There is no doubt that environmental toxins of the industrial age play a
major role in triggering various forms of this disease. According to
research Saponins, botanical extracts with powerful cleansing and
detoxification properties may have a powerful anti-carcinogenic effect on
the organism.
Extraordinary results have been reported by users of Super-ionized water
with saponins, a natural dietary supplement.
For details please visit
www.rejuvenateyourself.com

You mean soap, right?

<sings>

"I'm forever blowing ... bubbles ... "

M

If soap would clean me inside out I'd drink it every day.
Wouldn't you?

It depends on the side effects. I imagine applying soap internally could
make quite a mess.

Lets think about what cancer is, and ask what you'd have to do to
prevent it.  You'd either have to stop cells malfunctioning (some sort
of DNA protection perhaps, we have antioxidant vitamins which, in a
balanced diet, are meant to help a lot), or detect and destroy cells
when they do go wrong.

The latter sounds promising to me - its what the immune system was
designed for. Isn't there some research going on into immunology -
the use of "cancer vaccines"? I've not heard much about it recently,
but wish them luck. The thought of a vaccine that could be applied after
cancer is diagnosed sounds so much better than chemotherapy! The immune
system is a wonderful killing machine, and is amazingly selective about
what it kills.  If it can be effectively turned against cancer cells
then I can imagine cancer treatment with few side effects (a bit of a
fever perhaps due to the immune response).

The original post sounded like something that hit more generally. Anyone
who's been through chemo will know about hitting out at things in general,
although chemo is quite well targetted. The side effects are not something
you'd wish on a normal healthy individual. Soap sounds to me to be too
generalised. I wonder about its side effects, and damage to healthy cells.

The original post mentions super-ionised water. Don't we avoid
anything ionising normally? Thats why we keep the amount of x-rays
people have down. A Goole search for "Saponins" reaveals that
they are a plan extract which "Lyse wall-less cells such as red
{*filter*} cells".

Yes they are thought to be soap like and cause cell
distruption by interation within the cell membrane.  According to
http://www.***.com/
to be part of the plant's own defense mechanism. It sounds like they'd
make good fungicides in farming. Another site talks about the use of
Saponins by athletes as not-yet-banned performance enhancers. That was
a commercial site (it sells not-yet-banned performance enhancers).

 - Richard

--

  _/  _/    _/    _/      Web Page:       http://www.***.com/
 _/_/      _/    _/       Dance (Ballroom, RnR), Hiking, SJA, Linux, ... [ENfP]
_/  _/  _/_/    _/_/_/    PGP2.6 Key ID:0x0FB084B1   GPG/PGP5 Key ID:0xFA139DA7

Thanks for your informative comments.
Surgeons wash with soap before surgery as part of the disinfection process.
Obviously soap is a disinfectant,but you can't drink it.
Yes,saponins are surfectant botanicals that exhibit similar properties.
We cannot make medical claims,we are not claiming this a drug.You can call
it mineral water if you like,but the ultimate test is if it works or not,in
producing a beneficial outcome to the user.
We have seen some incredible results.
As far as cancer is concerned, I personally think it's triggered by a
combination of environmental toxins plus the toxins generated by strong
negative emotions,on a backdrop of genetic disposition. How emotions are
translated into particles that act upon the cells is masterfully explained
by Dr Candace Pert in her book "Molecules of Emotion". I also regard the
book "a scientific thriller", as it shows how things work behind the scenes
in the politics of medical research.
Regards
Murray
www.rejuvenateyourself.com

message

http://www.***.com/
ID:0xFA139DA7

I'm sure.

Quite, quite mad...................

That's what they called the Wright Brothers, Pasteur, Stevenson, Einstein,
Von Braun,even Bill Gates.
It seems there are two kinds of people,the "sane" that will do anything to
keep us all in the same old box, and the "mad" scientist that will endure
anything to get us out of it.
Fortunate for us,some of the mad have prevailed,so we are not living in
caves and clubbing each other any more.
We are living in well-lighted synthetic caves,and have clubs that fly on
their own on light beams...

Ah, yes, the last, predictable defense of the quack in response to
challenges to their "therapy": To point to geniuses in history and how
misunderstood and rejected their ideas were at in their time, when those
ideas were later ultimately shown to be correct. The fallacy with that
old quack tactic is that, just because there have been others in science
whose ideas were rejected and later accepted as correct does NOT mean
that YOUR ideas necessarily fall into that category, although it is
clear that's what you're implying.

