• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Do You Want To Know What We Did To Beat Cancer?

golden

Senior Member
Messages
1,831
http://cancer-acts.com/

I have found this months magazine called What Doctors Dont Tell You, very helpful.

One of the remarkable articles is about Sue and Robert Olifent.

Since curing her incurable cancer without chemo or radiation etc. (she wasnt offered it as it was too far gone) they are doing free talks every afternoon at a bookshop around Nottinghamshire. I would go if i lived closer.

The title of my thread is the title of their book.

* 2011 Sue diagnosed with one of the most deadliest forms of Cancer - 2.5 inch tumour growing on her liver.

*Terrible pains, and she lost 9.5kg within a few weeks

*scans showed large tumour on liver and 3 smaller growths on her pancreas

*The large tumour was pressing against the tubes and was inoperable

She was prescribed 'sleeping tablets because she would need them' as she was told NOTHING CAN BE DONE.

Robert did all the research and discovered how it could be treated with diet and nutrition.


SIX WEEKS LATER:

*The Tumour had gone and was replaced by benign Scar Tissue.

Doctors put it down to 'one of those spontaneous remissions' and were not interested in the slightest of what Sue had done.

3 years later, Sue continues her diet and tumour remains totally gone.

The Side Effects of her diet Protocol were that her other health problems disappeared too:

*Fungal infection, Candida, Eczema,

Robert must have done the diet too bless him as it states his arthritis in his hands also went and he was able to stop taking steroids/painkillers.

Robert works at an inner city farm and Sue in a Nursery.
 
Last edited:

golden

Senior Member
Messages
1,831
What Sue Avoided:

***No Dairy Products

***No vegetable cooking oils, artificial trans fats or hydrogenated fats

***No Processed Food

***No preserved or tinned foods

***No white bread, white flour or white rice

*** No fizzy drinks, energy drinks, or diluted fruit drinks

***No alcohol

***No coffee and very little caffiene

***No red meat

*** Limited amounts of starchy root veg. Including potatoes, turnips, and especially parsnips and pasta

***Most fruits other than pineapple, organic apple and pears

***No processed table Salt (replaced by Himalayan rock salt or Celtic Sea Salt in moderation)


Resting now and then will post what she DID do and eat :)
 

golden

Senior Member
Messages
1,831
What Sue Ate:

***Digestive enzymes

***Extra Virgin Olive Oil

***Regular High doses Vitamin C

***Apricot Kernels (B17; 30 a day)

***Niacin (B3) Supplements

***Juiced dark-green leafy vegetables, cucumber and celery, with apple, pear or carrot to sweeten

***Raw vegetablee and salads (organic, locally sourced)

*** Green leafy vegetables like spinach, kale, broccoli, cabbage (raw or lightly cooked)

***Fermented foods for good gut flora and supplements of acidophilus probiotic

***Onions, garlic, ginger, chives, coriander; all common garlic herbs are wonderful

***plenty of water - at least 1.5 L a day

***small portions of white meat (organic) and oily fish

They started with a detox and cleanse of the colon for 10 days with magnesium oxide (magnesium salts) powder - which she drank with water evrry day for a week.

After that she detoxified her liver by blending one - third of a pineapple with a two to three centimetre chunk of ginger, one clove of garlic and a tablespoon of extra virgin olive oil, mixed into a glass of filtered water. She drank this every day for 10 days in the morning before eating.

Robert was trying to wreck the environment in which Cancer flourishes, so high - sugar fruits, starchy vegetables and processed sugars were banned.

Quoted from page 59 of What Doctors Dont Tell You.

ng
 

minkeygirl

But I Look So Good.
Messages
4,678
Location
Left Coast
The Apricot seeds reminded me of a cancer treatment years ago so I googled it and found this on Dr. Weil's site. http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400528/Apricot-Kernels-A-Natural-Cancer-Treatment.html

Apricot pits are the source of laetrile, a discredited cancer drug, and of amygdalin (sometimes inaccurately called "vitamin B-17") found in the seeds of other fruits and in some raw nuts.

Amygdalin was isolated in 1830, and first used as an anticancer agent in Russia in 1845. Laetrile is a synthetic version of amygdalin. It was patented in the United States but has not been FDA-approved as a cancer treatment and cannot be sold in this country. However, laetrile, amygdalin, "vitamin B17," and apricot pits are all sold as dietary supplements, and all can be potentially toxic.

Laetrile gained popularity in the 1970s as part of a cancer therapy consisting of a special diet, high-dose vitamin supplements, and pancreatic enzymes. Although many studies - both laboratory and human - have been conducted on it over the years, little evidence supports laetrile’s efficacy. Patients in some studies did respond to the drug, but their cancer recurred as soon as treatment was discontinued.

Furthermore, laetrile can cause serious side effects including symptoms of cyanide poisoning: nausea and vomiting, headache, dizziness, bluish discoloration of the skin due to lack of oxygen in the blood, liver damage, abnormally low blood pressure, droopy upper eyelids, difficulty walking due to damaged nerves, fever, mental confusion, coma, and even death. Laetrile’s side effects can be intensified by eating celery, peaches, bean sprouts, and carrots or by taking high doses of vitamin C. Side effects are more severe when laetrile is given by mouth rather than by injection because intestinal bacteria and some commonly eaten plant foods contain enzymes that activate the release of cyanide.

In my opinion, laetrile and apricot pits are worthless for cancer treatment.

When dealing with cancer, first determine what conventional therapies have to offer. For an excellent overview of complementary cancer therapies, I suggest reading Choices in Healing: Integrating the Best of Conventional and Complementary Approaches to Cancer by Michael Lerner (The MIT Press, 1996) and Integrative Oncology by Donald Abrams M.D. (Oxford University Press, 2009).

Andrew Weil, M.D.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,824
I think this type of diet was initially tried by Steve Jobs for his pancreatic cancer, but it did not work, and it also allowed the cancer to grow so that it became untreatable. But in this present case, if conventional therapy was not an option, I guess this patient had nothing to lose by trying this diet and supplements.



Regarding the efficacy of laetrile (aka: amygdalin, B17) for cancer. Several studies have found no anti-cancer effect from it, as you can see from this Google search.

However, I found two studies which demonstrated that laetrile had anti-cancer effects in prostate cancer cells lines, and cervical cancer cell lines:

Amygdalin induces apoptosis in human cervical cancer cell line HeLa cells
Amygdalin induces apoptosis through regulation of Bax and Bcl-2 expressions in human DU145 and LNCaP prostate cancer cells
 

barbc56

Senior Member
Messages
3,657
While their seminars are free, I wonder how much money they make from their book being sold at these lectures as well as books bought in general.

I think it's important to know the wife's treatment before the diet protocal? Did I miss this?

Barb
ETA I found the above information but I am still skeptical.
 

golden

Senior Member
Messages
1,831
It is utterly deplorable that the Doctors were not interested in how Sue cured her terminal Liver Cancer without any Allopathic Treatment

It is fraudulent and unscientific to be recording this as 'Spontaneous Remission'.

I actually believe many Cancer patients are recovering this way in spite of having Chemo/radiation.

Sue said in her article if she had been offered Chemo she would 'have grabbed it with both hands'.

She was lucky to have not been offered it - because her cancer was too far gone, nor offered palliative Chemo as a recent study suggested that those receiving palliative Chemo are in denial and still think it will cure them. (will try and find it to be more exact as i am hazy in that - but My Mother certainly lived in hope the Chemo would cure her terminal bladder cancer- the Chemo specialsit kept telling her the cancer was diminishing you see. This was a bare faced LIE.

And these kinds of Allopathic lies stop people from having informed consent, healthy independence and rob them of the will and motivation to find alternative methods and instead keep them hooked and locked to a system which is killing them.


Her surgeon was furious about this since he had also been recordingthe Cancer via the operations he was performing on her, and it never diminished and he thought she shoukd have NEVER been given Chemotherapy - he had to deal with all the stent operations - blockages - etc. Due to the Chemo knackering her kidneys.

My Mother was dangled a Two year life extension if she had palliative chemo - the Chemo killed her faster and she was dead within 6 months.

But 'Youve got to try it' - said the overbearing District Nurse. Youve got to give it your best shot. That Nurse also got my Mother smoking more (as did the Chemo Centre when they advised My Mum to not only go outside for a quick sneaky drag of a fag - but to chain smoke out there).

Only one Doctor advised her to quit smoking. Along with me, quietly.

In the case of Sue and Robert here, it states Robert was on a sort of quest. This was because:

"having witnessed the appalling way his parents suffered from cancer - and the treatment they endured - in 2008 bith parents died within a month of each other .."

Their family were trying to discourage him for 'giving Sue false hope'.


But all in all, it was all perfect timing.

I am very happy for Sue and Robert. And pleased to read about it.
 
Last edited:

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,824
I actually believe many Cancer patients are recovering this way in spite of having Chemo/radiation.

A belief that many people recover from cancer through diet is no substitute for actual evidence of this.

The trouble with alternative medicine is that its practitioners are terrible at tabulating their results, and very lazy when it comes to gathering and publishing their data on groups of people trying the remedies. It is through publishing your data that you help others, so that others can see what works and what doesn't.

Susan & Robert Olifent say on their website that:
"We are meeting up with many people who have gone through cancer who have adopted similar principles who are now cancer free, without the use of traditional toxic treatments."

So where is the data that the Olifents have gathered on all these people who adopted similar principles who are now cancer free? Where are the details about each of their particular cancers, how advanced each cancer was, and how rapidly they were cured? Moreover, where is the data about people who adopted similar principles and who weren't cured?

Being lazy about gathering and publishing their data is unethical.
 
Messages
10,157
I used to work in palliative care community nursing and this story doesn't ring true. There is a lot wrong with the description of how it was diagnosed and the follow-up.

Nutritional support is given to cancer patients as an adjunct to whatever medical treatment they are receiving. To suggest that nutritional support alone will cure cancer is very dangerous and an understanding of cancer cells would support this.

These kind of stories are far and few between where as remission via chemotherapy stories are not. Cancer is very complicated to treat and often treatment depends if the cancer has metastasised or not.

