmmwbk
Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business | Full Documentary

 

The problem with natural cures/remedies, rather the massive frauds by those selling such products. Over 80% of health products sold online do not contain any of the ingredients claimed. Sellers make any and all claims saying anything to make a sale.

However, there are piles of studies of medical problems from not using ordinary, cheap natural products and cures by using them. I'll skip the biggie of cancer as a topic.As example, there are dozens of studies from around the world - legitimate medical and research unversities, that show huge benefits from supplementing with magnesium. And it will cure many ailments. Put it is an incredibly cheap "drug" - really cheap. So there is no promoting or marketing it.

More important, no one can legally market magnesium as a cure for anything, even headaches (yet some headsaches are caused by magnesium deficiency) - unless millions of dollars are spent on an FDA approved study - that the FDA then approves of the result. Why would any company spend that money, when anyone can sell magnesium as pure natural products cannot be patented and sell them cheap? And why would doctors be informed or by who?

There are drug company researchers all over the world gathering and testing NATURAL substances - plants, animals, bugs, sea life - seeking new drugs. BUT when the find one they will isolate the element that works, ideally make a synthetic version, patent it, give some super drug-ish sounding name, and then have the exclusive protected right to sell it for $200 a month - costing them $2. THAT is part of the problem.

The other also is profit motive.

Newly approved cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 per month, with some therapies topping $30,000 per month, according to ASCO, which discussed the costs of cancer care at a recent meeting. Just a decade ago, the average cost per month of new drugs was about $4,500.

http://health.usnews.com/health-new...-worry-about-rising-costs-of-cancer-treatment

No one even questions the price is $10,000 a month per person. The company that has the patent could charge $10,000, $20,000, $50,000 - anything. Even if it only cost them a nickle to make. Drug companies are except anti-trust laws while protected by patent laws. No other industry is BOTH exempt from anti-trust AND with patent protection. Literally, people are extorted with their very lives.

Why would any drug company possibly to make, offer or market cheap natural cures?

 

I salute your excellent question.

However, there is no cure for cancer. Cancer is cell dysfunction on the mitochondrial level.

 

most are genetic, but lifestyle/diet/environment can play different roles based on those genetics, for instance, the oldest people to have lived were all smokers... but some genes may not be able to handle some chemicals as well as others

 

I watched another lengthy film two days ago that gives powerful evidence that this may not
be entirely true.

And what is quite disappointing is that it seems that some influential people have known this
for about a century or so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAMYAoiCSsI
Cancer The Forbidden Cures!


.........

Toward the end of this film I got an explanation from my father in law's
anecdotal case........

http://www.politicalforum.com/healt...nnot-survive-presence-high-levels-oxygen.html

Cancer cells.....cannot survive in the presence of high levels of oxygen
..

My wife's father was diagnosed with prostate cancer a few years ago.

While he was still in Ecuador his physician advised him to begin to take baking soda and water as part of his improved nutritional back up to his treatment.

Now that he is in Miami his physicians are SHOCKED that his blood test are showing essentially ZERO CANCER CELLS!

My wife and I have both began to take baking soda and water on a regular basis.

 

Baking soda, calcium carbonate is an extremely stable molecule and passes through your body through the kidneys as your body does its job to maintain its proper ph. It does not release its one atom of oxygen, the other two in the CO2 molecule attached which your body does not break down but expells through the lings even of it made it into the blood stream our you burp it out.. The supposed theory is that cancer likes an acidic environment and baking soda counter acts this but if you were to get enough in your blood stream it would kill you because it would lower you Ph level.

So can you post any evidence people who eat Tums on a daily basis have lower rates of cancer?

And you get far more oxygen and more effectively, directly into the blood stream, by breathing.

 

drug companies doctors and hospitals make more money treating cancer then they ever would from preventing cancer from ever happening
and that goes for any dieses it is why we haven't had a drug produced in a long while other then very few exceptions that kept a dieses or illness from happening just ones that treat them

 

If you will go to the one hour and 12 minute mark in this film you will get a fifteen minute explanation as to why it might work......
from a doctor in Italy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAMYAoiCSsI
Cancer The Forbidden Cures!

 

Oh more of this nonsense that cancer is a fungus because some tumor cells are white. This is a matter of chemistry and biology. Sodium Bicarbonate when used as a buffer for Hydrochloric Acid does not release oxygen and you get plenty more oxygen from breathing which puts it directly into the bloodstream.

"Some myths about cancer are surprisingly persistent, despite flying in the face of basic biology. One such idea is that overly ‘acidic’ diets cause your blood to become ‘too acidic’, which can increase your risk of cancer. Their proposed answer: increase your intake of healthier ‘alkaline’ foods like green vegetables and fruits (including, paradoxically, lemons).

This is biological nonsense. True, cancer cells can’t live in an overly alkaline environment, but neither can any of the other cells in your body.

Blood is usually slightly alkaline. This is tightly regulated by the kidneys within a very narrow and perfectly healthy range. It can’t be changed for any meaningful amount of time by what you eat, and any extra acid or alkali is simply peed out in urine.
To maintain the correct balance within the body, your urine can and does change pH, depending on what you’ve eaten (explained in detail in this post). This can be seen by testing urine pH (acidity) after eating different foods and is the basis of the mistaken belief that diet can “make the body alkaline”. But that’s all you’re changing, and anyone who claims otherwise simply doesn’t understand how the body works. [Edited for clarity and extra links, KA 08/08/14]
While eating lots of green veg is certainly healthy, that’s not because of any effect on how acid or alkaline your body is.

There is something called acidosis. This is a physiological condition that happens when your kidneys and lungs can’t keep your body’s pH (a measure of acidity) in balance. It is often the result of serious illness or poisoning. It can be life-threatening and needs urgent medical attention, but it’s not down to overly acidic diets.

We know that the immediate environment around cancer cells (the microenvironment) can become acidic. This is due to differences in the way that tumours create energy and use oxygen compared with healthy tissue. Researchers are working hard to understand how this happens, in order to develop more effective cancer treatments.

But there’s no good evidence to prove that diet can manipulate whole body pH, or that it has an impact on cancer."

"This ‘theory’ comes from the not-very-observant observation that “cancer is always white”.

One obvious problem with this idea – apart from the fact that cancer cells are clearly not fungal in origin – is that cancer isn’t always white. Some tumours are. But some aren’t. Ask any pathologist or cancer surgeon, or have a look on Google Image search (but maybe not after lunch&#8230.

Proponents of this theory say that cancer is caused by infection by the fungus candida, and that tumours are actually the body’s attempt at protecting itself from this infection.

But there’s no evidence to show that this is true (and plenty of evidence – going back at least as far as 1902 – that it starts from faults our own cells).

Furthermore, plenty of perfectly healthy people can be infected with candida – it’s part of the very normal array of microbes that live in (and on) all of us. Usually our immune system keeps candida in check, but infections can get more serious in people with compromised immune systems, such as those who are HIV-positive.

The ‘simple solution’ is apparently to inject tumours with baking soda (sodium bicarbonate). This isn’t even the treatment used to treat proven fungal infections, let alone cancer. On the contrary, there’s good evidence that high doses of sodium bicarbonate can lead to serious – even fatal – consequences.

Some studies suggest that sodium bicarbonate can affect cancers transplanted into mice or cells grown in the lab, by neutralising the acidity in the microenvironment immediately around a tumour. And researchers in the US are running a small clinical trial investigating whether sodium bicarbonate capsules can help to reduce cancer pain and to find the maximum dose that can be tolerated, rather than testing whether it has any effect on tumours.

As far as we are aware, there have been no published clinical trials of sodium bicarbonate as a treatment for cancer.

It’s also worth pointing out that it’s not clear whether it’s possible to give doses of sodium bicarbonate that can achieve any kind of meaningful effect on cancer in humans, although it’s something that researchers are investigating.

Because the body strongly resists attempts to change its pH, usually by getting rid of bicarbonate through the kidneys, there’s a risk that doses large enough to significantly affect the pH around a tumour might cause a serious condition known as alkalosis.

One estimate suggests that a dose of around 12 grams of baking soda per day (based on a 65 kg adult) would only be able to counteract the acid produced by a tumour roughly one cubic millimetre in size. But doses of more than about 30 grams per day are likely to cause severe health problems – you do the maths."

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk...the-hype-10-persistent-cancer-myths-debunked/