You also forget that those people's ideas were ultimately accepted
BECAUSE the results of those ideas bore fruit and convinced the
scientific community at large. Again, just because you point to them
does not necessarily mean that YOUR ideas will do the same.

Finally, such people won over their critics through evidence. Where's
the evidence to support your ideas, hmmmm?

--
Orac        |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
            |
            |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
            | inconvenience me with questions?"

What claims for them are you making, then?

And how, pray tell, would it produce a "beneficial outcome" to the user?
How it does that would determine if it is a drug or not.

What are these results? What is the design of the clinical trial used to
demonstrate those results? What peer-reviewed medical journal have you
reported your results in?

Evidence for this rather vague and broad assertion?

Sounds more like quackery to me.

--
Orac        |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
            |
            |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
            | inconvenience me with questions?"

I'm sure that the root of many of our diseases are somehow connected to
negative emotions and find it strange that no one seems to talk much
about it. This forum is certainly not the place to sell goods or
services but i would like to hear more about the possible role of
emotions in cancer. It is a well known fact that one's emotional
outlook has a great deal to do with overcoming cancer.

I remember a long time, Dr. Norman Cousins got cancer. He felt that
there was a connection between his cancer and his negative emotions and
vowed to rid himself of both of them. I do not know the details, but i
do know that he watched a lot of comedy and did other things to make
himself laugh. With no other treatment, his cancer went into remission.

Some cooking.net">food for thought.

This is the most intelligent response I got so far to this posting.
My father developed cancer 1 month after he decided that life was over, that
he'd done everything his life was meant for,raising and educating his
children,etc.He was so emotional about it,that we all knew he had made a
decision.
The operation was a waker-upper for him,he clung to life for another 3
years. When he realized that he would never be the same,strong,invincible
man he'd been, that he was mutilated and crippled because of the so-called
"cure",it didn't take very long after that decision.He was diagnosed
terminal in 3 weeks.
Of course it's emotional.
That's the electricity that produces the particles that make your cells eat
your other cells.
Quackery?
The worst quackery is pretending that you are the final authority on the
solution,licensed by the state,and all the other stupid "credentials",
whereas you have less chance than a homeless gypsy to cure or heal yourself
or anybody else. The proof is in the pudding.

It wasn't me that wrote the following article: read it carefully:

Cancer Research - A Super Fraud?
by Robert Ryan, B.Sc.

