Posts by ruggedscout91

velvetmarlin17 said:There it is. Or rather, there she is. My mother (65 years old) was admitted to the ER two years ago due to escalating abdominal pain. The doctors saw something on the ultrasound, laid her down, and made an incision. No prep, no biopsy, nothing. They removed a large tumor, though subsequent analysis showed it wasn't primary. A primary site was never found. The report didn't even suggest chemotherapy, so none was administered. Otherwise, they wouldn't have bothered complicating things. Just go for it!
In the following months, her markers spiked aggressively (they were right on the edge immediately after surgery). Various tests failed to locate the primary source. Then, she started watching her diet and taking various supplements. Since then, her markers have been steadily dropping; currently, two are below the threshold and one is near it.

So there you have it. No chemo, no radiation. Just one botched surgical job. Do you want to see the marker results?

Yes, she went to some charlatans (a famous expert) for alternative therapies. In my opinion, most of them are immoral. Some guy in a small town in the Midwest is selling some kind of liquid for $1000! He refuses to disclose what’s actually in that liquid. I suspect it would be bad for business. Fatal to his profits. 🙂

I don't buy into conspiracy theories either. But I do believe in money and power. Anyone who doesn't is a fool. Power is what drives everything.
Do you know who the leaders at the FDA are, or what industry they spent decades in before joining? Let me help you: they weren't working in academia. 🙂

A conspiracy theory could easily include methods for recruiting new patients—specifically, ways to introduce substances that act as potential generators for malignant growths and other neoplasms (like uterine fibroids).
I am referring directly to the idea that vaccines might be responsible for certain types of malignancies that trigger their "siren song" and explosion according to the vaccination rhythm of the young population, showing a shift in certain diseases over a 10-year period. This same pattern is seen in multiple sclerosis and certain degenerative brain diseases.
However, ordinary people like us on this forum still have no clue what we are eating or drinking, let alone what is contained in vaccines.
We can only look at Africa and what is happening to its population today. Because we could just as easily become like Africa one day, if someone decides we are suitable for experimentation.

velvetmarlin17 said:👍

Exactly. You stated two truths:

Cancer is a massive industry. They push their "solutions" aggressively, regardless of whether they actually work. Does anyone truly believe otherwise?
Nixon declared a "war on cancer" back in the '70s—those were his exact words. Since then, the overall statistics haven't actually improved. Sure, we've seen better techniques and treatments for specific types, but looking at the big picture? We're just spinning our wheels. Every... Diagnosed. A single patient in the US—even one with the most benign diagnosis imaginable—generates upwards of $100,000 for the industry. Now, take that figure and multiply it by the total number of patients. Cancer remains the second leading cause of death in the US. The statistics look just as grim across the rest of the Western world. Is it any wonder how the math works out?

2. Even though white corners—a brilliant expression, wouldn't you agree? 🙂Death certificates list cancer as the cause of death, but is that really the full story? Most people actually succumb to total systemic exhaustion rather than cancer itself. Why do we keep ignoring the bigger picture?
Poor nutrition leads to rapid physical depletion. We are still a long way from a tumor actually threatening a specific vital function—like compressing an artery or causing organ failure. Why is that the case? Always follow the money. There is simply no money in nutrition compared to the pharmaceutical industry and medical device sales, so nobody bothers to push it. Big Pharma doesn't exactly promote it. Most people don't have the slightest clue about the link between diet and cancer. Still, things are slowly starting to shift in that direction.

🙂

No, you certainly won't see anyone being admitted to the morgue for kidney failure—after being perfectly healthy—due to chemo therapy. Or perhaps liver toxicity? What about any other organ responsible for flushing out toxins? Does that ever happen?
I cannot wrap my head around it. We have already witnessed the complete destruction of the immune system, the swelling of lymph nodes, and the forced ingestion of toxic drugs that finish off everything cancer failed to touch. Now, we are seeing this new trend—though it’s hardly new, just more aggressive—of flooding the body with vitamins and minerals. Is anyone actually thinking? The digestive system is no longer capable of absorbing this constant influx of new chemicals. Let's be clear: both minerals and vitamins are chemicals. If they cannot be absorbed, or if they are taken in excess, they become harmful. What is actually happening here? Instead of healing, the body is being forced to deal with the expulsion of these additional "medicines." It treats them like waste, further clogging organs that are already struggling to process the cellular toxins present in the body. Why push it this far?

