Feds: Group sold bleach as cure-all for cancer, flu, arthritis

 @aintno1special That's my point; the chemical reactions of each agent are so impertinent in regardles to my initial comment, that it's laughable. They're entirely different, in principal. That's like saying nitrous oxide and carbon monoxide are perfectly comparable because they're both gaseous and in enough concentration, they can kill a human...completely disregarding the fact that one serves a viable medical purpose and the other is simply pernicious. Chemotherapy /= bleach, regardless of their relative toxicity. One kills cancerous cells with decades of medical research behind it, the other serves no beneficial purpose in the human body. I stand by my reasoning that "'miracle' cures are GENERALLY more financially successful when they aren't poison." See exhibit A: herbal remedies. Most of these 'miracle' cures have no FDA approved benefit but are also non-toxic. I would be genuinely surprised if the global herbal remedy market did not  at least, approach, the total value of the cancer treatment industry. 

 @windtreeman So by your own admission a diluted version of aqueous sodium chloride is somehow less toxic than cytotoxic medication?And if so why?

 

Remember I can give you the chemical reactions of both...

 @aintno1special That's probably the longest reply I've ever seen on KOMO's comment system. I appreciate the effort you put into it and though I still contest some of your points (one, that Chemo is akin to ingestion bleach, two, that the success of two types of treatment featuring a mechanism, perhaps vaguely related to drinking poison, means that my original statement is any less valid in the grand scheme of get-rich-quick medical substances and three, that, once diagnosed with cancer, you'd sooner consult a dietary change than chemotherapy), I agree to disagree.

 @windtreeman First of all you are "reading" your post with the obvious biased that you wrote it with. You said "I think 'miracle' cures are generally more financially successful when they aren't poison.", to which I replied "seems chemo therapy and radiation therapy may be a case that would contradict this point."

 

Ok let's dissect this: Chemo and radiation when introduced in the 40's for cancer treatment would have been considered "miracle" cures. Would you agree with me that chemo and radiation are both poisons?....how about would you agree that cancer treatment is a multi-billion dollar industry?

 

Now onto the effectiveness portion...this was a bit of a tongue in cheek comment. Yes, in some forms of cancer the tumors reduce quite rapidly and effectively with the usage of the chemo and/or radiation. But there is always risk of re-occurrence. Also note that reducing the tumor is not curing the body of cancer. Not until you have understood and addressed the causation of the tumor is the cancer "cured". Chemo doesn't do that...so it is not a cure it is a treatment. A group of Australian Oncologist published a peer reviewed paper in 2005 noting that overall chemo lends only a 2% improved survival rate. Mind you if I was ever to be diagnosed with any type of malignant tumor I would have to weigh heavily on that 2%...

 

now back to the causation, I am not one that puts merit into "fad diets" or "miracle cures", but again if I were ever to be diagnosed with cancer I would take a long hard look at my dietary intake. Our country consumes more processed foods per capita than any other country. 31% more packaged food than fresh food. Cancer is merely an adaptation or mutation of normal body cells under environmental (internal body) changes/stresses. Fermentation of sugar is one such "stress" that a cancer cell can exist with high success. Make a drastic reduction in "toxic" foods and you will greatly increase your bodies ability to "cure" itself.

 @aintno1special I read both and I still don't understand how you rationalized mentioning chemotherapy and radiation treatment in response to a comment about four people, illegally selling sodium chlorite as a medical cure.  I think 'undeniable effectiveness' adequately describes therapy techniques that purport a cure rate of 70 to 90% in several forms of cancer: http://www.livestrong.com/article/9219-need-effectiveness-chemotherapy/

 @windtreeman I would however, argue on the "undeniable effectiveness" of chemo therapy...or at the very least request further clarification on your impression of its "undeniable effectiveness".

 @windtreeman Well read your original post...then read mine, and perhaps you can answer your own question.

 @windtreeman  @aintno1special Chemo and radiation therapies are miraculous, lucrative and poisonous, it's just that they mostly affect rapidly dividing cells.