CureZone   Log On   Join
Re: Natural Therapies Warnings/Understanding

Hulda Clark cleanses
Wormwood, Clove, Clarkia, Turmeric, Epsom Salt, Uva Ursi, Goldenr...

Free Natural Teeth Restoration!
Make your own Organic, Tasty, and Effective, Fluoride-...

Google Advertisement
Google Advertisement
Google Advertisement
patientadvocate Views: 6,487
Published: 11 years ago
This is a reply to # 1,996,347

Re: Natural Therapies Warnings/Understanding

Yes...this article has been reviewed by myself, a licensed nurse and microbiologist, Phd Biochemist, and a natural MD...let me say clearly, the entire premise of this article is off. The characterizations are overstated to areas they do not apply, and the generalizations are inappropriate.

Comparing hyperbaric to ozone is inappropriate. Failure to identify the mechanisms of oxygen therapies is a complete failure of the article itself.

Each individual therapy should be looked at in it's own context and its own pathway and in no way should peroxide be compared with anything other than peroxide. Sure it's pro oxidant but how it is applied is crucial. ALso, the peroxide warnings almost sound scary...hell I have been taking peroxide in my tea since 2003 and I look gooooooood and feel good....why don't we see warnings about chemo toxicities in this article? Because this article was meant to do one thing....scare people away from safe therapies that have merit in favor of much more expensive, harmful therapies that have merits too...only those merits are overstated as well.

This article is classical disinformation and I think two years ago we posted a review and criticism of not only this article but also one written by Sloan Kettering for sure and I think that post is here on Curezone.

This article clearly states that getting oxygen into cancer cells is a difficult task...sound familiar? Ok...where does this common ground take us from here?
If this article states that oxygen therapies have little promise then why don't they address the absorption issue.
Why do they conclude that lack of efficacy is because the premise is wrong....why dont they even consider that lack of efficacy is related to the very absorption issue that they identified earlier in the article? The article has an ulterior motive.

The latest NEJAM article on Ozone proves it has efficacy. Oops, cat's out of the bag. Although it was tested as adjunct to radiation and chemo, although it shows that side affects are less with ozone and responses are improved, the fact remains its efficacy has been confirmed.
So I guess this article is wrong?

There are Mountains of data case histories on Ozone, to review one wanna be or two wanna be practitioners when there are thousands of research articles is a little disappointing for an article about a disease that affects every living person.

The bottom line is that photodynamic therapy used by modern medicine is an oxygen therapy, period. Chemo therapy is a pro oxidant mechanism, period...even radiation which causes burst of free radicals is considered pro oxidant in that let's just cut through the B.S. and look at what we do know. What we know is that modern medicine has used pro oxidant therapies since cancer had a name. So...let's be honest.

So, dont say that oxygen therapies have no efficacy when modern medicine is using pro oxidant therapies, has been using pro oxidant therapies for decades.

Natural therapies that are pro oxidant do not cause genetic damage that chemo pro oxidants cause. The weaknesses in natural therapies is the failure to dose them correctly and augment them correctly.

Using pro oxidant therapies without heavy salts will reduce the outcomes and yes there will be many cancer patients who do not respond and then that gives amunition to those that stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars off of cancer treatments that really don't work themselves.

There is so much data on ozone now days that it is legal in almost every single state. Why? FDA is one giant hard ass. They wont just let anyone make money on cancer patients as they are controlled by pharmaceutical corporations. Even former FDA chief stated publically that there was a huge conflict of interest within the FDA. So, why is ozone not regulated.....because there are too many Dr.'s, too many scientists, to much data to support its existance and if there wasn't...bam...ozone practitioners would be getting raided like Rife practioners were in California.

But what is really stupid is that to understand the basic premise of pro oxidant therapies all you need is highschool see, most organisms that ferment glucose have trouble fermenting glucose in the presence of high oxygen partial pressure....this is so basic it is stupid to go any further in this discussion.

Cancer centers, doctors, oncology groups, pharmaceutical companies stand to lose billions and billions of dollars if we could walk down the street and do a better job against cancer than anyone with a license could do.

There are so many things wrong with this article that I could write two more pages...but hey....anyone who wants to personally talk with cancer patients who used these therapies, contact me on my website and you can talk to the actual patients themselves. They just love advocating in front of oncologist....the conversation is like this...."So, tell me doctor, I was suppose to be dead a year you wish to tell me I am not really alive?"

Bret Peirce

Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2023

14.609 sec, (3)