Sodium Bicarbonate: Can something so mundane really cure cancer and treat diabetes

A cure for cancer has been the holy grail of medical research for decades. Or perhaps it would be truer to say a treatment for cancer that is moderately effective for patients and highly effective as a profit driver for Big Pharma and the healthcare industry.

The real case is that reports based on properly conducted studies keep emerging that a simple, effective and cheap has been suppress by big business and scientists for a long time now. Your doctor will never tell you about it however, because it costs next to nothing.

Read more, including an embedded article reporting more recent research confirming the effectivness of Sodium bicarbonate.
Sodium Bicarbonate: Can something so mundane really cure cancer and treat diabetes?

RELATED POSTS:
CDC Admits as Many as 30 Million Americans Could be at Risk for Cancer Due to Polio Vaccine

The Cheap Cancer Treatment you Doctor Will Never Offer

A cure for cancer has been the Holy Grail of medical science for over half a century. Wealth, fame, and deification awaited the doctors who found the elusive cure we were told.

But did it, thanks to all the sacremongering the spectre of cancer turned the disease (or diseases, because it is not just one disease which is why no magic bullet or core all pill has been found) into a monster we all feared. Thus cancer became a huge money spinner for the drug makers of the Big Pharma cartel and those who made a very good living out of the quack medicines and “slash, burn poison” therapies.

How would you feel if there was a highly effective cure that is never discussed because it is cheap and you probably have some in your kitchen right now?

Tullio Simoncini (1951) is a doctor based in Rome who specialises in oncology, diabetology and in metabolic disorders (cancer tresearch and treatments to us laymen). Dr. Simoncini has a track record for opposing the type of intellectual conformity demanded by the academic community and enforced by the media, which, he says, is often based on suppositions without foundation or worse, on lies and falsities.


Prominent Oncologists says Expensive Cancer Thrapies Are About Profit Not Cures

RELATED POSTS:
Real People Are Dying because Drug Companies Publish Fake Statistics

Hydrogen Peroxide, Another Secret Cancer Cure

One of Little Nicky Machiavelli’s favourite pastimes is helping to kick Big Pharma in the balls. We independent bloggers are like lilliputians taking on the Gulliver sized public relations budgets of corporations that have grown fat by gorging on taxpayers money paid out for “cures” that only alleviate symptoms while creating patients for life.

One of the biggest scams in the healthy industry is cancer. While senational headlines about the “latest breakthrough in the fight against cancer” proliferate, not of these miracle cures ever amount to anything.

Why?

Because the last thing the cancer industry wants is a cure for cancer. It would destroy their cash cow. That is why over the decades several promising therapies have been swept under the carpet.

Read of one such theraby here, very cheap, reportedly very effective and very carefully buried by the medical establishment and Big Pharma.

Alternatives In Cancer Therapy – Hydrogen Peroxide

Will it work for someone you know? I don’t know, the idea of a cure – all that will be effective against every cancer is probably a big Pharma fairy tale. Will your doctor ever tell you about it? – no, because nobody is going to make much money out of such a commonplace substance.

Now Frying Pan Fascists Want To Steal Your Steak

Scientists Warn ‘Red Meat Can Be Lethal’, it is not only unhealthy but can increase the risk of death, according to a major US study:

Now you quickly get to the nature of this science in the line above. “can increase the risk of death”. Unscientific, scaremongering BOLLOCKS. We are all going to die, forget the delusional belief among scientists that they can immunise us against death, nobody lives for ever. So the risk of death is 100%, it cannot get any higher, it will not get any lower. Therefore you should read reports of this type of research with the appropriate degree of scepticism.

New research carried out in the USA and published today demonstrates eating red meat regularly, especially processed meats dramatically increases the risk of death from heart disease and cancer. Each additional daily serving of processed red meat, equivalent to one hot-dog or two rashers of bacon, raised the chances of dying by a fifth. Data from 121,342 men and women taking part in two large US health and lifestyle investigations were analysed to produce the findings, published in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine.

Now note the vagueness and obfuscatory tactics here. The do not say red meat eaters will die at 60 instead of 80. What they do appear to be saying is that for every ten people who eat red meat, twelve will die. The premise is irrational.

The study claims researchers found that cutting red meat out of the diet led to significant benefits but here again we see the way the issue is clouded in an attempt to manipulate readers. They find a problem with processed meat which in fact is not confined to red meat but, as has been known for years there is a problem with all highly processed foods, red or white meats, fats and they reduce it to appear as it it only applies to the food hate symbol of the limp wristed vegetarian Nazi party (“healthy low fat spreads” are the most dangerous things you can eat apart from the kind of stuff that comes in bottles with a skull and crossbones on the label).

Replacing red meat with fish, poultry, or plant-based protein foods contributed to a longer life, the study says although many other studies have shown vegetarians do not live significantly longer than red meat eater. Nuts are said to reduce the risk of dying by 20% – making a case for swapping roast beef for nut roast.

The studies monitored the progress of their participants for more than 20 years and gathered information about diet. In total, scientists documented 23,926 deaths including 5,910 from heart disease and 9,364 from cancer. Senior author Professor Frank Hu, from Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, said: “This study provides clear evidence that regular consumption of red meat, especially processed meat, contributes substantially to premature death.

