Anita Moorjani Experiance?

[Mojo]

We can be concerned about sense instead of popularity.

Does that mean you're giving up on the "mass existing" nonsense?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

We can be concerned about sense instead of popularity.

True. And . . .

 

[Kumar]

Does that mean you're giving up on the "mass existing" nonsense?

Not only fake popularity but also sense or possibility of sense due to popularity on ultimate.

 

[Kumar]

True. And . . .

There are so many literatures available all over the world. Rarely anyone may justify absolute and final in science. Hence any presentation from any source can be sensible or not. We can just choose sense from any source instead of basing on just popularity. That link was also bit sensible may still not be absolute and final.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

There are so many literatures available all over the world. Rarely anyone may justify absolute and final in science. Hence any presentation from any source can be sensible or not. We can just choose sense from any source instead of basing on just popularity. That link was also bit sensible may still not be absolute and final.

Or then again . . . maybe not.

 

[Kumar]

Or then again . . . maybe not.

I do not or better can not straight away reject or accept in absolute any senseful or even logical presentation. Even not below one:-

Proposed biological and physiological factors/mechanisms [to Spontaneous Remission]
:

•Immune mediation
•Hormonal factors
•Inhibition of tumor growth by growth factors and/or cytokines
•Differentiation of the tumor into a more “normal” type of tissue
•Elimination of carcinogens
•Angiogenesis
•Tumor necrosis
•Programmed cell death (apoptosis)
•Genetic factors
http://www.noetic.org/frequently-asked-questions-about-spontaneous

Although some other patho-physiological or treatment related may also look logical.

 

[Kumar]

This is bit old but still can be relevant:-

J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol. 1996;15(2-4):65-73.
Potassium, sodium, and cancer: a review.
Jansson B1.
Author information
1Department of Biomathematics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston 77030, USA.
Abstract
Agents known or believed to be carcinogenic decrease the concentration of potassium and increase the concentration of sodium in the cells. Anticarcinogenic agents have the opposite effect. In all cases where we have information on an agent's carcinogenicity or anticarcinogenicity and on that agent's effects on cellular potassium and sodium concentrations the above relationships have been found to be true. Dietary carcinogenic agents studied include sodium, cadmium, fat, cholesterol, calories, and alcohol; dietary anticarcinogenic agents include potassium, vitamins A, C, and D, selenium, and fiber. The effect of calcium intake is less clear as that effect depends on the concentrations on sodium and potassium. Not only dietary agents but also other carcinogenic and anticarcinogenic agents work in the same way. The cancer-causing drug dimethylhydrazine increases sodium and decreases potassium in the cells, whereas, for example, indomethacin, an anticarcinogen, has the opposite effect. In aging potassium leaves the cells, sodium enters them, and the rates of cancer increase. Patients with hyperkalemic diseases (Parkinson, Addison) have reduced cancer rates, and patients with hypokalemic diseases (alcoholism, obesity, stress) have increased cancer rates.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9216787

 

[sackett]

Not only fake popularity but also sense or possibility of sense due to popularity on ultimate.

Could you please paraphrase that?

 

[Kumar]

Cancer and the transformation of life: An Interview with Athena Aktipis

Cancer is evolution taking place inside multi-cellular organisms. Cancer cells are perversely adaptive, in the evolutionary sense of the word, because they proliferate faster than neighbouring cells. Since evolution has no foresight, it doesn’t matter that the end result of cancer evolution is the death of the cancer along with its host.
https://evolution-institute.org/art...IdFPu74iaVtpRowJJ844mhG37DQyE6-YysaAraA8P8HAQ

Many new thoughts and theories keep on coming about cancer.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Many new thoughts and theories keep on coming about cancer.

Why yes there are:

For more than half a century, the war on cancer has been fought mainly with three weapons.

The oldest and most reliable of these has been the simplest — a scalpel, to cut out as much of the mass as possible. Any straggler cancer cells left behind are then scorched with radiation.

Finally, the malignant bits that manage to escape are poisoned with chemicals, although often with serious and unpleasant side effects.

As those three weapons continue to be improved and expanded, overall survival rates improve year by year.

Nearly two out of three Canadians diagnosed with cancer can expect to live at least five years, up from about a 50-per-cent survival rate two decades earlier.

You can read the rest at:

https://www.thestar.com/news/insigh...n-battle-against-disease-the-body-itself.html

 

[xjx388]

The best answer in these kinds of cases is "we don't know." It's ok to not know why something happened. Medical science does not understand every process that goes on in the body. Thats why research goes on; we want to know. "Spontaneous remission," is just a fancy way of saying, "we don't know."

What we can't do is fill in the blanks of our knowledge with wild theories. Look for the evidence and see where it leads us. I am confident that the evidence will NOT lead us to conclude NDE=cancer cure.

 

[Kumar]

Why yes there are:



You can read the rest at:

https://www.thestar.com/news/insigh...n-battle-against-disease-the-body-itself.html

Thanks for link. Actually I already studied Cancer Immunotherapy many times at ACS and NCI sites. It is further to what William Coley observed. However it is Biological therapy and I am looking for Biochemical Possibility. Biochemistry is of two types. Organic and Inorganic. I am trying to understand its Inorganic part relevance to cancer. Further we can not say, physiological pH, mucus, water & temperature changes can not be part of out defence mechanism. So these being environmental (better constitutional) factors, probably these should be looked at first.

 

[Kumar]

The best answer in these kinds of cases is "we don't know." It's ok to not know why something happened. Medical science does not understand every process that goes on in the body. Thats why research goes on; we want to know. "Spontaneous remission," is just a fancy way of saying, "we don't know."

What we can't do is fill in the blanks of our knowledge with wild theories. Look for the evidence and see where it leads us. I am confident that the evidence will NOT lead us to conclude NDE=cancer cure.

One thing is following another searching or researching for yet unclear matters in science. For searching, one may need any type of logical theory to get the hints and do further research to collect evidences. It is like this for example. You want some real gems. You go to remote places where chances of their presence are there. You do not recognize those real ones. You collect many cloured and shiny stones( not ordinary stones) and bring to your home. Then you show those to an expert who recognize and separate few real gems. This way you can get some otherwise you will not.

 

[Norman Alexander]

One thing is following another searching or researching for yet unclear matters in science. For searching, one may need any type of logical theory to get the hints and do further research to collect evidences. It is like this for example. You want some real gems. You go to remote places where chances of their presence are there. You do not recognize those real ones. You collect many cloured and shiny stones( not ordinary stones) and bring to your home. Then you show those to an expert who recognize and separate few real gems. This way you can get some otherwise you will not.

This has already been done, and we know what the gems are. Your problem is you keep trying to tell us the rejected shiny coloured stones are also gems when it is plainly obvious they are not and never have been. And then you bring us more shiny coloured stones of the same rubbish type in the hope that they too have magically become gems now.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The best answer in these kinds of cases is "we don't know." It's ok to not know why something happened. Medical science does not understand every process that goes on in the body. Thats why research goes on; we want to know. "Spontaneous remission," is just a fancy way of saying, "we don't know."

What we can't do is fill in the blanks of our knowledge with wild theories. Look for the evidence and see where it leads us. I am confident that the evidence will NOT lead us to conclude NDE=cancer cure.

No, ""Spontaneous remission," is just a fancy way of saying, "we don't know."" It is a way of saying that something is going on that we don't understand. Most of science is finding out what is going on.

 

[Kumar]

No, ""Spontaneous remission," is just a fancy way of saying, "we don't know."" It is a way of saying that something is going on that we don't understand. Most of science is finding out what is going on.

Yes there we/science need to understand it. Its reality may either be dependent on biological or biochemical mechanism.

 

[Susheel]

Yes there we/science need to understand it. Its reality may either be dependent on biological or biochemical mechanism.

What makes you think that science is not trying to do it? Is your problem that they haven't decided that the reason be attributed to supernatural effect that coincide with your world view?

 

[sackett]

Cancer is a terrible affliction anywhere in the world, and perhaps worst in countries where the bulk of the population is ignorant of medicine. Charlatans can prey on such people, and do, with almost any sort of half-plausible sounding chatter.

Homeopaths in particular have been exploiting their science-echoing (I should say, science-mocking) scammery for at least a century and half, to their own great profit, and they will, like all conmen, seize and appropriate anything that sounds cutting-edge – at least to a terrified, unschooled coolie who is desperate to live and who has no defense against the ruthless, the greedy, and the heartless.

But even in half-failed countries, there are laws against criminal quackery, and sometimes they’re enforced. Let all medical fakirs be wary: The snake-oil peddler who pretends to treat cancer can, and eventually will, fall foul of the police. Yes, even in Pakistan.

 

[Kumar]

This has already been done, and we know what the gems are. Your problem is you keep trying to tell us the rejected shiny coloured stones are also gems when it is plainly obvious they are not and never have been. And then you bring us more shiny coloured stones of the same rubbish type in the hope that they too have magically become gems now.

Value of a stone should be dependent on its scarcity instead on its quality because it is not eatable for us. Hence any stone can be important or precious anytime.

 

[Kumar]

Why yes there are:



You can read the rest at:

https://www.thestar.com/news/insigh...n-battle-against-disease-the-body-itself.html

Yes, but still we need more and better. I think we have less cared about Ions instabilities. May it be due that being systemic it is difficult to take up this route by Ion Channel Modulators(or Blockers). But still we use many, eg Calcium Channel Blockers for BP but they seems to be specific not systemic. Transcellular Shifts of Potassium, Sodium Ions can be effected by altered physiological pH also other mediators.Aberrant Intracellular Ions or Aberrant ICF & ECF Ions exchange can be important field for research for getting, spread and cure of cancer and for its spontaneous remission.

How you define spontaneous remission of cancer? Sorry, I am asking you because you was the first who had indicated it in this thread.