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is
largely a fraud and that the major cancer research
organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who
support them." - Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize
winner).
Have you ever wondered why, despite the billions of dollars
spent on cancer research over many decades, and the constant
promise of a cure which is forever "just around the corner",
cancer continues to increase?
Cancer Is Increasing
Once quite rare, cancer is now the second major cause of
death in Western countries such as Australia, the U.S.A. and
the United Kingdom. In the early 1940s cancer accounted for
12% of Australian deaths. (1) By 1992 this figure had
climbed to 25.9% of Australian deaths. (2) The increasing
trend of cancer deaths and incidence is typical of most
Western nations. It has been said that this increase in
cancer is just due to the fact that people now live longer
than their ancestors did, and that therefore the increase of
cancer is merely due to the fact that more people are living
to be older and thereby have a greater chance of contracting
cancer. However, this argument is disproved by the fact that
cancer is also increasing in younger age groups, as well as
by the findings of numerous population studies which have
linked various life-style factors of particular cultures to
the particular forms of cancer that are pre{*filter*} there.
The Orthodox "War on Cancer" Has Failed
"My overall assessment is that the national cancer programme
must be judged a qualified failure" Dr. John Bailer, who
spent 20 years on the staff of the U.S. National Cancer
Institute and was editor of its journal. (3) Dr. Bailer also
says: "The five year survival statistics of the American
Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things
that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at
an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to
live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years
has been a total failure. More people over 30 are dying from
cancer than ever before . . . More women with mild or benign
diseases are being included in statistics and reported as
being 'cured'. When government officials point to survival
figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they
are using those survival rates improperly."
A 1986 report in the New England Journal of Medicine
assessed progress against cancer in the United States during
the years 1950 to 1982. Despite progress against some rare
forms of cancer, which account for 1 to 2 per cent of total
deaths caused by the disease, the report found that the
overall death rate had increased substantially since 1950:
"The main conclusion we draw is that some 35 years of
intense effort focused largely on improving treatment mustbe judged a
qualified failure." The report further concluded
that ". . . we are losing the war against cancer" and argued
for a shift in emphasis towards prevention if there is to be
substantial progress. (4)
Most Cancer IS Preventable
According to the International Agency for Research in Cancer
"...80-90 per cent of human cancer is determined
environmentally and thus theoretically avoidable." (5)
Environmental causes of cancer include lifestyle factors
such as smoking, a diet high in animal products and low in
fresh fruit & vegetables, excessive exposure to sunlight,
cooking.net">food additives, {*filter*}, workplace hazards, pollution,
electromagnetic radiation, and even certain pharmaceutical
{*filter*} and medical procedures. But unfortunately, as
expressed by medical historian Hans Ruesch, "Despite the
general recognition that 85 per cent of all cancers is
caused by environmental influences, less than 10 per cent of
the (U.S.) National Cancer Institute budget is given to
environmental causes. And despite the recognition that the
majority of environmental causes are linked to nutrition,
less than 1 per cent of the National Cancer Institute budget
is devoted to nutrition studies. And even that small amount
had to be forced on the Institute by a special amendment of
the National Cancer Act in 1974." (6)
Prevention - Not Profitable to Industry
According to Dr. Robert Sharpe, " . . . in our culture
treating disease is enormously profitable, preventing it is
not. In 1985 the U.S., Western Europe and Japanese market in
cancer therapies was estimated at over 3.2 billion pounds
with the 'market' showing a steady annual rise of 10 per
cent over the past five years. Preventing the disease
benefits no one except the patient. Just as the drug
industry thrives on the 'pill for every ill' mentality, so
many of the leading medical charities are financially
sustained by the dream of a miracle cure, just around the
corner." (7)
Desired: A State of No Cure?
In fact, some analysts consider that the cancer industry is
sustained by a policy of deliberately facing in the wrong
direction. For instance, in the late 1970s, after studying
the policies, activities, and assets of the major U.S.
cancer institutions, the investigative reporters Robert
Houston and Gary Null concluded that these institutions had
become self-perpetuating organisations whose survival
depended on the state of no cure. They wrote, "a solution to
cancer would mean the termination of research programs, the
obsolescence of skills, the end of dreams of personal glory,
triumph over cancer would dry up contributions to
self-perpetuating charities and cut off funding from
Congress, it would mortally threaten the present clinical
establishments by rendering obsolete the expensive surgical,
radiological and chemotherapeutic treatments in which so
much money, training and equipment is invested. Such fear,
however unconscious, may result in resistance and hostilityto alternative
approaches in proportion as they are
therapeutically promising. The new therapy must be
disbelieved, denied, discouraged and disallowed at all
costs, regardless of actual testing results, and preferably
without any testing at all. As we shall see, this pattern
has in actuality occurred repeatedly, and almost
consistently." (8) Indeed, many people around the world
consider that they have been cured by therapies which were
'blacklisted' by the major cancer organisations.
Does this mean that ALL of the people who work in the cancer
research industry are consciously part of a {*filter*} to
hold back a cure for cancer? Author G.Edward Griffin
explains ". . . let's face it, these people die from cancer
like everybody else. . . [I]t's obvious that these people
are not consciously holding back a control for cancer. It
does mean, however, that the [pharmaceutical-chemical]
cartel's medical monopoly has created a climate of bias in
our educational system, in which scientific truth often is
sacrificed to vested interests . . . [I]f the money is
coming from drug companies, or indirectly from drug
companies, the impetus is in the direction of drug research.
That doesn't mean somebody blew the whistle and said "hey,
don't research nutrition!" It just means that nobody is
financing nutrition research. So it is a bias where
scientific truth often is obscured by vested interest." (9)
This point is similarly expressed by Dr. Sydney Singer:
"Researchers are like {*filter*}s. They work for grant
money. If there is no money for the projects they are
personally interested in, they go where there is money.
Their incomes come directly from their grants, not from the
universities. And they want to please the granting source to
get more grants in the future. Their careers depend on it."
(10)
Money Spent on Fraudulent Research?
A large portion of money donated to cancer research by the
public is spent on animal research which has, since its
inception, been widely condemned as a waste of time and
resources. For instance, consider the 1981 Congressional
Testimony by Dr. Irwin Bross, former director of the
Sloan-Kettering, the largest cancer research institute in
the world, and then Director of Biostatistics at Roswell
Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research, Buffalo, NY:
"The uselessness of most of the animal model studies is less
well known. For example, the discovery of chemotherapeutic
agents for the treatment of human cancer is widely-heralded
as a triumph due to use of animal model systems. However,
here again, these exaggerated claims are coming from or are
endorsed by the same people who get the federal dollars for
animal research. There is little, if any, factual evidence
that would support these claims. Indeed, while conflicting
animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in
the war on cancer, they have never produced a single
substantial advance either in the prevention or treatment of
human cancer. For instance, practically all of thechemotherapeutic agents
which are of value in the treatment
of human cancer were found in a clinical context rather than
in animal studies." (11)
In ...

