quote:

ORIGINAL: domahpet

am searching for any and all info on imumme boosting suppliments and detox treatments for lymphoma, Someone verrry dear to me has just been diagnosed and im searching for ways to help Him become pro-active in His treatment and recovery. thank Y/you all for any tips

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Agreed, if he agrees to chemo or radiation, all bets are off when it comes to herbal or most nutritional remedies. If I am not mistaken, lymphoma is inpoperable and they will have to try to poison it.

Herbal/natural medicine CAN be used in conjunction with chemotherapy and or radiation treatment. They are not mutually exclusive.
Another piece of totally empirical proof, did the doctor ask him to write down a week's worth of his diet ? How can a doctor think you are not what you eat ? Where do these people educated for 10 years or whatever, get the notion that essential minerals just magically appear in your body ? How can the know that table salt is bad, but not see the same thing in sugar ? Answer is the same, money.

Doctors in general are not nutritionsists. Matter of fact they have very little education in nutrition. You can write down what you eat for a year and take it to your MD and you may as well be giving him a list of  how often you cut your toenails. I agree diet is as important, in the treatment of life limiting and chronic illness as treatment. Again, they are not mutually exclusive.
To the OP: when your friend meets with his MD, he can request a nutrtion consult and any MD will agree. Many oncologists do it as a matter of routine when a patient is undwergoing treatment

There is a school of thought, and it was started by, of all people, Louis Pasteur. Remember Pasteur was the one who identified germs, and started the idea that an operating theater should be clean. Lister went on to forward the idea.

Well, pasteur recanted. They were making alot of money on soap and disinfectants at the time and they didn't want to hear it. Louis Pasteur was murdered. Betcha didn't know that.


Pastuer did not identify germs. They were a well known quantity, he developed and provided scientific studies on the " germ thoery. The germ thoery was not new, but it was he who actually did the experiments  and came up with the data to prove it. The results of his experiments and the basis of his thesis was that germs are caused by fermentation, not spontaneous generation. Pastuer NEVER recanted, he went on to develope the rabies vaccine and he worked on anthrax and other vaccines.
 
Pastuer was not murdered ! He  had a stroke and died years later of complications of the stroke.
 
Pastuer < to my knowledge > had nothing to do with handwashing and a clean operating theatre. Lister, following Pastuers " germ thoery" applied that to the operating room and sterile and clean techniques. Pastuer was one of the founders of microbiology and he gave the foundation for others, like Lister to go forward.
Pasteur, before his death claimed that germs were not the CAUSE of disease, but PRODUCED by the diseased body. He was killed shortly thereafter. If you require substantiation I will get it.

I believe this is a marketing twist on Pastuers developement of vaccinations. The basis being that the germ could be combated/prevented with small doses of the germ itself.  If Pastuer believed that the body produced disease, he would have had no reason to be a leader in the PREVENTION of germ causing diseases by introducing the germ to the body. His efforts helped dismantle the theory of spontaneous generation. Making this part of the post in accurate.

There have been others to put forth this theory, and I can tell you this much, I am not a sanitary person. If I get cut I just let it bleed a bit, I only cover it if there is a reason, like I am working and there is nasty shit around, chemicals and the like. Or if the cut is in a tricky area, like when I got a 7 inch gash down to the bone at the side of my hand (from pinky almost to wrist). That needed stitches, but in my view, for mechanical reasons.

I have never worried about germs, and I don't know whether to attribute my health to a super immune system or that Pasteur was right in the end. After all, how did people treat sick people without getting sick ? Some get it and some don't, so to assume that exposure to the germs causes the disease is pure post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I am glad you have not had complications from not keeping wounds clean, but Pastuer's work does not support this. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I mean if they did not have immunizations, how, for example were nurses and doctors immune ?
Immunity is fairly complicated. There is natural immunity, in which the body spontaneously produces immunity to certain things. < ie: born with it>. There is acquired immunity, in which one ios exposed to small does of something on afrequent basis and their body builds up immunity to it. Either of these cases could be applied to wht MDs and nurses didn't die. But more importantly, MDs and nurses did die of the same diseases their patients had. Why do you think they did not die of disease/germs?
And again Pastuer would not back you up as he was a leader in vaccinations.


Following that theory, if one is susceptible, germs could indeed cause disease, but the predisposition was already there.
Every human being is predisposed to disease. Every one is susceptable. You're body has no predisposition to the HIV virus nor to syphyllis or cholera. But if you put yourself in the right postion you will most certainly get these diseases.

Now they talk of virii causing cancer, and who knows what else ? If it is a virus, why quit smoking ? Also explain the 90 year old Grandfather drinking Jack Daniels and smoking Lucky Strikes every day.
 
