The existence of God and the efficacy of prayer

[kyrani99]

I thought you meant it wasn't taken seriously by the "real" medical community, and one had to go through a site like Noetic Sciences to find case studies.

If it's popular articles you want, well, there's not as much about rare stuff, because it's rare. I've never just run across an article or news item about my kind of cancer either, without looking. Doesn't mean the publications think rare things don't exist. Doesn't mean there's a conspiracy to keep them hidden. There are hundreds of angles about cancer to cover, which is just one disease out of hundreds to cover, and there are only so many pages or so much air time. If your post was supposed to whip up some sort of emotion about a conspiracy to keep spontaneous remission hidden, it's not working for me. If that wasn't the purpose, then I have no clue what it was.

A quick google pulled up

Medscape
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/827945

Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifes.../ct-cancer-remission-met--20140914-story.html

Discover Magazine
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/sep/the-body-can-stave-off-terminal-cancer-sometimes

BBC
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150306-the-mystery-of-vanishing-cancer

Medscape is really an article on Dr Tuner and her views, eg nutrition etc., which do not give answers.
But she does admit that that spontaneous remission is not investigated.


News! Yeah with an agenda.

Chicargo Tribune.
“Studying these exceptional people, however, is fraught with difficulty, controversy and the dangers of promoting bad science. The potential benefits of highlighting the unusual recoveries should be balanced against the risks, experts warn, including offering patients false hope, blaming those who succumb and encouraging alternative treatments in place of conventional methods that could prolong or save lives. “


Discover Magazine
"Pinning down spontaneous remissions has been a little like chasing rainbows. It’s not even possible to say just how frequently such cases occur—estimates generally range from 1 in 60,000 to 1 in 100,000 patients. Many cases, when subjected to close scrutiny, prove not to have been remissions at all. According to Stephen Barrett, a retired psychiatrist who operates Quackwatch, a number of people claiming to have had spontaneous remissions or to have been cured by alternative treatments never had cancer in the first place. Barrett, who has tracked claims of cures through alternative therapies, says some people were given mistaken diagnoses. Other claims, he says, are outright scams, used to promote books and videos that purport to share the secret of curing cancer or AIDS."

And note Dr Barret is biased. http://www.raysahelian.com/quackwatch.html

" Why is there no review of Vioxx on Quackwatch? Why is there no mention on quackwatch.org of the worthless cold and cough medicines sold by pharmaceutical companies and drug stores? Hundreds of millions of dollars are wasted each year by consumers on these worthless and potentially harmful decongestants and cough syrups. Why is there no mention on quackwatch of the dangers of acetaminophen use, including liver damage?"

And he is not a doctor.
http://www.encognitive.com/node/1213
Stephen Barrett, founder of Quackwatch, is a delicensed medical doctor. In addition, he failed the medical board exam required for a psychiatrist. His using the "MD" after his name is misleading and even fraudulent. He has never performed scientific research, nor written a scientific paper, but yet discredits Nobel Prize scientists such as Dr. Otto Warburg and Dr. Linus Pauling. Stephen Barrett is one BIG QUACK who is financed by the pharmaceutical industry that makes quack medicine.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/stevenbarrrettcourtroomdefeat20oct05.shtml
http://www.health-report.co.uk/quack_busters_scam_revealed.htm

BBC
The BBC had a better article but they use it to promote more cancer treatments , some are bizzare such as "one approach aims to deliberately infect cancer patients with a tropical disease."

They do give a glimmer of hope at the end.
"Clearly, caution is necessary. As Irvine points out: “Spontaneous remission is a little clue in a big complicated jigsaw.” But if – and that is a massive if – they succeed, the implications would be staggering. A rapid, relatively painless recovery from cancer is now considered a miracle. The dream is that it might just become the norm."

But it is in the light of [I]what doctors can do[/I] and not what the body can do, which is really what spontaneous remission is about!

 

[kyrani99]

You mentioned something similar in a previous post, and I meant to ask about it then. Do you believe that a specific person has deliberately tried to give you cancer?

There is an army standing against me and they involve a few corrupt federal police. They have recruited toxic relatives and it's been going on now since 1994. The first corrupt policeman that became involved was pointed out to me in 2002 and done to try and scare me.

These days they are also trying to recruit people on some forums and try to use responses made to me with hashed meanings.

The irony is that if they had never attacked me I would not have been able to wise up to their foul play, document it and put it on the web.

However they will fail. I know with certainty that I will be able to bring the matter to the public and expose the evil sub-culture and the medical fraud.

 

[kyrani99]

Occam's Razor: The water rinsed away whatever surface substance was causing the reaction.

Example: the sap from the plumeria tree usually causes itchiness and redness. But it rinses off easily with plain old water (quicker with a little soap) and the itchiness clears up within just 15 minutes or so.

Occam's Razor is superflous!
For years I had cut guinea grass and never got a rash.
The rash appeared with the toxic suggestion AND now that I reject the suggestion and affirm that the guinea grass is harmless there is no rash.

This is not the same as the example you give. There is no toxic sap or anything else. It was an idea pure and simple.

 

[Pup]

There is an army standing against me and they involve a few corrupt federal police. They have recruited toxic relatives and it's been going on now since 1994. The first corrupt policeman that became involved was pointed out to me in 2002 and done to try and scare me.

These days they are also trying to recruit people on some forums and try to use responses made to me with hashed meanings.

The irony is that if they had never attacked me I would not have been able to wise up to their foul play, document it and put it on the web.

However they will fail. I know with certainty that I will be able to bring the matter to the public and expose the evil sub-culture and the medical fraud.

Thanks for that reply. My father was a paranoid schizophrenic (out of my life 40 years before I got cancer so the stress of dealing with him didn't affect that). But I think I'll bow out of the thread now.

 

[I Am The Scum]

And down the rabbit hole we go...

 

[kyrani99]

I was right, you are looking in the wrong place.

ETA: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noetic_science


The placebo effect and faith healing are two different things. To show that any form of faith healing is effective you would need to show that it has an effect over and above placebo, same as for any other treatment.

In a drug trial placebo is faith healing, the faith held by the patient in a drug.

You are thinking that the placebo is no treatment. This is not true.
In a single blind, where patients are able to perceive what the doctors know the dummy drug is no treatment. NO ONE in the control got well.

BUT in a double blinded trial, the patients can't perceive and know what the doctors know. The patients don't know what they are getting. In such a case the patient who is desperate to get well -according to doctor Rankin MD they amount to 18 to 80% of the patients- will choose to believe that they are given the real drug. Thus we find patients in the control get well and in some cases do better than those on the real drug.

Thus the placebo effect is seen as a grave disadvantage. And those trials, according to Dr Goldacre and the international control bodies, "go missing in action", i.e., they are NOT PUBLISHED and sometimes filed away and not even the government controlling bodies have access. But as Dr Goldacre and other doctors have revealed, when trials are not reported the statistics obtained in meta analysis of all trials revealed are skewed. They show that there are trials which have not been made public. The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies are in control of the research and what gets published.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why is there no review of Vioxx on Quackwatch? Why is there no mention on quackwatch.org of the worthless cold and cough medicines sold by pharmaceutical companies and drug stores? Hundreds of millions of dollars are wasted each year by consumers on these worthless and potentially harmful decongestants and cough syrups. Why is there no mention on quackwatch of the dangers of acetaminophen use, including liver damage?

Because it's not quackery. The harmful side effects of vioxx and acetaminophen are well known, and are actually listed on the drug packaging, and are easily and ubiquitously available on several public websites.

Cough and Cold medicines work great at what they're intended to do: alleviate the symptoms of run-of-the-mill colds. They make no claim to cure colds, and if used within the recommended dosages, present no particular dangers.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Occam's Razor is superflous!
For years I had cut guinea grass and never got a rash.
The rash appeared with the toxic suggestion AND now that I reject the suggestion and affirm that the guinea grass is harmless there is no rash.

This is not the same as the example you give. There is no toxic sap or anything else. It was an idea pure and simple.

Is it *impossible* for you to have come into contact with an insect or a chemical that had been applied to that grass on that occasion, but had not been present before? Is it *impossible* that the reaction may have been to something contacted prior to the grass? Have you ruled out all of the other possible factors involved so that you can say 100% that it was only the idea and absolutely nothing more?

It's entirely possible that you, personally, are more prone to suggestive ideas than most people are. Psychosomatic reactions are a real thing, after all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Thanks for that reply. My father was a paranoid schizophrenic (out of my life 40 years before I got cancer so the stress of dealing with him didn't affect that). But I think I'll bow out of the thread now.

I believe I will follow.

 

[kyrani99]

And yet another time, it didn't work, even with the placebo effect. Woman in white coat says this is a very safe painkiller, and I'll give you an antinausea shot too, with a medicine so gentle we use it on pregnant women for morning sickness. This was late night at the ER before hospital admission, and I was looking forward to being admitted and having symptoms controlled. So I had a full-on placebo effect going, combined with positive thinking.

I had anxiety attacks till the painkiller wore off 12 hours later, and started vomiting first thing in the morning. Absolute hell. Absolutely unexpected. As soon as the medicines got out of my body, the hospital switched to others, and I was fine and went home in a couple days with a new painkiller and appetite stimulant, feeling much better, as I hoped.

I think there's a real placebo/nocebo effect, but it can't necessarily overrule what's happening physically, if the physical effect is too strong. My body apparently really didn't like those medicines.

That's probably the heart of our differences, because I don't think the placebo/nocebo effect is so strong that it can replace regular medicine to cure cancer or other serious ailments. In my case, it can't even stop anxiety attacks and vomiting, but if someone else said it did that for them, I'd believe that was the real cause, because those are the kinds of things it's known to work for.

This is a case where the medicine gave a side-effect. It is not that every case is a nocebo or placebo effect. Drugs have side effects because they act generally throughout the body. It is unavoidable once they get into the bloodstream. The make changes to how cells work and that might be desirable in one area but bad news in another.

It doesn't replace medicine, it adds to it.
So a placebo effect will act independently of the medicinal effect but the over all is that the person gets better may quicker or more completely than with the effects of the drug alone.

If there is a nocebo effect then this too will be independent of the drug. If the drug has a side effect then the nocebo will add to the side effect. If the drug doesn't have a side effect then the nocebo will seem to be a side effect when in fact it is not due to the drug.

Your vomiting may have been due to the drug but in the light of anxiety it may still have been a nocebo effect. Anxiety is considered to be an emotion and associated with fear as far as doctors are concerned. I found that anxiety is due to two concurrent emotions, fear and worry.

Together fear and worry are a bad mix. But in your case here there may have been an additional fear. The reason I say that is because if fear is very strong it will make you vomit. Why? because fear declines the digestive system and if you take anything, even water, your body will expel it.

 

[kyrani99]

Is it *impossible* for you to have come into contact with an insect or a chemical that had been applied to that grass on that occasion, but had not been present before? Is it *impossible* that the reaction may have been to something contacted prior to the grass? Have you ruled out all of the other possible factors involved so that you can say 100% that it was only the idea and absolutely nothing more?

It's entirely possible that you, personally, are more prone to suggestive ideas than most people are. Psychosomatic reactions are a real thing, after all.

The matter happened many time with exactly the same conditions. The first time I did nothing. The second time I used what I thought was witch hazel. BUT in the meantime my husband revealed to me how a cheat is done. From then on I was aware that any thoughts about the guinea grass being toxic were mere suggestions.

Psychosomatic reaction is not real at all. It is just some rubbish made up by psychiatrists. Everything they come up with is just invention.

There is nothing psychosomatic about it. Ideas, which are upheld with confidence, enough to become beliefs will give rise to reactions in the body. The reason has nothing to do with psychosomatic garbage. It has everything to do with the fact that the body is purpose-driven AND NOT A MACHINE.
But of course acceptance of that upturns the whole of medicine.

As for my being more prone to ideas. If that was the case they would not now be looking at the grim means that they want to use to try and kill me (which will fail ), because they can't cause me to get sick anymore.

 

[Donn]

I believe I will follow.

Yeah, me three.

 

[Pixel42]

Yeah, me three.

Likewise. Nothing we can do to help here.

 

[kyrani99]

I've rolled this around a lot, and I keep coming back to this as your claim:

Cancer is caused by bad/wrong/toxic beliefs. The body reacts to bad/wrong/toxic beliefs by creating cancer cells. IF the person can be guided to let go of their bad/wrong/toxic beliefs, then their body will stop reacting to it and go back to it's normative good/healthy state - which means they will go in to spontaneous remission.