The goal is to boost the immune system to a higher level of activity. But what does that actually achieve? If the immune system doesn't even recognize the cancerous tissue as a threat, what is it actually fighting? It starts defending the cancer itself. The collateral damage? Every healthy cell in the body. No matter how many intense studies claim young cancer cells lack certain markers or specific traits, they adapt quickly. They learn to hide, and our own immune system ends up helping them along the way. Is that really the outcome we want?
From that perspective, one might argue that cancer remission is little more than a series of developmental stages. Is a first remission simply the transition from preschool to kindergarten? Is a second remission merely moving from kindergarten to elementary school? And a third? That would be the jump from elementary to middle school.

From what I’ve observed personally regarding those who have suffered or are currently battling illness, the results tell a grim story. Those strictly following official medical protocols seem to fare much worse. Is it simply because their condition requires constant hospitalization and clinical monitoring? Perhaps. But beyond that, they are left with far less quality time than anyone else.
You can't view everything through the lens of glioblastoma. Not every carcinoma strikes at the heart of a vital organ.

urbanorca said:If we are all different species biologically, why do doctors prescribe nearly identical chemotherapy protocols that carry such devastating side effects? Can anyone explain this?

Chemotherapy exists primarily to generate massive profits. Its function is simply to smother the cancer and lull it into dormancy while simultaneously destroying essential healthy cells in the process.
Once the treatment cycle ends, the cancer often returns even more aggressive, having utilized the body's own resources to defend itself. It remains invisible and unrecognizable to the host's immune system because the system perceives it as normal tissue.

The day the pharmaceutical industry finds they are losing more money than they are making from cancer will be the day a completely free cure is announced.
Personally, I know more people who died from the side effects of therapy—with their organs completely ravaged and poisoned—than those who actually died from the cancer itself. Rarely does the disease kill you in the end; more often, the white coats kill you with bad medicine.

I think it’s worth getting an FBI checkup and some bloodwork done. Just in case she's pregnant.

Coffee works perfectly fine for me.
I’ve never dealt with bone issues or heart problems. I always look ten years younger than my age; my skin glows, and my hair stays healthy.
It doesn't affect my sleep at all. In fact, it just leaves me feeling refreshed.
I love drinking coffee. I love the scent of it. Does anyone know if there is actually a coffee-scented perfume out there?
My grandmother drank coffee and lived to be 88. She passed away from a stroke, but the complications stemmed from an encephalitis infection she had as a child. Aside from that, she was healthy.

Does the ultrasound report specify exactly what is occupying that abnormal space? Does it mention the density of the air-filled area? Is it just gas? Could it be fluid? Or perhaps actual tissue? What kind of densities are we looking at?
A rather unconventional topic for a discussion.

amberheron62 said:Breast tissue isn't held up by muscle, but by Cooper's ligaments. That makes the Virginia theory completely irrelevant. Once those ligaments stretch, they don't snap back—and they’ll certainly stretch if you keep pulling on them with your "free-range" approach. 😉
Just wear a bra. Unless it's a special occasion, comfort should be the priority, and pay attention to the fit. Looking at the discussions on various forums, half the women out there don't even know their actual size.

P.S. Obviously, you sleep without a bra.

I value such expert insight. 😁

Ashley Collins11 said:I don't have a fever, but my joints and muscles ache, and I feel weak. I've been feeling exhausted for quite some time now, so I can't tell if it's the heat or just my "normal" state. My doctor claims it’s likely just some viral infection and didn't prescribe anything since my lungs sound clear and my throat isn't red.

The fact that this has dragged on for ten days concerns me. My temperature stays below 98.6 in the morning and evening, but by the afternoon, it climbs to about 99.1. I've read that all sorts of illnesses can present with these lingering low-grade fevers, and frankly, I'm starting to panic. What am I supposed to do when the doctors just dismiss it as "probably a virus"? 😕

Daily spikes in temperature almost always point toward inflammatory issues in the head—specifically the skull, sinuses, or neck.

I’ve never had a bad Pap smear, nor am I carrying HPV. My husband was my first partner, and I was his.
That said, I use condoms religiously because they make sex much more comfortable for me. I've become so accustomed to them that trying without one actually feels off.
Is there any actual harm in using condoms consistently?

