This is why we don't allow medical threads

If it worked reliably then it wouldn't be confined to the fringes of the internet, with such testimony as:

It definately feels like all the cancer is dead and gone
Click to expand...

Wow, I'm convinced.
 
Considering he said his nose used to itch and bleed before and and now felt fine despite having a gaping hole in it...

It clearly doesn't just burn through any skin it touches. How or why this happens I or we don't really know but it is interesting nonetheless.
 
Interesting - though the pics of that woman's nose and forehead are pretty damn horrible.

Link posted The Running Man is a lot more 'sane' looking though, and looks like it worked out really well for the guy.
 
There can be no words. This is similar to anti vaccination forums. People are crazy and deluded and very easily parted with their money. I don't think I've ever seen naturopaths mentioned so many times in one place... This stuff is terrifying. The fact that she thought the salve was only reacting to cancerous cells is laughable, that stuff would probably have burned a hole in any part of her body which it was applied to. The internet is such a dangerous place, people will often try anything they can get their hands on rather than seek professional advice, even if it is lime render.

Doesn't everyone know mustard is the answer anyway? At least the resulting hair growth would cover up the cancer!
 
The Running Man said:
Considering he said his nose used to itch and bleed before and and now felt fine despite having a gaping hole in it...

It clearly doesn't just burn through any skin it touches. How or why this happens I or we don't really know but it is interesting nonetheless.
Click to expand...

It might have, but in that article they claim to have cured melanoma. They have not. No one has, ever. You either have it removed, by any method before it metastases, or you will die, within two years.
It doesn't matter how you remove it, chemicals, lasers, black magic salve, cutting it out.
Its either gone, or not, and if its not gone, and it metastases, then you die.
No one 'cures' it.

BBC is completely different. They just get bigger over time. They don't spread to other sites, they don't kill you unless they become so big they invade an artery or block your airway. People can have these the size of half their face or head. In an aged population they will sometimes laser ablate the skin surface where a BCC is present, slows it down, doesn't require surgery, means the person dies naturally before its an issue.

If alternative medicine works, in a demonstrable double blind trial fashion, then it wouldn't be alternative, it would be the adopted treatment.
 
Building Candy said:
...yes but, to quote her...

"Well, I am trying to upload photos from my ipad"

money well spent there
Click to expand...

Go live in the US.

Treatment for caner would cost many many thousands of dollars a year. An ipad would buy next to nothing in their medical system.

Could you afford to spend 20-30k a year on medical bills?! Of course not. Hence why others look for cheaper alternatives.

You have it easy in the UK with the NHS. People who earn 20k dollars a year can't afford to spend thousands upon thousands on hospital bills.

America is a great country if you have money to spend. It's an awful country if you're poor (I known because I grew up in the US poor).
 
'Harry said:
Go live in the US.

Treatment for caner would cost many many thousands of dollars a year. An ipad would buy next to nothing in their medical system.

Could you afford to spend 20-30k a year on medical bills?! Of course not. Hence why others look for cheaper alternatives.

You have it easy in the UK with the NHS. People who earn 20k dollars a year can't afford to spend thousands upon thousands on hospital bills.

America is a great country if you have money to spend. It's an awful country if you're poor (I known because I grew up in the US poor).
Click to expand...

This is a BCC, its involves a simple excision. It doesn't need chemo or radio. It doesn't require a long stay in hospital. If treated early, when it us small, it might not even require reconstructive surgery.
This isn't the cae you should be fighting over.

I am aware of US pricing, I had a friend who had insurance and hogkins lymphoma, he had agressive chemo, over a protacted period, appears to be in remission, thank goodness. The insurance bill was ether 1.4 or 1.8 million dollars, I can't quite remember which. Incredible money.
 
Energize said:
It destroyed practically half her face, why do you say it has not affected healthy tissue? :confused:
Click to expand...

Because no one can know for sure if it simply attacked healthy tissue or it only attacked cancerous tissue.

I suppose what's needed is for someone to try it on a cancerous spot on their face and also stick a blob on healthy skin nearby.
 
The bcc is most unlikely to have been as invasive as the mess left after, if her pre treatment picture is accurate.
You have some idea of what a bcc is, yes?
If not look it up.

That caustic stuff certainly took out healthy tissue. I can say that, i can say that, for sure. No matter what sentence you type. Lots if people can know for sure, as we have some medical and scientific background and we are not utterly deluded.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
The bcc is most unlikely to have been as invasive as the mess left after, if her pre treatment picture is accurate.
You have some idea of what a bcc is, yes?
If not look it up.

That caustic stuff certainly took out healthy tissue. I can say that, i can say that, for sure. No matter what sentence you type. Lots if people can know for sure, as we have some medical and scientific background and we are not utterly deluded.
Click to expand...

No matter what anyone says your absolute and steadfast In that belief? That makes for a difficult discussion.

I don't doubt that some good skin was taken out around the affected era. However, would a wide excision or other treatment have to take at least 2 mm from around the whole area anyway and then test to see if they had taken enough..

it clearly targets damaged or weak skin, whether this is specifically attacking cancerous or bad cells I do not know - but the pics all show that the drug is selective and does not penetrate and kill all the skin evenly - hence the pics showing a large application and only a small area effected and only a small is area burnt out? that's telling me that its not simply corroding any skin it has a trigger within the skin that allows the extract to do something.

The reason that pharma's like GSK don't want to spend time and money testing it is because they cant patent the active ingredient as its a naturally occurring and something that has been used for a long time by various cultures etc.

