A Case of TOTAL Remiission.

Anonymous · April 2012

Many years ago I read Stephen Rosenberg's book, ,'The transformed Cell'. Rosenberg was a New York surgeon at the time. It was about a patient, a Mr D'Angelo who's been admitted to Rosenberg's hospital for a gall bladder removal. When Rosenberg checks his medical record he finds that he had been discharged from the hospital 12 years before with only a couple of weeks to live. He had had a huge stomach cancer removed simply to make him more comfortable and allow him to eat but was beyond any further treatment as he was riddled with metastasis including in his liver. Rosenberg states that he thought there'd been a mix up in the medical records as there was NO way that this bloke could still be alive, impossible! But no, it's the same bloke. How on Earth!!

Rosenberg opens him up and has a poke around inside, feeling for metastasis but NOTHING.. When questioned about his cancer Mr D'Angelo says 'I fixed it doc, you guys don't know everything, do you'. THAT REPLY IS THE SUM TOTAL OF WHAT WE GET TO FIND OUT ABOUT HOW HE 'FIXED IT' or anything else Mr D'Angelo has to say. Rosenberg has made up his (pre Dawkinist) Darwinist mind that 'once upon a time a cell in Mr D'Angelo's stomach transformed whilst at the same time his immune system was malfunctioning and this 'rogue' cell took off. It's progeny soon learned to outwit the now semi functioning immune system and in no time the cancer got the upper hand. Later on his immune system rebounded and overwhelmed the cancer and Mr D'Angelo had absolutely nothing to do with it.' Amazing! It is also very contemptuous of Mr D'Angelo and his credibility as someone who may have helped millions of cancer sufferers had not Rosenberg essentially suppress it.

Instead of Rosenberg pursuing Mr D'angelo's method he instead hit on an idea that came to be known as Immunotherapy, he being called the father of Immunotherapy. He set up a company to make interleukin-2 using bacteria with the human gene inserted into it's chromosome. Il-2 is a hormone made by T4 cells of our immune systems, the central cell. The idea was to take what he calls LAK, or natural killer cells from the patients body, boost their numbers dramatically in the lab, then inject the cells, along with the interleukin back into the patients body. The NCI would only allow patients who were beyond all other treatment and trials began. Now whilst Rosenberg tried to put a brave face on it in the book I'd hardly call it a success. Patients lungs filled up with fluid and had to be pumped out. There were a few who marginally improved. Today Rosenberg is combining conventional chemo with his Immunotherapy and he likes to imagine it's great.

My assessment is that if a patient is so full of cancer that they are beyond conventional treatment then they are in a shocking state of overall health, and that the cancer is symptomatic of that state. As Rosenberg claimed in this case the cancer 'just happened' then 'just happened to go away'. So as long as researchers and physicians persist over and over again with this absurd dogma, which of course suits commercial gain then understanding cancer so that it can be cured will NEVER happen. Five thousand delegates attend AACR conferences about 5 times a year and waffle on about this signal transduction pathway or that, with 5 symposiums running at once in posh expensive convention centres and they STILL don't get it.

I'm far more interested in Mr D'Angelo's story. Is he still alive? Where is he if he is? Why not ask Rosenberg? Email him and find out.

luv_gardening · April 2012

This is exactly the point I made on your other thread about the Ketone diet. Medicine ignores the recovered patients as it hurts their egos. We could at least have some central registry where these miracle people could have their stories, diets, lifestyles and relevant information stored, have their medical records validated and in time similarities would emerge and new treatments formulated.

Ian Gawler has been submitting his case studies to authorities for so long now and still nothing has been made public. I guess it's about decision makers being out of touch with the big picture.

Anonymous · April 2012

Paul, do you recommend his book, or is it a waste of time, I've got so much reading piling up !

Cancer Is Not A Disease: It's A Survival Mechanism

"...most cancers appear and disappear of their own accord. Not a day passes without the body making millions of cancer cells.

Cancer occurs when cellular balance is threatened and the cell has to take recourse to more extreme measures of defending or protecting itself. The possibility that cancer is a survival mechanism has never been considered in cancer treatments, and this has fatal consequences.
Could it possibly be that cancer is not a disease, but a survival mechanism of the body designed to remove toxins that are causing harm?

Cancer cells are normal, oxygen-dependent cells that have been genetically reprogrammed to survive in an oxygen-deprived environment. To treat cancer as if it were an illness without removing its underlying cause is nothing but malpractice.

A lack of oxygen causes a healthy cell to abandon its original genetic design and stop using oxygen. Cancer cells do not cause, but prevent death, at least for a while, until the wasting away of an organ leads to the demise of the entire organism. If the causes for the cancer are properly taken care of, such an outcome can be avoided.

Cancer is not a disease; it is the final and most desperate survival mechanism the body has
...cancer cells are created everyday to make certain that the immune system remains stimulated enough to keep its defense and self-purification capability efficient and up-to-date.

The cancer is not a disease but an extended immune response to help clear up an existing condition of congestion that suffocates a group of cells. Why would the immune system try to hinder the body's efforts to prevent this congestion? Cancer cells are far too precious and too useful for the body to eliminate them. Cancer cells do not randomly spread throughout the body. They lodge themselves in places that are also congested, places that are oxygen-deprived.

Tumor cells are cells that "panic" due to a lack of food, water, oxygen and space. Survival is their basic genetic instinct, just as it is ours. These cells are doing a critical job in a body filled with toxic waste. The cells don't randomly become "poisonous" or malignant; they do it to avoid an immediate catastrophe in the body. If the body dies, it is not because of cancer, but because of the underlying reasons that led up to it.

