 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / March 2008Cancer and the way some Doctors view same.
Hi, I wrote many months ago about my brother in law that was found to have Bowel cancer. The cancer was removed surgically in January 2007 and all went well except for spots on the liver. Bob went through Chemo for this which seemed successful except by August the next diagnosis was for spots on the lung. Initially the diagnosis after spots on the liver were found was for a shortened life span but some hope of chemo being useful. The next phase was for spots on the lung which the patient was told that lifespan had been shortened. After Chemo the prognosis for the liver had changed to perhaps an operable situation for cure with the liver problem but enhanced problems with the lungs. Come December the patient was admitted to hospital with a suspected virus caused by the Chemo, then all hell broke loose in February with the diagnosis being a spread of cancer to the brain. At this stage whilst in hospital Bob was informed by three Doctors that he had around two weeks to live and that he should go home and sort out his affairs. The basis of this prognosis seemed to be reliant on that Chemo was ineffective with brain cancer. Then after a visit to the treating Oncologist he was informed that maybe he has two months with nothing else available. Chemo not being an option for brain cancer patients. The Oncologist shook his head at the request for perhaps a year or two. Bob and his wife insisted that he be assessed for radio therapy as a means of prolonging life. They went to their Doctor who said that he would recommend radio therapy if the Oncologist did not. Today after the visit for radio therapy he is told that chemo is available after radio therapy and with both treatments he may have another year or two. When confronted with what was said by other Doctors and the Oncologist, the specialist stated that he would like to know their names but then decided that there was little that could be achieved. So it goes on with Doctors insisting on death along with nursing staff and then finally some hope with radio therapy from the specialist. Can you imagine how all this uncertainty dispensed by the medical industry is affecting a family and those around them? Can you imagine the mood swings that these people are experiencing whilst one or more Doctors says that you will die within two weeks and then the specialist says that you have two years with good treatment? Today after that visit to the main hospital Bob was told that they could and would do radio therapy which should give them the time that they so desperately need. More to the point is that if you were to receive this diagnosis whilst your hand and feet were uncontrollable due to brain cancer would you accept the initial diagnosis from two Doctors and an Oncologist and if you felt strongly enough to stop the pain to loved ones, would you consider suicide or would you ignore the consensus of opinion and seek further treatment. Luckily they have elected for further treatment and have not succumbed to the Doctors expressed opinions. Rod > Hi, > Rod Sorta should convince you that the allopathic quacks do not know what cancer is or what is going on, doesn't it? Why not sent your inlaw a copy of "Dying to have known," a video about the Gerson organization. If the indecision and the further treatments do not totally destroy your inlaw, he might be able to gain a few more years or more with the correct "alternative" care. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons...or radiation either. > Sorta should convince you that the allopathic quacks do not know what > cancer is or what is going on, doesn't it? > > Why not sent your inlaw a copy of "Dying to have known," a video about > the Gerson organization. ... whose explanation of cancer is based firmly in 15th century humors, miasmas, and mysticism. Ritual magic. | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ > In message <d7b3bd9c-8134-4a58-99c4-68b04471a...@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | > +---------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ DC, your bias and your ignorance is showing. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons...or radiation either. > In message > <d7b3bd9c-8134-4a58-99c4-68b04471a56e@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Why not sent your in law a copy of "Dying to have known," a video about >> the Gerson organization. The facts about the Gerson treatment are readily available and they bear no correlation at all to the claims of either Max Gerson or the Gerson organisation. See http://www.users.on.net/~pmoran/cancer/Alternative_studies.htm and http://www.users.on.net/~pmoran/cancer/Gerson.htm and http://www.cam-cancer.org/CAM-summaries/Diet-nutrition/Gerson-diet/How-well-does -the-Gerson-diet-work PM www.cancerwatcher.com > > In message > > <d7b3bd9c-8134-4a58-99c4-68b04471a...@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > www.cancerwatcher.com Petey the Moron pontificates once again. Yet, he has never read the literature nor viewed the documentary about the Gerson therapy. He has no idea nor no intellectual concept of what an "alternative" approach to cancer might be. In fact, he has no actual concept of what cancer really is and is not. How do you pretend that you know more than Max Gerson about how nutrition affects human health when Dr. Gerson studied it and used for over 40 years successfully and you know to do is to sclice and dice a human? How can you pontificate from a viewpoint of total ignorance, and obfuscation stemming from your indoctrination and brainwashing in med school and expect those of us with an open, and inquiring mind not to see your utter lack of understanding and credentials? Normally, attornies are considered to be lower than whale sh.t on the bottom of the ocean, but I think you deserve a spot below them. You dumb sh.t, cancer is a normal response and a normal body defense mechanism to abnormal nutrition and stress. We can add to that the second type of cancer, induced cancer, cancer induced by carcinogens, including your vaunted chemotherapy and radiation treatments. Your incompetence knows no bounds. I will not let you lead more tens of thousands to the slaughter provided by you and modern medicine without a fight. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons...or radiation as well. >> > In message >> > <d7b3bd9c-8134-4a58-99c4-68b04471a...@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > what an "alternative" approach to cancer might be. In fact, he has no > actual concept of what cancer really is and is not. And our boy Chuckles whiffs again. Had he read (yes, ObQuirk) the linked sites, he would have found cites, quotes, etc. from both Gerson himself and his clinic's records -- the only sources used for calculating the Gerson program's success [1]. The Gerson program summary is according to patients selected by Gerson and according to the criteria recorded by Gerson, using Gerson's records. If Chuckles has any objections to the methodology of the review (such as, "is the patient in question alive?") he may just have to hold his nose and read [2] the material he's pretending to critique. > How do you pretend that you know more than Max Gerson about how > nutrition affects human health when Dr. Gerson studied it and used for > over 40 years successfully and you know to do is to sclice and dice a > human? Ah, yes. "Moron" was the appellation, wasn't it? To answer the intended-to-be-rhetorical question: by taking Gerson's word for it. > How can you pontificate from a viewpoint of total ignorance, and > obfuscation stemming from your indoctrination and brainwashing in med > school and expect those of us with an open, and inquiring mind not to > see your utter lack of understanding and credentials? Normally, > attornies are considered to be lower than whale sh.t on the bottom of > the ocean, but I think you deserve a spot below them. Dang -- I love that. "Pontificate from a viewpoint of total ignorance." Excellent. Directed at something he's never read. Talk about projection! Clue, Chuckles: your own inability to comprehend what others have done is not universal. As noted above. > You dumb sh.t, cancer is a normal response and a normal body defense > mechanism to abnormal nutrition and stress. We can add to that the > second type of cancer, induced cancer, cancer induced by carcinogens, > including your vaunted chemotherapy and radiation treatments. Sure, Chuckles. If you say so. Never mind details like mechanism, since your religion doesn't do "mechanism," just "vital force." > Your incompetence knows no bounds. I will not let you lead more tens > of thousands to the slaughter provided by you and modern medicine > without a fight. What are you going to do? Perform a ritual to disrupt his "vital force?" [1] There appears to be some innumeracy here. Maybe it's "alternative mathematics," but the tally of surviving Gerson patients from his cherry-picked top 50 don't add up to his claimed _average_ survival rate. [2] Or have someone else read it to him. Whatever it takes. | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ >In message ><c2887afb-6542-449a-b238-7f9020134778@c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > Gerson patients from his cherry-picked top 50 don't add > up to his claimed _average_ survival rate. Don't sweat this one, DC. We've long since established that Chuckles can't count above 10 without taking his shoes off. A little slip like this one is far beyond his feeble abilities to comprehend. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?" -- Bill Maher > Don't sweat this one, DC. We've long since established that Chuckles > can't count above 10 without taking his shoes off. A little slip like > this one is far beyond his feeble abilities to comprehend. Sweat? Dude, I live in central Arizona and it's March already. Chuckie isn't going to affect my perspiratory balance within experimental error. Now, ROTFLMAOPMP is another issue entirely. | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ On Mar 10, 7:51 am, "Rod" <deniecer...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > Rod Sorta should convince you that the allopathic quacks do not know what cancer is or what is going on, doesn't it? Why not sent your inlaw a copy of "Dying to have known," a video about the Gerson organization. If the indecision and the further treatments do not totally destroy your inlaw, he might be able to gain a few more years or more with the correct "alternative" care. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons...or radiation either. Thanks DrCee, I have read Max Gerson's Books and also viewed the videos and am a subscriber for some time. Whilst I have no doubt that dietary factors are involved in health restoration I have been unable to confirm that the Gerson treatment actually works. Let me explain. I do not question the basis of Gerson's treatment keeping in mind that he died in 1959. In stating this the pollution factors and food supply corruption would have been far less (in the 30, to 50's) than we experience now. Considerably less in radioactive and radiation terms as well as chemical contaminations in food chain supplies which ultimately end up in the human food chain. Changes in air quality are also a major consideration especially with vehicle exhaust fumes and industrial toxic wastes and fumes. I would also include changes in nature especially UV rays. Perhaps these changes can explain some comments that cancer used to effect one in sixteen and now effects one in two. In my mind the Gerson therapy stopped many years ago and in support there seems to be only two clinics of 10 beds and 3. Perhaps I am missing something but if the therapy worked so well then, then why has it not spread further or has it? The Gerson foundation site plays on the fact that there are Drs looking at using the Gerson technique but since 1977 there has only been the two clinics of 10 beds and 3. If we were to be serious about the Gerson Treatment then why would they not instigate a "Fair Go" measure and have all clinical evidence submitted. Lets look at the current evidence under the current conditions before we make claims. Lets substantiate a few things. Many thanks, Rod > Perhaps these changes can explain some comments that cancer used to effect > one in sixteen and now effects one in two. Well, *comments* are easy to explain. As for the putative statistics, I would ask whether the per-capita rate of cancer in (let's say) the 40-50 year age cohort has changed. To refine the question, one might attempt to correct for known factors such as smoking and fashions in tanning. | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ >> Perhaps these changes can explain some comments that cancer used to effect >> one in sixteen and now effects one in two. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > might attempt to correct for known factors such as smoking > and fashions in tanning. There must be something about this question that just totally kills threads. Does anyone have an explanation? | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ > <drcee...@insightbb.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Many thanks, Rod Thanks for the weighted reply. You question why the Gerson approach to cancer is not more mainstream. Consider that we suffer under the allopathic medical monopoly. There can be no treatment for cancer that does not involve big pharma and trhe medical monopoly. The monopoly simply will not allow the initial treatment for the diagnosis of any cancer to be nutrition and lifestyle based. In California, an oncologist that mentions "alternative" to a patient can be fined $10,000 and can even lose his medical license. This should answer why nutrition and lifestyle is not better utilized. Secondly, mainstream medicine does not know what cancer is or how it forms. Their concept of cancer is bogus and the treatments mainly fatal. You will notice that every "alternative" treatment has as its basis, changes in nutrition, lifestyle, and mind control ( eg meditation ). I would argue that cancer is now the leading cause of death in the US and coronary disease is now number 2. I think the video "dying to have known" verifies that there have been thousands of cancer patients successfully treated via the Gerson protocol. There is the Gerson clinic in Mexico, the two hospitals in Japan, and the at least one clinic in Holland and Spain. The medical monopoly is losing its hold on the supression of the truth due to better knowledge and most importantly the internet. As I have shown, I conducted cancer research for years, and no one in that field knows what cancer really is. They can induce tumors, they can cut, burn, poison, and torture animals and humans, but they are inept barbarians at best. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons...or radiation either. >I think the video "dying to have known" verifies that there have been >thousands of cancer patients successfully treated via the Gerson >protocol. Define "successfully treated". Better still, go and ask them. You will find that it is whatever Charlotte Gerson and Howard Strauss (both medically naive persons) say it is. It means that if a person comes to them already cured of cancer by conventional methods (but perhaps not surely) and that person does well, it is the Gerson treatment that takes the credit. It means that if a doctor said the patient may only survive for six months and the patient survives for nine months before dying, that is a success. Ask them for patients who actually had active cancer that went into remission with their treatment and you will be given none. Gearin Tosh will be mentioned, who was never completely cured and probably had an indolent form of myeloma that eventually killed him, and Beata Bishop who did not have the advanced form of melanoma that the Gerson version of her story claims (I have spoken to her personally).. These are self-deluding people. Howard Strauss once described to me proudly how one of his patients was surviving for ten months, quoting studies studies showing a mean survival of that cancer of only six months. He said she was "already outliving that". I had to point out that perhaps 50% of such patients would outlive that. These are reasonably sincere but self-deluding and paranoid people who attribute anything that may contradict their illusions to conspiracy, as you do. They are able to sustain belief by shaping their own warped reality. PM > <drcee...@insightbb.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > PM There are two hospitals in Japan now using the Gerson protocol for cancer patients. The reported number of patients is at least 650. How about debunking their data and results since this represents current, or modern data? Or, will you pretend that the Japanese are incompetent doctors and only you are the magnificent one? DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. On Mar 11, 5:38 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote: > <drcee...@insightbb.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > PM There are two hospitals in Japan now using the Gerson protocol for cancer patients. The reported number of patients is at least 650. How about debunking their data and results since this represents current, or modern data? Or, will you pretend that the Japanese are incompetent doctors and only you are the magnificent one? hawki: have any data of their results yet?? we'll talk then DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. On Mar 11, 5:38 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote: > <drcee...@insightbb.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > PM >There are two hospitals in Japan now using the Gerson protocol for >cancer patients. The reported number of patients is at least 650. And you believe this because a promotional video told you so? There is a big difference also between "using the Gerson protocol" and showing that it works. >How about debunking their data and results since this represents >current, or modern data? Or, will you pretend that the Japanese are >incompetent doctors and only you are the magnificent one? No, but I am confident that if they produce their results they will look exactly like those in the three studies on the Gerson clinic's own patients.that I and others have analysed.. The Gerson clinic also offers one other study where over a thousand patients were treated with a Gerson-like diet (Lechner et al in Stuttgart). Below is how that group reported their results. Note no mention of bringing patients into remission. In fact two of their patients had brief remissions but one of these also had chemotherapy. 1) Tumour cachexy which is inevitable in advanced stages of the illness can, in most cases, be prevented or at least significantly delayed. 2) Thanks to the generally good nutritional status of the patients, there are fewer post-operative complications when a second intervention becomes necessary; the same applies to intercurrent infections. 3) The subjective and objective side effects of radiation or anti-neoplastic chemotherapy are less marked. 4) Patients on the dietary therapy have significantly less need for analgesics and psychotropic drugs than the controls. 5) The psychological state of the patients is good throughout. This could possibly be due to a certain placebo effect. To determine to what extent 6) the slower progression of existing liver metastases, which we have observed, and 7) the less marked occurrence of malignant effusions can be interpreted as therapeutic successes of the dietary regimen, requires the further study of a larger number of patients. These are all subjective impressions of the authors, not actual proven results, although the severe salt restriction is a credible reason for the improvement that was thought to occur in effusions and cerebral edema in some cases. This would be OK, if were not that the Gerson clinic pretends that it is the answer to cancer. It is not. They do not give their clients a realistic appraisal of what the Gerson method can do. It is not clear that it has any effect on cancer, even though it is the most extreme and exhausting dietary intervention possible.. PM > On Mar 11, 5:38 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote: >> <drcee...@insightbb.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > therapeutic successes of the dietary regimen, requires the further study of > a larger number of patients. What strikes me is that, in their own best-case descriptions, their protocol amounts to adjunctive therapy and often a palliative adjunct at that. > These are all subjective impressions of the authors, not actual proven > results, although the severe salt restriction is a credible reason for the > improvement that was thought to occur in effusions and cerebral edema in > some cases. And even with those glasses biased towards long optical wavelengths, they're not claiming very much. > This would be OK, if were not that the Gerson clinic pretends that it is the > answer to cancer. It is not. They do not give their clients a realistic > appraisal of what the Gerson method can do. It is not clear that it has > any effect on cancer, even though it is the most extreme and exhausting > dietary intervention possible.. ... and then you get this disconnect. Once again we run, if indirectly, into the need of MOW [1] to deny that modern medicine has progressed beyond the 18th century. [1] Merchants Of Woo. | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Rod A sad but common scenario. Without even looking at any studies that have been performed on patients in this situation we can say that "may have another year or two" is not necessarily false, but it is almost certainly an extremely optimistic outlook for a program of treatment that may merely make his life less tolerable than it already is. We can predict that by far the majority of patients who undertake this treatment will derive little or no benefit, and that if survival is, on average, prolonged it will be more likely to be of a couple of months than years. But then 1 in 10,000 patients may even be cured by it! Odd things sometimes happen in cancer treatment. There is no "correct" medical approach because we cannot predict the outcome in the individual case. We have weigh the possibilities against the probabilities. In an ideal world the patient's decision after fully informed consent (better than m ay be applying here) would determine what is done. In the real world cost-benefit considerations and the availability of resources and the personal opinions of doctors will have an influence on what is offered patients. PM > > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Petey the Moron pontificates and obfuscates once again. Petey, tell Rod that chemo and radiation are merely "palliation" for the condition of cancer. Then explain to Rod what palliation means and what the palliation of cancer results in....death and/or more cancer...and death. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons...including radiation. <drceephd@insightbb.com> >Petey the Moron pontificates and obfuscates once again. >Petey, tell Rod that chemo and radiation are merely "palliation" for >the condition of cancer. Then explain to Rod what palliation means >and what the palliation of cancer results in....death and/or more >cancer...and death. Rod knows this. He knows a bit about medicine. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy ARE curative on their own for some kinds of cancer. As I have freeely admitted, it is extremely unlikely that they will cure this one. Only alternative propagandists and hangers on have difficulty getting their heads around the three different contexts in which chemotherapy and radiotherapy are used: -- Palliative (i.e. not expected to cure), curative (i.e. with the intention of curing the patient if possible), and adjunctive (used along with other methods). Very differnet considerations apply to each, but to the ill-informed and just about every "alternative" author with the possible exception of Ralph Moss, it is all a blur. PM DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons...including radiation. >> Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > PM Thanks Peter, I tend to agree with your reality check however that does not make matters tolerable or acceptable. I guess I am saying Peter, that at times the onus of well being can be a lonely vigil as with the dark dog of depression. Until cures are developed it would be nice to have some consistancy in mannerism and outlook by Doctors and staff especially for the terminal patient. That may save a lot of deaths called suicides! Rod |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.