The Bible says it best: "moderation in food and drink."
Moderation should be the rule of thumb for vitamins, too. If you’re eating a well-balanced diet, why even bother rushing to a pharmacy? You can find Vitamin K in lemon zest, and there's actually more Vitamin C in the peel than in the juice itself. If you grow your own food without dousing it in pesticides, you have everything you need right there in your garden.
Stop letting Big Pharma rob you blind. Their priority is profit, and you aren't even a close second on their list.

I’ve felt an attraction to other men on more than one occasion, which could have easily led to an affair.
After weighing the moral consequences and obsessing over the guilt that would follow, I ultimately backed away—driven largely by the fear of contracting an STI.
My husband and I married when we were incredibly young; we were essentially each other's first everything when it comes to intimacy.
Honestly, I think I’d be a fool to take such a risk now just because someone happens to catch my eye. Is a fleeting spark worth that kind of gamble?
Not if it means living with the constant anxiety of HPV, HIV, or worse.
What is everyone else's take on this?
Do you give in to the impulse, or do you stay disciplined and spend the rest of your life wondering "what if"?

We’ve conveniently wiped the Chernobyl disaster from our collective memory, yet the mutagenic and teratogenic consequences are only just surfacing now, decades after the initial explosion.
That explains why we saw such an overwhelming surge in thyroid cancer among children exposed back in 1986, or those born in the immediate aftermath.
The bill is still coming due today.
There is a fascinating parallel to be drawn here between our situation and what happened in Norway regarding brain tumor rates.
One could certainly dig deeper into the similarities in exposure—whether it’s environmental toxins, diet, climate, or other factors.

Regarding the repeated discussion on carcinomas and the immune system, one could argue that the real benefit lies in resolving all those minor inflammatory issues within the body. Even something as simple as a problematic tooth can constantly drain and exhaust the immune system's resources. Then there are bacterial pathologies that are easily treated, or the various trivial viral illnesses we can simply avoid through basic precaution.

I recall someone once suggesting that even cancer cells can contract the flu, essentially acting as hosts for viral production. However, once the flu passes, everything returns to its previous state.

Therefore, the focus should be on the careful preservation of the immune system and the consumption of optimal nutrients required to sustain all bodily functions.
Maintaining immunity isn't just about loading up on vitamin supplements—which aren't always harmless when overused. True maintenance involves timely rest, quality sleep, a balanced diet, fresh air, and activities that stimulate circulation and systemic function.
After all, cancer is an immune system disease.

Angela Wright said:🙄
You aren't actually engaging with my point. 😳 I clarified my thesis further—my mistake for not being explicit from the start to avoid confusion, mea culpa— regarding the specific quote from my initial post that I am addressing. Your issue lies in prejudging me and taking things too personally, especially regarding parts I didn't even mention.
Let’s clear the air and summarize:
1. I agree with you regarding the compounding of risk.
2. I was quoting the section about "smoking or not," which I have now elaborated upon.

Is the misunderstanding resolved?

What we are seeing is reverse psychology used by smokers to comfort themselves and justify their habits. It isn't idiocy; it is addiction. Though, idiocy certainly paves the way for it. By the way, your statistic is slightly off; I believe it's closer to 20%. I'll double-check, but it's only that way because cardiovascular diseases take precedence—a heart attack or stroke hits before cancer does. Given current trends, one in three Americans will face cancer. Encouraging, isn't it?🙂 Consequently, that percentage will likely keep climbing until cardiovascular issues and cancer are neck and neck.
What actually concerns me is the rise in rare tumors, such as sarcomas and brain tumors, where the cause remains largely a mystery.

p.s. You still haven't mentioned whether you smoke or not. 😉

The rise in brain tumors seems proportional to how long people have been glued to their cell phones.
We are now seeing the sickness manifest in generations that were using mobile phones ten years ago. We are seeing an increasing number of young people with carcinomas and benign brain tumors appearing at higher rates.
Enough time has passed for studies to be conducted on these patterns. However, those mediocre gatekeepers who manufacture public opinion here and abroad have no interest in publishing the truth.

Joseph Watson3 said:You haven't understood a single thing. You’re just talking nonsense and trying to shove my own words back down my throat. Is that really how this works?

In what universe does a 50% chance of dying a slow, agonizing death from smoking count as a justification? You seem unable to grasp the sheer probability at play here. Taking my statement about whether one smokes or not as an excuse is simply a reflection of your own cognitive limitations. It's a fact.