Cancer is a little more complicated than this. Cancer is not one disease with one cause.


So get on the diet, write down EVERY ORT, every drink of water and whether it was tap water (along with general geographic information). . Every medication, salt, pepper, hot sauce, EVERYTHING. This is important because not only are we looking for something wrong that is there, we also need to look for something right that is not there.
After he writes this down, where does he take it?

There is one fact, sans a congenital defect, the human body will function correctly if fueled correctly. This is a fact, because if not, we would not be here. People survived for thousands of years without modern medicine. People found a way.

So if I fuel my body correctly I can suround myself with peope with active TB and leprosy and not get ill ? The people who died in the Black Plague were simply inadequately nourished ?

And don't buy into that they only lived to be 30, that is bullshit. That is the average, but so many were killed by predators, wars and who knows what else, 30 was pretty good, as an AVERAGE. Fed well and not killed people could live to be 100. Proof you ask ? Proof I got right here, not in the form of a link or anything like a document, but a simple sentence.

There are people over 100 years old right now. They were not born yesterday, they were not born in a hospital, and they didn't probably ever see a doctor until and unless they couldn't walk. They did not have health insurance, they did not have a family doctor in most cases, there was more of a town doctor.
 
Yes, and many of these people have lost their children, siblings and  spouses who lived in the same enviornment and ate the same food as they.

In 1807, the civil war hadn't even started. They hadn't even experimented on those Black Men with syphillus (where they gave them a placebo instead of treatment to watch the progression of the disease).

No, people did not drop dead at 30, they were killed. They may have dropped dead at 90, provided they hadn't been killed yet, but these people worked the fields or mines, hard jobs. Harder than working at Ford in the old days. Yes they made good money at Ford, but it killed some of them, many quit because they couldn't take it, but some could.

Some died of disease, some died of suicide, some died of exposure to unknown < at that time> toxins. People do drop dead at 30, today and then.. for many different reasons. As simple as a clot to a massive stroke.

We are indeed getting weak as a species, so to manage that is important. As important as life itself, errr it is life itself. Life is getting cheap, but it is still important. The ticket out is still one way.

Let's see that diet.

T

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeveredNeuron

I am sorry, i have never done this to anyone in the forums, but before you post such lengthy and often deriving off topic posts Termyn8or please do some research or at least reference what your saying (since you seem to say it with such authority).

For the OP, my biggest advice for you is to go onto NCBIs pubmed and have a look at some of the papers. Most of them will probably be slightly too technical or too consumed by one detail, but try some of the reviews (some of them may be open access from NCBI but many wont be so you'll just have to plough through). Pubmed is also a bit of a wreck, even for people who know what they are looking for and how to find it, if you get too frustrated with it, try google scholar.
The URLS for websites mentioned are as follows:

Pubmed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed
or
google scholar: http://scholar.google.com/

Just be careful of what you type because these are databases and search engines for scientists and academics and can get fairly tiring to try and look through.

Also, to try and sort a few things out:
Agreed, if he agrees to chemo or radiation, all bets are off when it comes to herbal or most nutritional remedies. If I am not mistaken, lymphoma is inpoperable and they will have to try to poison it.
You do realise that a lymphoma is a cancer of the blood.. lymphocytes are white blood cells and in a lymphoma they grow spastically. You can't operate on a lymphoma.. actually you can, its called a bone marrow transplant, however its only successful if caught in the early stages. Also, you'll be surprised how many nutritional remedies have been researched. Dont forget that alot of the research done never gets recognition from the public since they will simply not understand the jardon and methodology.

I would also go along with looking at offshore data and research. The medical industry is especially nasty in the US, greedy and really screwed up. Good research suppressed and faulty data put forth as gospel. They have been proven wrong so many times it is not funny.
Okay, that part is a little insulting, its like an email i once got that said that we dont have a cure for cancer because it pays better to not have one. Having done research in cancer, i find this view very offensive. I would like to see what you are trying to do to stop one of the most mysterious killers of humans.

I would refuse the chemo and radiation, but that is me. In no way do I advise that, but I sorta do, but not without some sort of plan. Whatever caused this condition still exists and there is a clock ticking. That is he could die. You can't just ignore this, so don't refuse treatment unless you have a plan.
Exactly, dont refuse treatments.. but RESEARCH.. sometimes there are other avenues and oncologists havent spent over a decade studying their profession to know nothing. They will usually advise several alternatives unless the situation is very dire.

What about the diet thing ? Can you supply a list of about a week's diet ? I could probably try to tell him what to eat, but that is not going to work. This is not an easy thing. Not only are you looking for what is there, you are looking for what is not there.
Diet has not been a proven factor for setting off cancer let alone helping cure it!! The cells which have gone cancerous behave very differently to normal cells and changing your diet unexpectedly and in a large fashion may actually worsen the cancer by feeding the cancer extra nutrients (try and think of cancer as 'the blob' eating everything in its path, however lymphomas are slightly different).