Take a look at the latest GSK announcement today regarding their melanoma drug that has just been fast tracked by the FDA:

http://www.gsk.com/media/press-rele...a-approval-for-combination-use-of-mekini.html

Most important part after the serious warnings about side effects of use of the combination of drugs is this:

Trametinib was in-licensed by GSK in 2006. GSK holds the worldwide exclusive rights to develop, manufacture and commercialise Mekinist, while Japan Tobacco retains co-promotion rights in Japan.
Click to expand...

That's what keeps their shareholders sleeping at night. Also love how Japan Tobacco retains co rights for Japan.
 
Uh oh, it's the "big pharma" conspiracy.

Do you not think it's in the interests of say, every publicly owned healthcare provider in the world to look into these treatments as it would cost them less?
 
Caged said:
Uh oh, it's the "big pharma" conspiracy.

Do you not think it's in the interests of say, every publicly owned healthcare provider in the world to look into these treatments as it would cost them less?
Click to expand...

Of course, but who has the biggest capital and budgets for this kind of product, the big pharmas.

You can look at cannabinoid based drugs and see what happened, for whatever reason big pharma's wanted to create their own synthetic painkillers (so they can more easily patent and protect the product) and avoided THC based substances - possibly because of illegality but hey if the drug had been so effective surely GSK could leverage some high ranking senate power right?

If big pharmas don't want to get involved with a specific drug, like they don't with THC then development runs exceptionally slowly compared to having say GSK's capital and labs behind them developing or funding to licence said drugs. THC based studies have been led mostly by small businesses and state funded programs
 
Last edited:
I am hugely HUGELY skeptical of this salve and 'progress pics'. There appears to be so little scarring, yet the body miraculously restoring gaping necrotic holes exposing cavities, veins, bones, tendons and nerves with flawless youthful exuberance.

There is no way the body can repair that without horrendous scar tissue - or even, without major infection, blood poisoning or just plain and simply, leaving the huge hole there. We are not talking an ear-piercing in these cases - we are talking the total erosion of nasal cartilage, or in the case of some other videos i've seen, total restoration of mucosal membranes and facial musculature.

It just doesn't happen like that - we'd sooner be able to grow fresh teeth again, or regenerate a digit or a limb if that were the case.
 
What most journals and articles point out that I had completely missed is that the vast majority of the "look I'm healed" photos (ignoring the very suspicious ones as pointed out above where half a face has regrown like something out of Terminator 2) is that people seem to see a dead lump falling out as proof that the tumour has gone - and because it's all dead cells now it's not really an option to do a biopsy to see if it was cancerous in the first place or if the magical salve just burnt a chunk of skin out for fun.

There's also no evidence that what fell out was all of it, as again their mistrust of doctors means they don't get a follow up biopsy done.

People are obviously free to do whatever they want to themselves and if that includes caustic chemicals applied to their skin then go for it, but it's when they claim to be experts and start handing it out as advice where it gets really nasty. Most of the horror stories start with "my dermatologist told me it was cancerous and that I should have surgery to remove it, but then a friend of a friend convinced me otherwise". It's tragic because the people dishing out the advice aren't the ones who get disfigured.
 
Last edited:
Caged said:
It's a shame nobody has done any studies about it

http://archderm.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=479092
Click to expand...

Thing is...I read all 4 of these cases and looking at them one by one.

1, It cleared the growth but not the underlying problem. This could have equally occurred in surgery. They often have to go back and re operate on areas when they realise they didn't get all of the cancer the first time. So ultimately was the outcome much different to a surgery? inconclusive.

2, In this case it doesn't state whether the bloIfodroot or the surgey removed the BCC. Inconclusive, we don't know if that amount of skin would have had to have been removed with or without the surgery. Again an inconclusive result.

3, "A 64-year-old man had undergone standard excision and Mohs excision of several BCCs. He was routinely dissatisfied with the seemingly invisible surgical scars and was bitter about the cost of his procedures." MOH;'s didn't work cleanly. Didn't seem to eradicate underlying issue which they may not have spotted, otherwise he wouldn't have had to go back for repeat surgery. Proof that MOH failed to have the desired impact and nothing conclusive of note with regards the bloodroot.

4, the man already had huge problems he had been diagnosed years early, "Two stages of Mohs surgery under general anesthesia were needed to remove the lesion that extended deeply to the maxilla and far into the pyriform aperture." If the bloodroot takes all this area out, or its surgeried out, that's hardly a fault of the product. Again inconclusive results as the problem spread around his body after the surgery. Was it the surgery, the bloodroot, or was this happening anyway? Impossible to tell.

Escharotics were introduced to Western medicine in the 1930s by Frederic Mohs, who was then a medical student at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, investigating tissue fixation as part of a new surgical treatment for cancer. Mohs chose zinc chloride as a proper tissue fixative based on studies he performed on cancerous and normal rat tissues. Mohs consulted with a pharmacist to create a paste that could be applied to the skin, and the final product, Mohs paste, contained zinc chloride as a fixative, as well as antimony trisulfide for suspension and bloodroot as an organic stabilizer.8 Mohs proposed that this paste, applied in a carefully calculated manner that accounted for the tumor's depth and diameter, would fix tumor in tissue over a 24-hour period. This process enabled the surgeon to remove a fixed specimen and, following sectioning and staining, immediately review the histologic findings to assess tumor involvement of the surgical margin. The paste application, fixation, and excision of the tumor was repeated daily until the microscopic examination finding was negative for tumor.9 It should be clarified that Mohs used zinc chloride only as a fixative and Sanguinaria only as an organic stabilizer for his fixative paste. The primary procedure undertaken by Mohs was surgical excision. He coined his technique "chemosurgery," and thus began the long-storied history that has culminated in the widespread use of micrographic surgery
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom