Print Friendly and PDF

Ayurvedic Herbs Treat Brain and Lung Cancers: Some with 90% Success Rate

Christina Sarich
May 27th, 2013
Updated 05/07/2014 at 11:02 pm
Pin It

ayurverdic 263x164 Ayurvedic Herbs Treat Brain and Lung Cancers: Some with 90% Success RateWith cancer cures seeping into mainstream media from natural health practitioners almost weekly now, it makes one wonder why anyone would subject themselves to chemotherapy and radiation, since there is growing evidence that it poisons the body and simply causes the cancer cells to become temporarily dormant only to return later in fuller force.

While these treatments are often used unnecessarily to ‘treat’ cancer patients, there are other, less invasive cures being used by Ayurvedic clinics all over India and in other parts of the world – some solutions having as much as a 90% success rate.

In several clinics, lung and brain cancers have been treated with an over 90% success rate, and in almost every single case, the cancer was lessened. According to a clinical research test conducted in one Ayurvedic Clinic, lung cancers were minimized so effectively that only .09% of the participants in one 500-plus-person study still remained ‘uncured’.

Dr. Vikram Chauhaun, M.D. recommends a whole list of Ayurvedic treatments to effectively treat brain tumors caused by cancer, including herbs like Hirak Bhasma, Swarna Bhasma, Swarn Vasant Malti, and Abhrak Bhasma Sahasar Puti. Other Ayurvedic remedies work on immunity and attempt to reverse metastasizing cells. These include Divya Sila Sindura, which aids in treating lung cancers by supporting bronchial health – specifically by increasing red blood cell count, which is counterproductive for growing cancer cells. Much cancer research states that cancer cannot grow in a well oxygenated cellular system. The herb Heerak Bhasma has also been shown to support cancer prevention and reversal as well.

Dr. Garcia, M.D. states that chemotherapy only has an effectiveness rate around 3%. Many clinical studies are proving this is to be no exaggerated truth, though it is shocking. According to less slanted evidence that doesn’t exaggerate the improvement rate based on only a few cancers that have responded better to chemo than the rest, the most common cancers have much more disparaging recovery rates, like breast cancer 1.4%; prostate cancer 0.0%; lung cancer 2.0%; and colon cancer 1.0%.

A journal published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2004 even admitted that chemotherapy had a 98% failure rate. While this rate is arguable amongst medical practitioners and scientists, it is obvious that chemo is very hard on an individual and often causes them to feel sick for months at a time, lose their hair, have terrible headaches, and lose tons of weight. If there are more natural cures, such as those offered by a 5000-year old science, why not use them instead?

From around the web:

  • habibilamour

    The failure rate sure isn’t “arguable” (Insolence is a hateful “skeptic” who blindly follows big pharma)…Dr Garcia does state that the 2004 article is made up of many thousands of cases, and so many doctors would refuse chemo for themselves. I know of a man with 2 phd’s in pharmacology who said he would rather kill himself than have chemo.
    This is not “poorly written”, as 0.09% is a legitimate number, as opposed to 0.09 patients. Pro-chemo people are irritating: they criticise problems with articles that don’t exist and increasingly sound like they have come from an alternate reality. HOW THE FUCK does it make sense that the stuff saves lives? It doesn’t.
    PS: WNT16B. ’nuff said.

  • Andreas Kaubisch

    I am a cancer doctor, and actually open to alternative treatments (read the Jimmy Keller Story by Ellen Brown).

    However, this article is very poorly written, and shows no awareness whatsoever of how data is presented and reported. Looking at just one of the cited links is given to support the statement:
    “only 0.9% of patients.. remained uncured”….

    The actual data offered by the clinic (follow the link):
    Results of 770 patients of various types of cancer treated at DARF during Jan.2004 to Dec.2004.

    (1) Total no. of Primary cancer 504. In all 504 patients with primary cancer of various types were treated at DARF.

    13% patients were rendered disease free
    20.63% patients were markedly improved
    65.27% patients were improved
    0.9% patients were uncured

    (2) Total no. of Secondary (metastases) cancer 266. In all 266 patients with metastases of different types were treated at DARF.

    12.03% patients were rendered disease free
    18.04% patients were markedly improved
    68.79% patients were improved
    1.12% patients were uncured

    This means that 12 % are reported as having had a complete response, pretty good. However the other 88% had residual cancer, which presumably progressed and killed the patients. A bit misleading reporting here?

    And of the 12% with a complete response, how many had their cancer come back (very common in lung cancer), how long did these patients live? We are missing a lot of info to just know what they are talking about.

    Western scientific publications in cancer therapy are not perfect, but they will report:
    - patient characteristics
    - cancer histology (type)
    - treatment drugs, doses, and schedules
    - side effects
    - detailed outcomes (response rate, time to progression, median/ overall survival etc)

    This article does nothing to convince me, and I would like to believe there are good and effective non- chemo options.

    Show us the data!

    Andreas Kaubisch

  • bernie

    as a >25 year practitioner of mainstream medicine,i wholeheartedly agree with the use of natural medicine,provided the evidence for its effectveness exists.
    sofar i have been very impressed by the studies i've seen–just the results on tumeric alone are extremely impressive!
    i have actively researched "integrative medicine,which attempts to combine the most effective,least harmful elements of both systems(—no easy task!)
    to avoid oversimplification,you need to compare the full spectrum results of conventional medicine's treatment with complementary medicine.
    there are a huge number of cancers and they also vary from individual to individual and in their "aggressiveness"i.e. ability to spread locally and to distant parts of the body(metastasize)
    as you may know,cancer is usually diagnosed in various stages:local,regionally metastasized and distantly metastasized.
    quite a high percentage of the first two categories are "cured" by surgery and or chemo/radiation and only in the last category,where surgery is not an option,do the disappointing results show up.

    having said that, i know that for me personally,if i had stage 3 cancer,conventional treament would not be my first choice…..

  • @gifteconomy144

    The profit MUST BE done in our satanic economic system – thus, we first, need A GIFT ECONOMY (all for free to all= life is a gift and everything should/could be a gift if we consent ).. and after… we would heal… for real!

  • Jeff

    Cure cancer and every other disease! God put in nature!

  • Crocodile

    Cancer is not ment to be cured !
    It should be "treated" only !

    • Fedupwithlies

      You should be working for big pharma, if you are not already