Let me lay it out for you: if you have cancer in your immediate family, your odds of developing it yourself essentially double. Is that clear enough? Whether they smoked or not. Does it even matter? For those who smoke, that risk increases even further. Is anyone actually surprised? It multiplies by nine or ten. If you interpret this as an excuse to keep smoking, then there is no point in continuing this conversation. It seems you lack the basic ability to connect individual sentences into a coherent thought.

By the way, that figure stating 17% of smokers develop cancer is perfectly accurate. I don't see how anyone could misinterpret it; the number itself is devastatingly clear for smokers. Is there any other legal human activity—aside from organized crime—that carries a 17% chance of ending in a slow, agonizing death? If someone manages to get that wrong, they're a complete idiot.

Your philosophy boils down to this: cleanliness accounts for half of your health, while the filth is just the other half.
I know one thing for certain: philosophers have never actually cured anyone. Instead, they’ve spent centuries simply providing excuses where real solutions were nowhere to be found.

I used to be a smoker. One day, I simply decided: I am done. No more. I refused to let a pack of cigarettes dictate my life. I was an addict, someone who couldn't even imagine waking up without a box on the nightstand. And that was that. It was finished.
Ten years smoke-free. I don't miss it one bit. Everything tastes better now, I don't smell like an ash tray, and that constant cough is gone. My health has improved significantly. Honestly, my only regret is why I didn't make the switch sooner. Why wait a decade?

Every family carries certain genetic duplications that act as carriers for specific diseases.
Suppose a man and a woman, both carrying these duplicated genomes, marry and have a child. That child will then inherit a predisposition for a particular illness—essentially a systemic failure occurring during cell division in the fetus.
Is it any wonder people used to warn a visually impaired young man to at least marry a woman without a history of vision issues? Or why someone carrying a hereditary disease would investigate their partner's medical history before marriage?
In parts of Europe, specifically in Norway and Sweden, genetic testing is common to prevent issues arising from potential consanguinity. Now, however, these tests are being used to screen for various transmissible genetic conditions beyond just neurological disorders.
There is a significantly higher risk that a child born to parents with compromised lungs or other weakened systems will become a target for cancer. This makes it vital to purge those systems of the chemicals and toxins they were never meant to hold.
After all, our lungs are designed for breathing, not acting as a chimney. Most of you likely know that modern tobacco products are often infused with aromatic solutions made entirely of chemicals; smokers using these highly processed filtered cigarettes might actually face more health risks than those who smoked traditional hand-rolled tobacco.

Grace Campbell88 said:Are you actually suggesting that since my grandfather and father both died of cancer—one definitely from smoking, the other from unknown causes—and I’ve quit smoking myself, I still face a better than 50 percent chance of getting sick? Or is it just if I smoke? Or if I don't? 😕

That isn't how this works. If you are a heavy smoker and develop lung cancer, and it's determined to be caused by smoking, then logically, you got cancer because of the cigarettes. If you aren't a smoker, your chances of developing that specific cancer are significantly lower because the primary driver has been removed. What does heredity even have to do with it if your father got cancer because he was a chain smoker, yet you are a non-smoker? How can we conclude that you could "trigger" a predisposition to "earn" cancer?

It's all nonsense. Just numbers and statistics. If a person smokes heavily, their chances of developing cancer increase, or if they abuse their body or mind in other ways. If they don't, the odds decrease because those factors aren't present.

There is a philosophy forum for posts like this.
If philosophy can save you 50 percent of the time, fine. But you can't philosophize about health.
Besides, the human body wasn't designed to function as a chimney or a smoker's lounge. Make your choice. Be a smoker, or have functional lungs, a throat, and vocal cords.

Eric Hall51 said:I can't stop thinking about my family history. Both my father and my paternal grandfather dealt with cancer. My father had a tiny lesion on his jaw, but after he passed, the autopsy revealed a 7 cm tumor in his lungs. My grandfather also died from lung cancer. They both smoked heavily, and frankly, so do I. Is there a high probability that I'm next? And is it even worth stressing over this if I don't intend to quit smoking?🤷..........thanks

Just quit smoking.

restlesscobra9 said:Maybe try focusing those anxieties on something else. Like your phone.🙂

I couldn't agree more. Less whining about cell phones on social media.

That might apply to those old CRT monitors, but modern screens use liquid crystals.
Nowadays, almost everyone uses the newer models. With these contemporary displays, you don't have the same issues with calcium exposure. However, one still has to account for total screen time and ambient lighting—specifically, ensuring your workspace has two balanced light sources: the monitor itself and the room's primary lighting.