read more »

So all we can say at the moment is that this is an idea. It may or may
not bear fruit, but someone thinks it most likely will. Best of luck to
the proponent if it does. In the cases of Bill Gates and Co [1] it did. It
also happened at their own expense - they needed the capital to fund their
research, so there is some form of moderation of ideas going on here.

Of interest, as this is a preventative, and what you are preventing has a
relatively low probability of occuring in the test subjects over a given
period of time, how are you measuring your success? Surely it would take
a large population of test subjects, and control subjects, over a long
period of time (decades perhaps?) before you find a meaningful trend?

 - Richard

[1] Bill Gates is actually a very bad example - more of a marketeer of
poor imitations of other people's ideas, right place right time, than an
innovator, in my humble opinion anyway, standard newsgroup disclaimers
apply, ... Sir Clive Sinclair may have been a better example, or Steve
Jobbs perhaps, or Linus Torvalds in some ways.

--

  _/  _/    _/    _/      Web Page:       http://www.littondale.freeserve.co.uk
 _/_/      _/    _/       Dance (Ballroom, RnR), Hiking, SJA, Linux, ... [ENfP]
_/  _/  _/_/    _/_/_/    PGP2.6 Key ID:0x0FB084B1   GPG/PGP5 Key ID:0xFA139DA7

Hmmmm, where intelligent == agrees with what I'm saying ;-)

I class as a counter example, having a very strong emotional outlook (life
great etc etc) at the time of "catching", and being diagnosed with cancer.
Life's still great, even despite chemo. I'm on the recovery part of the
cycle at the moment and have already, as far as I can tell, pretty well
recovered so will be ready for the next dose in a week's time. I'll be
on a more suitable (for me) set of anti-sickness {*filter*} so should have
a better time of it. Also I don't expect to be told there's a risk of
my brain being effected this time, a wonderful way of causing anxiety
sickness whilst you wait for the scan result.

Another hypothesis:

 Could it be the negative emotions that cause a person to start looking
 at themselves and noticing something is wrong? That small ache could
 have been hapilly ignored during happy times, but now the person is
 miserable that ache is suddenly noticed and thought about, and the person
 goes to the doctor.  Some cancers take a reasonable amount of time to
 develop before they are big enough to spot, and the early symptoms may
 be very minor.

My cancer was spotted due to injury. There was a theory that injury is a
prime cause of testicular cancer, however it can easily be explained by
saying that the damaged testicle is more prone to injury through normal
activities, and increases in vulnerability until it is spotted. Also
cancers do take time to grow, even testicular which is very fast. You can
say quite confidently that the tumour dates back to before the injury that
caused it to be noticed. The pre-cancerous changes date back even further.

Of course this is all just theory, and one counter argument says
"You injured it once, the fateful injury could have happened not
long before". More analysis would be needed to test the theory. How
many people go on from testicular injuries (some major) without ever
getting the cancer? Also it seems, with cancer, that all you can get
is probabilities anyway. You don't hear "If your testes didn't drop as
a child you'll get cancer". You hear "If your testes didn't drop as a
child you have slightly more chance of getting cancer than someone else
(who also has a chance, just not as big as yours)". I was fine as a child,
like my good emotions I suppose, I still got the cancer.

Isn't science fun!

 - Richard

--

  _/  _/    _/    _/      Web Page:       http://www.***.com/
 _/_/      _/    _/       Dance (Ballroom, RnR), Hiking, SJA, Linux, ... [ENfP]
_/  _/  _/_/    _/_/_/    PGP2.6 Key ID:0x0FB084B1   GPG/PGP5 Key ID:0xFA139DA7