My database suggests that nickel and selenium may help. Unfortunately it is not very specific. Another problem is getting the trace minerals, but having researched the mineral content of foods a bit, it seems that plants that are harder to grow, need real soil, won't thrive on hydroponics, etc., are the highest.
The use of nickel and other heavy metals has a poisonous effect on the body, and there has been limited data on the actual effect of heavy metals. Heavy metals tend to bind to haemoglobin and aggregate in the lungs.. which = bad.

Whatever path he chooses, I believe that one must start at the beginning, and you really are what you eat. Imagine a car, they build it but forget to put the oil in the engine. Well that is what people do when they eat for taste rather than substance. When I look at a plate of food taste is secondary, content is the most important. Is it balanced ? Is there something green there ? I also avoid eating things that are white. They are usually bleached.
Try reading something about metabolism.. and food.. food being bleached?? i am sure thats not good for you and would have never been allowed to be made by anyone!!

There is plenty of good advice out there, but I want to stress the diet issue. It is so important and Americans typically are totally ignorant of real nutritional facts. There is all kind of bunk going around. When herbalists heal, they do so with the mineral content of the herbs. Even hundreds of years ago, before they could really analyze foods chemically, a correlation was discovered between eating certain things and one's health. They did then what we can't seem to do now.
You seem to advocate a very 'leafy' and unprocessed foods, when research has found that the more processed (by this i mean cooked) a food is, the better it is for our stomachs and the better the nutrients are digested. Ofcourse veggies are a very good idea, but please dont give people ideas that eating vegetables will cure cancer. It hasnt in the past, i doubt it will now.


If research was conducted properly, things would be different. Doctors would not be as rich. You can't even get a medical institution to do a mineral assesment. And they refuse to even mention that mineral deficiency causes disease. Why ? Money. This statement both angers and insults me, why dont you work in a medical research centre before you make such harsh and ignorant comments.

Another piece of totally empirical proof, did the doctor ask him to write down a week's worth of his diet ? How can a doctor think you are not what you eat ? Where do these people educated for 10 years or whatever, get the notion that essential minerals just magically appear in your body ? How can the know that table salt is bad, but not see the same thing in sugar ? Answer is the same, money.
Unfortunately i doubt that most docs do a BSc in biochemistry and nutrition, but most know that vitamins and essiential minerals are needed.. such as some Amino acids because the body cant make them themselves (cats still have the ability to make vitamin c...). However the amount of vitamins and essientials we need isnt that much and most get it from their diets, so unless someone is eating complete rubbish all the time, they are getting these nutrients.

There is a school of thought, and it was started by, of all people, Louis Pasteur. Remember Pasteur was the one who identified germs, and started the idea that an operating theater should be clean. Lister went on to forward the idea.

Well, pasteur recanted. They were making alot of money on soap and disinfectants at the time and they didn't want to hear it. Louis Pasteur was murdered. Betcha didn't know that. Pasteur died of a series of strokes. Operating theatres SHOULD be clean.. would you like sepsis in your wounds?

Pasteur, before his death claimed that germs were not the CAUSE of disease, but PRODUCED by the diseased body. He was killed shortly thereafter. If you require substantiation I will get it. Please do.


I have never worried about germs, and I don't know whether to attribute my health to a super immune system or that Pasteur was right in the end. After all, how did people treat sick people without getting sick ? Some get it and some don't, so to assume that exposure to the germs causes the disease is pure post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I mean if they did not have immunizations, how, for example were nurses and doctors immune ? They risked their lives to save others...

Following that theory, if one is susceptible, germs could indeed cause disease, but the predisposition was already there.

Now they talk of virii causing cancer, and who knows what else ? If it is a virus, why quit smoking ? Also explain the 90 year old Grandfather drinking Jack Daniels and smoking Lucky Strikes every day. There are MANY cases of viruses causing some cancers, not all.. and usually none of the sporadic cancers.. please do some research.

There is one fact, sans a congenital defect, the human body will function correctly if fueled correctly. This is a fact, because if not, we would not be here. People survived for thousands of years without modern medicine. People found a way. False. The human body is like a massive machine with lots of moving parts, and they all have to move in synchoncity. Sometimes they fuck up. People didnt find a way, the weaker ones which could not survive an epidemic or cold weather DIED. The only reason there are so many people now is that we have adapted.


Cancer is a very serious disease and i refuse to let someone make statements which indicate that a change in diet may cure cancer. I have wish i didnt have to do this, but please do not give advice when you obviously havent done your research.I value your opinion but this is a serious matter.

-- Ania