Is that an accurate paraphrase of what you're trying to convey?

Yes that is a reasonable paraphrasing. The matter though is a little more complex.

To try and summarize the foul game play:-

1. a concealed threat is used to cause emotional reactivity of fear, which may not be recognized as fear in a concealed threat. For example the first time I had only believed I had lots of energy and equated it to health.

2. an idea is used together with a subliminal image. The idea used is usually something that will get past that person's defenses because it will appear to be depicting something in their life. For example one idea that was used in causing me bowel cancer was "it's being guttered" and "it's been guttered". I had at the time had a part of a floor ripped up and replaced. So the idea appeared to be about that BUT it was hashed to try and change the meaning and done subtly using a pause. So "it's been.....guttered". It was not obvious.

Then a barely conscious or subliminal image is used. The image they used what of an action of attacking my abdomen. An image, even if sub-conscious causes activity in the area due to the action of mirror neurons in the brain.

However the body is smart. It says "hmmm I am not getting any sensory information back from the area to the brain" so it will dismiss this as just a reaction to an idea.

3. To overcome this effect the person is caused to feel some emotion relevant to the area, first.. i.e., before any image is presented. So for instance they only started to attack me in this way after they had created an issue that caused me some despair.

What happened I could see had something to do with water metabolism but I still haven't figured why. In case of the lungs sadness is used and here water metabolism is also affected and that may be because if the person cries water is expelled from the body so the body takes care to be conservative. In any case some sensory information goes to the brain from the organ in question. This is mistaken IF there is a concurrent mental image that causes activity in the area.

So there is an overall appearance that maybe the mental image is depicting something real.

In the case of pancreatic cancer of the beta islet cells, I notice they didn't use an emotion but rather another idea of "needed to go" and again relating to some real situation.

What effectively happens is that the person associates all of these ideas and emotions and arrives at a belief that there is possible harm going to happen or happening. The body reacts by trying to build a barrier. And of course a barrier can only be built by cells.

If the person can be made angry, then they cause the person to build a bigger and bigger barrier and build it faster, which translates to an aggressive cancer. And here again the anger may or may not be consciously recognized or associated with health. But the problem is that the person sees the theatre of war in their body and not in the interpersonal environment where it really is.

Thus if the foul game play can be recognized and the person suddenly realizes that the ideas are only suggestions and unrelated to the emotional activity of various sorts, then the person stops reacting. And the body gets new instructions that the barrier is not needed and clears it away.

I saw one occasion where I was reacting extremely badly and once I recognized the false idea I had immediate relief. I can tell you about that if you like. It was not about cancer, it was a time that they were trying to cause me to have a stroke.

 

[kyrani99]

Thanks for that reply. My father was a paranoid schizophrenic (out of my life 40 years before I got cancer so the stress of dealing with him didn't affect that). But I think I'll bow out of the thread now.

The drift being "we need to see a dead body to have the evidence to believe it" otherwise we think you're crazy.

Good bye.

 

[Dancing David]

Why did the placebo effect happen?

I am not making any unfounded assertions.
My reasoning is based on the evidence of the cause of cancer and have been able to use what I found, repeatedly, to clear the cancer away.

The first two times when I developed cancer I only saw evidence that:-

a). moving away lead to a fairly rapid movement towards spontaneous remission, i.e., within the first 3-4 weeks I saw some serious symptoms disappear and "no evidence of disease" within the year. I had stage 4 cancer.

b). resolving an issue also lead to fairly rapid remission, this time the lump vanished in a month.

Then there were another 5 cancers, in which I used the occasions to make observations, and then deliberately moved my body to spontaneous remission.

And there were at least another 7 or 8 occasions where I was able to prevent my body from developing cancer. I used the first few of these occasion to observe the rise of inflammation and then deliberately cleared away. And the rest of them to observe cells in the area remained unperturbed.

There has also been one very recent attempt using subliminal ideas and I was able to ward that off too.

This means that I saw that:
1. when I stopped reacting my body reversed the cancer and cleared away the mass AND later
2. when I no longer reacted to the ideas that were being presented to me, my body didn't develop cancer.