I would call any person who decides to go with nutritional support rather than proper cancer treatment because of these people -- unfortunate victims
 

golden

Senior Member
Messages
1,831
A belief that many people recover from cancer through diet is no substitute for actual evidence of this.

The trouble with alternative medicine is that its practitioners are terrible at tabulating their results, and very lazy when it comes to gathering and publishing their data on groups of people trying the remedies. It is through publishing your data that you help others, so that others can see what works and what doesn't.

Susan & Robert Olifent say on their website that:


So where is the data that the Olifents have gathered on all these people who adopted similar principles who are now cancer free? Where are the details about each of their particular cancers, how advanced each cancer was, and how rapidly they were cured? Moreover, where is the data about people who adopted similar principles and who weren't cured?

Being lazy about gathering and publishing their data is unethical.

I broadly agree. Although do not consider it the job of the Oflients and consider them anytging but lazy.

Change the 'trouble with alternative medicine...'
In your comment

to the trouble with medicine, be it allopathic or alternative and i feel this would make it accurate.

I think until Allopathic practitioners do the research, collecting data etc. Then, and onky then will it be taken as a truth by Allopathic Devotees :)

And yet there are plenty of Allopathic practitioners veered into Alternative realms because they get better results. (including Cancer Doctors) with supporting the body to heal itself.

There is a different slant to this story I found in this link here which does make for frustrating reading:

http://www.canceractivepatientgroup.com/?p=851

1) No biopsy - This is because it spreads Cancer.

When I found a lump in my right breast, I refused a needle in it for that reason. I got an ultrasound instead - much nicer anyway and it was just a simple cyst.

2) whilst the 2.5 inch liver tumour was recorded as being gone with scar tissue remaining - the other smaller pancreas tumours were not re checked.

3) it was never recorded if thetumours were benign or malignant . The specialist onky said it looked like charing cross station :-/
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,824
No biopsy - This is because it spreads Cancer.

Right, so if they never confirmed the liver cancer with a biopsy, could it be that this growth seen in the scan of in Sue Olifent's liver might have been something other than cancer? Not all growths are cancers.
 

golden

Senior Member
Messages
1,831
"Biopsies spread cancer"

That's very stupid.

That is acknowledged by Allopathic Medicine and ought to be being fully disclosed to every single patient who is deciding if they want a biopsy.

Anything less is violating their rights and informed consent.
 

golden

Senior Member
Messages
1,831
Right, so if they never confirmed the liver cancer with a biopsy, could it be that this growth seen in the scan of in Sue Olifent's liver might have been something other than cancer? Not all growths are cancers.

Right. That was what I was wondering.

I thought that the only way to clearly diagnose Cancer is to take a sample of tissue BUT it seems Allopathic medicine does not always do this actually.

Symptom picture, blood tests and scans apparently are enough to give the diagnoses of Cancer.

The article does make it clear she was diagnosed with Cancer and the prognosis offered by the Doc was survival chances were 'virtually nil'.

The inoperable tumour was wrapped around her tubes and so it didnt matter if it was benign or malignant either. As it was in such a dangerous place.
 
Messages
10,157
Right, so if they never confirmed the liver cancer with a biopsy, could it be that this growth seen in the scan of in Sue Olifent's liver might have been something other than cancer? Not all growths are cancers.

The presence of scar tissue suggests cirrhosis which could have been caused by more than a few different things.
 

Butydoc

Senior Member
Messages
790
That is acknowledged by Allopathic Medicine and ought to be being fully disclosed to every single patient who is deciding if they want a biopsy.

Anything less is violating their rights and informed consent.
Hi Golden,
I'm not clear if you understand the reason for a tissue sample when considering treating a cancer. Many chemo therapies are tailored to the specific cell type of tumor yielded by the biopsy. In many cases, it is not entirely clear if the growth is cancerous or benign. A biopsy in those circumstances dictates if the tumor is cancerous and needs to be treated or left alone. Certainly when treating a melanoma, a biopsy is critical. First to confirm the diagnosis, then to see the depth of invasion which dictates the amount of normal tissue around the tumor that needs to be surgically removed. Without biopsies, many patient would be very poorly served.

In terms of tumor spread by the biopsy, that certainly is possible along the biopsy track. This has been a very unusual occurrence in my experience.

Best,
Gary
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,824
"Biopsies spread cancer"

That's very stupid.

I had not heard of the idea of biopsies spreading cancer before, but if you look at this PubMed search, you see it brings up a considerable number of studies that have examined this phenomenon, and there is no doubt it does occur.

However, just how much of a risk biopsies present for cancer spreading does not seemed to be settled on as yet. This literature review on breast cancer biopsies concluded that:
Overall, based on the findings of this review, the likelihood of tumour recurrence as a consequence of a biopsy procedure appears very low. Nevertheless, vigilance from both surgeons and radiologists for this potential complication is still advised.
However, I imagine that this is not going to be the last word on the subject.

That review also mentioned that some evidence suggests cancer spreading may be reduced when vacuum biopsy devices are used. So it may be that work needs to be done on creating a safer biopsy device or system, that minimizes or eliminates the risk of cancer spreading through biopsies.