Tumors act like sponges for the poisons that circulate and accumulate in the blood, lymph and tissue fluids. These poisons are the real cancer, and they continue circulating unless a tumor filters them out. By destroying the tumor, the real cancer keeps circulating until there is a recurrence. Poisons such as chemotherapy drugs and antibiotics make the causes of cancer spread and become more aggressive. The tumor is an outlet for poisons.

The human body is perfect and always pushing us toward health and wellbeing. Cells only go into a defensive mode and turn malignant if they need to ensure their own survival, at least for as long as they can. A spontaneous remission occurs when cells no longer need to defend themselves
Cancer is the final attempt of the body to live, and not, as most people assume, to die....a healing crisis.

j.b5z.net/i/u/7000617/f/Cancer_is_a_Survival_mechanism.doc

Unfortunately, the author has run into serious trouble not unlike many of his peers

"massive online campaign attempting to shut down, defame or ridicule every positive reference to my work, and to paralyze my internet presence. In spite of the many threats I received, the hacking into my YouTube account, the URL hijacking of my website www.ener-chi.com, and the posting of slanderous Facebook pages, I feel undeterred in standing for and promoting our health freedoms in whatever ways I can"

Anonymous · April 2012

To Joy Lies Within

You can see by the deletion of my post just what hope there is of ever drawing attention to cases of total remission. It is critical of Stephen Rosenberg for very good reason, his supression of Mr. D'Angelo's story of how her cured his own cancer. Rosenberg exploited Mr. D'Angelo, putting his own commercial interest and 'prestige' ahead of the millions of people who may have been inspired to have cured their own cancers. As a public author Rosenberg sets himself up for criticism and my criticism is nothing unusual. By deleting my post the Mods are doing PRECISELY what Rosenberg did and I'd have to consider the possibility of collusion. Why not see if you can find a copy of 'The Transformed Cell' and read it. This story is unique in that it is a well DOCUMENTED case of total remission, the medical records of the hospital where Mr. D'Amgelo had both operations 12 years apart. I have emailed the NYT, suggesting they keep an eye on my stuff. The LIVES of all the BC sufferers are on the line here and this deletion is indefensible.

orange1 · April 2012

Maud - based on what you wrote..

'

Tumors act like sponges for the poisons that circulate and accumulate in the blood, lymph and tissue fluids. These poisons are the real cancer, and they continue circulating unless a tumor filters them out. By destroying the tumor, the real cancer keeps circulating until there is a recurrence. Poisons such as chemotherapy drugs and antibiotics make the causes of cancer spread and become more aggressive. The tumor is an outlet for poisons.

The human body is perfect and always pushing us toward health and wellbeing. Cells only go into a defensive mode and turn malignant if they need to ensure their own survival, at least for as long as they can. A spontaneous remission occurs when cells no longer need to defend themselves
Cancer is the final attempt of the body to live, and not, as most people assume, to die....a healing crisis."

It sounds like if we would switch to a healthy organic diet, remove stress, and live in a clean environment, the cancer would no longer have a cause for existence and would just go away without toxic therpy. Is this correct?

Anonymous · April 2012

To Maud,

Sounds like its been written by a naturopath and whilst I'd have a problem with some of his biology it's definitely on the right track. It was this sort of stuff that inspired my own garbage bag theory about 30 years ago. I don't like to rubbish ANY theory as it is only in the midst of darkness that one can see the light, the one that stands out from all the others as making the most amount of sense, not the academic prestige of it's author.

Anonymous · April 2012

To Maud,

Sounds pretty good to me Maud. Cancers provide two major roles as I see it. The garbage bag and the evolutionary role, coming up with new genes and carrying these genes back to the germ plasma so they can be passed on the organism's proginy. In BC I see a bit of both, the tumour breaking down toxic concentrations of estradiol and beginning to carry this propensity back to the germ line, hence becoming ER- and no longer responsive to Tamoxifen. The cells are going backward, DEDIFFERENTIATING to a time during development (coming forward) when there was no endocrine system and hence no ER anywhere in the developing baby. However, it is treatment, increased anxiety, self medicating the anxiety etc. that is driving the cells backward in this case, a stuff up so that the tumour can no longer fulfil the role of deactivating estradiol, becoming more malignant and heading toward metastasising.

luv_gardening · April 2012

Maud, If poison was the real cause of cancer and not the tumour, then removing it wouldn't reduce the death rate as it would just recur. Clearly that's not the case as many women lived to old age after their surgery and no other treatment prior to chemo being introduced. Those who had recurrences probably had larger tumours or grade 3 cancer which grows faster which this theory doesn't take into account.

Any theory has to stand up to the bottom line, and that's what happens in real life. I personally know women who died of old age after a decades earlier bout of BC and a radical mastectomy. It's highly unlikely they changed their diet or lifestyle as many didn't dare speak of their illness in those days and didn't do anything to draw attention to themselves.

luv_gardening · April 2012

Paul, when it says removed by the community, that's 5 votes from forum members, then the mods will look at what you wrote and consider reinstating it. If a post is removed by moderators then it will say just that. They usually remove posts that are offensive or spam, but you are not a person with BC, nor are you caring for someone with BC so you would have to have very good things to say to be accepted here on this support forum as you have no way to truly empathise with us.

A Case of TOTAL Remiission.

Comments

Categories