I resolved the problem with the benefit of my earlier training in Vipassana. The average person doesn't have such training.

However, given what I have seen and the results I have seen, it is reasonable to say "because HE BELIEVED THAT HE HAD A DIFFERENT METHOD OF DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM, i.e., A DRUG."

The person's body simply stopped reacting as it had been doing, i.e., in developing a mass as a protective barrier, and cleaned up because he now believed that the drug would do the job of protecting instead of a cell barrier.

If he had believed that the drug would simply kill the cancer then it would not have worked at all because the body is building a barrier for a purpose, but a purpose that is not appropriate. So a belief in a drug that kills the cancer won't solve the problem.

That is why you see many cases where the chemotherapy kills the cancer but it comes back and it comes back in a form that is resistant to the chem drug. In fact there are cases where the cancer has even become resistant to radiation therapy and immuno-therapy. Why? because the body is building the cancer mass for a purpose.

Nice post, where did you discuss eliminating other confounding factors when it comes to the alleged effect of a placebo ending cancer?

How do you know it was teh placebo effect that had that result and was not say an immune response or other confounding factor?

 

[I Am The Scum]

Come on, guys. It's time for gang stalking and psi ops. This is the good stuff!

 

[kyrani99]

Nice post, where did you discuss eliminating other confounding factors when it comes to the alleged effect of a placebo ending cancer?

How do you know it was teh placebo effect that had that result and was not say an immune response or other confounding factor?

If you have noticed in my posts I have distinguished between placebo as faith healing of sorts, i.e., the belief that some drug or surgery will fix the problem. On the other hand there is a more potent form of placebo in that the patient is in control. That is when they understand the situation they are able to recognize and discharge any erroneous beliefs from mind and affirm a belief, which will lead to bodily reactivity that restores resting metabolism. So the person regains their health.

The second definition of placebo applies here. That is why I set out the causes of cancer, which give the right understanding that leads to effecting remission.

I didn't just see this once or twice but five times in cancer development and twice in seeing, in addition, a metastasis. I used what I discovered to get my body to clear them away.

I then was able to use what I discovered to prevent cancer development in about another 7 or 8 cases! And in the initial stages of these subsequent episodes of attempted mental attack (i.e., attack in forceful presentation of ideas under threatening conditions), I saw and studied:

1. some inflammation that sometimes accompanies cancer, but is not part of cancer, and

2. hyperplasia (an increase in the number of cells in the area), which often happens before any stem cells make genetic changes and transform to cancer stem cells.

AND I saw corroborating evidence in a number of other people's cases.

The medical view of the immune system normally killing cancer cells is IMO, from my observations, totally false. And when I finally prove that I will post it here.

The immune system is NOT a confounding factor. It is instrumental in cancer development and metastasis. Without the immune system support and direction there is no cancer!

The idea that cancer cells co-opt the immune system and immune system cells is a fairy tale. It aims to justify the development of drugs to use the immune system against cancer, which will never work. That is why they see the cancer return and immune to attack by the immuno-therapy drugs that they have developed. And of course these the side effects, some of which may be be mild, severe or life long and some may be deadly. And now they are talking about infecting the cancer cells with bacteria or viruses. Why do that if the immuno-therapy works? The fact is it doesn't work.

They have had about 70 years with billions of dollars thrown at the problem and where are they? Slash, burn and marinate and now try to use the body's systems against the body. It's madness. The reality is that cancer, as well as other non-infectious diseases are an industry.. a license to print money, while eight million die every year and millions more suffer unnecessarily.
It would make people like Hitler salivate in envy.

The method of choice, the best method, free of side-effect, cost-free and absolutely safe is to deliberately effect spontaneous remission. The body does the job of clearing the cancer away, safely and efficiently.

And with a deeper understanding the person never gets cancer again.

 

[kyrani99]

Come on, guys. It's time for gang stalking and psi ops. This is the good stuff!

I'm using logic. Deal with it!

 

[Dancing David]

The immune system is NOT a confounding factor. It is instrumental in cancer development and metastasis. Without the immune system support and direction there is no cancer!

So you don't know what a confounding factor is? And at any rate you have yet to show that the placebo effect (which includes regression to the mean) would trigger an beneficial immune response