“On the other hand, choosing more healthful sources of protein in place of red meat can confer significant health benefits by reducing chronic disease morbidity (illness) and mortality.”

Funny how the results of these studies carried out by leftie academics always affirm the moral prejudices of leftie academics and serve to advance their control freak agenda, don’t you think. When you read that cancer prevention charity the World Cancer Research Fund recommends that people avoid processed meat entirely and limit their consumption of red meat to 500g a week it’s easy to see the hand of health fascism at work. In fact the biggest problem we have with western dies now is the result of scientists meddling with so much of the food we eat for the sole purpose of boosting corporate profits. It is not the meat in processed meats, the ground grain in bread or cakes nor the oil in processed fats that does the harm, it is the added chemicals, the colourings, artificial flavourings, preservatives etc. Look at the list of ingredients on a pack of processed meat, a savoury snack, a pack of breakfast cereal. Food is not the problem, science is the problem.

Dr Rachel Thompson, the charity’s deputy head of science, said: “This study strengthens the body of evidence which shows a link between red meat and chronic diseases such as cancer and heart disease. The research itself seems solid and is based on two large-scale cohort studies monitored over a long period of time.”

And when you look at the length of time it becomes clear we are not talking about people living ten of five years less on average but a few weeks less. Ah well as the old saying goes, torture data long enough and it will tell you whatever you want it to.

We know that many other studies show there is no higher risk in eating red meat and that such results as are offered by this latest farrago can easily be obtained by manipulating data. Cult of Scienceology followers reading this will accuse The Daily Stirrer of being anti science. We are not, we are anti-pseudoscirntific-bullshit. And we are not the only ones..The study’s findings were challenged by Dr Carrie Ruxton from the Meat Advisory Panel , an expert body funded by the meat industry.

She said: “This US study looked at associations between high intakes of red meat and risk of mortality, finding a positive association between the two. However, the study was observational, not controlled, and so cannot be used to determine cause and effect. “The authors’ conclusion that swapping a portion of red meat for poultry or fish each week may lower mortality risk was based only on a theoretical model.

In other words, other lifestyle factors that could have ben significant were factored out of the study. And again we see the common preference of modern, politicised scientists for working with theoretical models rather than reality.

Dr. Ruxton went on to point out this study’s conclusion conflicts with evidence from controlled trials. She pointed out that meat and meat products were significant sources of essential nutrients such as iron, zinc, selenium, B vitamins and vitamin D. So as these are all essential nutrients following the advice of the report would result in people being malnourished. Good work guys.

In the UK, red meat was “critically important” to zinc intake, contributing 32% of the total for men and 27% for women. Red meat also contributed around 17% of total dietary iron intake in the UK.

We give the last word to Dr. Ruxton: “In summary, this paper should not be used to dissuade people from reducing their current intake of red meat when it provides essential nutrients that are required as part of a healthy balanced diet.”

RELATED POSTS:
Frying Pan Fascists
Red Meat Is Part Of Our English Heritage
Food fascists, meat me halfway
Everything they said is bad for you is good

Meat eating and the politicisations of the digestive tract.

Vegetarians would win more support for their case if they stopped nagging, humping on health sare bandwagons and trying to bamboozle us with blatantly untrue political propaganda masquerading as socially responsible commentary.

A fine example is this article from the Grauniad web site today. Whiner in chief Barbara Ellen is having a god old whinge about meat eaters (as usual), justifying her nagging by citing the results of a new “scientific survey” that shows people who eat processed meat products have a significantly higher chance of developing pancratic cancer.

This is clearly another case of researchers being given a conclusion and paid to build a case to support it. Here’s a little extract of what Barbara has to say:

Analysis of more than 6,000 pancreatic cancer cases published in the British Journal of Cancer says that eating just 50g of processed meat a day (one sausage or a couple of slices of bacon) raises the likelihood of pancreatic cancer by a fifth. 100g a day (the equivalent of a medium burger) raises it by 38%, 150g by 57%.

Note the usual misleading phrasing there. 57%, oh that’s terrible, lots of us are going to die a slow, lingering death. Actually the incidence of pancreatic cancer in the population is about 1.8% if we estimate 500,000 people are born each year. So that’s 57% of 1.8%. That looks a bit different.

In 2008 there were 8,085 newly diagnosed cases of pancreatic cancer in the UK. Although there are a similar number of cases in males and females, the age-standardised rates are higher for males. (Cancer reasearch UK)

Now also you would think to read Ms. Ellen’s political speil on behalf of the red-green party that eating processed meat is the sole cause of pancreatic cancer. Not so according to Cancer Resesrch UK again:

The links between diet and pancreatic cancer are still unclear. Some studies have shown that you increase your pancreatic cancer risk if you have very high levels of sugar in your diet. But 2 studies have shown a lower risk for people with high sugar intake and 1 study showed no effect. Some studies have shown that your risk may also be increased if you eat large amounts of saturated fat in red or processed meats.

NB some studies, not ALL studies.

Some of the causes identified are: smoking, diabestes, excessive alcohol consupmption, bad diet, tooth or gum disease, somach ulcers, heredity.

Buggeration, if you cut out all the fun things in your life and stasrt living like a paranoid monk to satisfy the whiney Ms. Ellen, that heredity could still get you.

You may notice too that the article attacks meat eaters in general while the study shows the very slight increased risk is linked to processed meats only. As I said it’s just propaganda from the Limp Wristed Vegan Nazi Party (Guardian branch).

If you want a reason to give up or simply cut down on meat consumption and the rising price is not enough Mike St Mark will give you plenty of others.

Little Nicky however reminds readers that all statistics are lies and as usual advises moderation and eating the best quality food you can afford in medium sized portions. Avoid SPAM and keep away from those burger and kebab vans and hot dog barrows.

Dr. Strangelove’s Secret Bacon Butty Weapon.

Those harbingers of misery, the clinical research laboratory technicians or “scientists” as they like to style themselves, The Dr. Stranglove’s of medical science are busy peddling their misinformation and disinformation, or “research results” as they like to call it, again. Having kept up their 100% record for talking utter arse dribble last month with warnings on hazardous drinking (actually moderate alcohol consumption which is good for us) and how even thinking about having a cheese sandwich increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer by ninety nine million percent, they are now directing their attention towards our bacon butties. Is no British institution safe from these people as they target our dietary habits.

Their five year mission (sorry, scrub that – I wouldn’t want to give the impression these people are sad obsessive geeks who spend all their time in laboratories molesting small furry animals and get together once a year to celebrate Mr. Spock’s birthday) their mission as they see it is to make everyone live forever. Their approach is to make life so boring we will not live forever but it will seem as if we have. If we heeded the warnings, everything that makes eating pleasurable would have been removed from our tables by now.

The problem with the Government’s letting these nerds off the leash is that because the warnings are general rather than selective, nobody takes any notice. We all know that what is going on is the manufacture by a government intent on privatising the National Health Service, of excuses for denying people treatment in publicly funded hospitals. Unfortunately due to this and to the ineptitude of civil servants in all aspects of PR, the warnings are going unheeded by the people who need to heed them. Instead of mumbling about obesity and the discredited Body Mass Index ( BMI – this is the method of measuring obesity that showed Lynford Christie and Lennox Lewis at the height of their careers were both clinically obese – yeah, right.) why not show pictures of a hugely overweight couple and their overweight kids and caption it “Mr & Mrs Too Fat To Wipe and their family.” That would bang the message home. Forget the effing Body Mass Index, check the mirror. Love handles are OK, saddle bags are a no – no.

The Strangelove boys will never get their heads round such effective ways of communicating, quite simply they cannot communicate with organisms more complex than lab rats. The idea that human beings are all individuals who think for ourselves and make our own decisions is beyond their understanding. And we understand that we all die of something and the choices we make may effect that.

But if the choice is between a couple of years extra tagged on to the incontinent, demented, non – ambulatory end of our lives or a tasty breakfast now, bring on the bacon butties.

No doubt the dull witted denizens of the Bad Science forum, followers of thick – boy science guru Ben Goldacre will be anxious to remind me that as I am not a scientist I cannot understand these things and merely react emotionally to the hysterical misrepresentations of the media. Well as usual I looked up the reports and they are written to give the impression that eating red meat three or more times a week is a critical factor in the development of intestinal cancers. The statistics used in the report however show that if there is any critical factor it is simply old age.

The key to writing these reports is to use language with such precision they cannot be spun. A high level of red meat and particularly processed meats in the diet, combined with other lifestyle and environmental factors may contribute to the development of certain cancers. There is a science to language you see. Unfortunately scientifically precise language is never going to be sensational and hysterical enough to attract any big fat research grants, which is the real purpose of all these reports.

Before I move on to politics, economics and corporate fascism, kudos to the guys who won the Nobel Physics prize this year for their work on giant magneto resistance. Absolutely fascinating stuff, bordering on the mystical in fact, and an evolution from a technology I helped develop during my career. Got that Bad Science Forum thick – boys. Science is a big church, we all have our specialities and only those who are wannabees would refer to themselves with characteristic lack of precision as “scientists.”

Colon Cancer Set To Increase say scientists

Cancer Schmancer

After my recent bust ups with medical scientists I’m only too happy to link to an article at Huffington Post – Cancer Schmancer, one woman’s story of how she has formed a support group to help women who have been failed by the incompetence and laziness of “medical scientists” (or doctors to you and me) and make them learn that people are all different, inconveniently, irritatingly, unscientifically different.

Just because there is no “scientific” evidence that some people are better equipped to fight cancer than others, it is not acceptable to ignore the empirical evidence to say it is not so.

If you recall the original controversy was started by my suggesting the medical establishment were afraid to have an open debate on the MMR / Autism issue, you might like to take a look at this post from Ginger Taylor, an American mother of an autistic child. She shares many of my concerns about the basic honesty of the healthcare industry. And she finds their assurances that lay people like us cannot understand because we are “not scientists” utterly unconvincing as well.