Medical Forum / General / Alternative / March 2008
Should you trust your oncologist?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Carole - 19 Mar 2008 12:31 GMT Should you trust your oncologist? http://www.winningcancer.com/txt/should-you-trust-your-oncologist/
Polls and questionnaires show that three doctors out of four (75 per cent) would refuse any chemotherapy because of its ineffectiveness against the disease and its devastating effects on the entire human organism. --Dr. Tullio Simoncini (Oncologist)
Alan Greenspan dismissed as a "collectivist" myth the idea that businessmen, left to their own devices, "would attempt to sell unsafe food and drugs, fraudulent securities, and shoddy buildings." On the contrary, he declared, "it is in the self-interest of every businessman to have a reputation for honest dealings and a quality product." Greenspan was proven wrong. Cancer is a huge business and we do find pharmaceutical companies, medical and health officials, doctors and hospitals attempting to sell us drugs and hospital procedures that are dangerous and ineffective.
There is no shortage of hard evidence that shows how big pharmaceutical companies hide the dangers of drugs, never publishing results we have the right to know. The matter of unpublished research is a serious one. When doctors make mistakes people die and the withholding of information leads us to make mistakes.
When you read that FDA regulators said Glaxo hasn't adequately alerted physicians to Tykerb's risks, including reduced pumping action of the heart's lower left chamber you are reading about a common tendency in orthodox allopathic medicine. Your doctor will almost always understate the risks and dangers of the drugs, tests, radiation and surgery. And just as these same regulators also cited Glaxo for exaggerating the effectiveness of their drug Tykerb, your doctor will also exaggerate the effectiveness of what he is going to suggest to you.
Much of what we find in orthodox oncology is fraudulent medical science leading to shoddy medical practice. Instead of honest open dealings many oncologists are impossible to communicate with and this arrogance makes it very difficult to think straight and decide on reasonable treatment.
Actually we are the most conditioned, programmed beings the world has ever known and believe just about anything fed to us through the media, especially in the area of medicine. There are people who know this and pray upon our vulnerabilities. Our thoughts and attitudes have been shaped through many years of continuous propaganda, molded by people who do not care for anything but money and power. Our ideas about health and medicine have been implanted in the public consciousness by thousands of media clips each year.
Beware and proceed with care. Who you trust is going to be paramount to the outcome of your cancer. A mistake with trust at this exact moment in your life could cost you your life. Medical and pharmaceutical terrorism fits in a very specific category of terrorism described as "scientific terrorism." We all understand that if a terrorist pulls a gun on innocent people and shoots them, or blows himself up in a crowded area and takes innocent lives, then he has clearly committed a terrorist act. Scientific terrorists do not use guns or bombs but instead use diplomas, impressive titles, official positions and medical organizations to drive stakes into our hearts.
For most people, these kinds of terrorists are invisible. "They almost always wear suits and ties, sport enough degrees after their names to choke an elephant, and speak in serious and seemingly knowledgeable tones about science and health. And they can kill you just as dead as any trigger-happy terrorist hefting an AK-47," writes attorney Scott C. Tips, who goes on to say that these kinds of terrorists tell us to:
* To take drugs when they are either unnecessary or contraindicated; * To undergo surgery when either unnecessary or contraindicated; * To undergo radiation treatment when either unnecessary or contraindicated; * To undergo hospitalization when either unnecessary or contraindicated; * That pesticide and herbicide residues in your foods will not hurt you or your children; * That vitamin-and-mineral supplements are a waste of money and result in nothing more than expensive urine; * That organic and whole foods are unnecessary and a waste of money; * That expensive and costly regulations are necessary to protect your health; and * That you are incapable of making "complicated" health and safety decisions affecting you and your family's health, which decisions are better left in the hands of the educated elite
Modern oncologists are trained agents of the pharmaceutical giants. When it comes to the trust issue one should never forget who built and ran the Auschwitz concentration camp. So great did I.G. Farben (then the greatest pharmaceutical firm in the world) regard the postwar potential of the Auschwitz project that it decided to make an unusual gamble on its future. Rather than let the German government finance the building of the installations, the I.G. directors voted to put up the funds to make I.G. Auschwitz a privately owned I.G. enterprise and to assume the entire risk and thus of course the entire responsibility.
At the end of WWII the allies split up IG Farben into companies that are now the top pharmaceutical concerns on earth among them Bayer, Hoescht, BASF, the Agfa-Gevaert Group and Cassella AG. Many of Wall Streets favorite pharmaceutical/chemical companies behind the proliferation of genetically-altered foods, transgenic animals, human cloning, dangerous psychiatric drugs, deadly vaccines and pesticides -such as Aventis- are subsidiaries of these same companies.
It is impossible to understand the politics of medicine and the history of the war on cancer without acknowledging the pharmaceutical companies historic tendencies to treat people like cattle. Most people today resent any mention of the Nazi horrors and who financed and administrated them for they have made a new religion out of worshipping these same companies and their products.
Our worship of orthodox medicine, of vaccines and cancer treatments is in reality the worship of the Fourth Reich. Of the 24 directors of IG Farben indicted in the so-called IG Farben Trial (1947-1948) before a U.S. military tribunal at the subsequent Nuremberg Trials, 13 were sentenced to prison terms between one and eight years. Most were free and back in the board rooms by 1952 becoming leaders of the post-war companies that split off from IG Farben.. These medical monsters who thought nothing of the brutal torturing and killing of millions of men, women and children are the same people we have been trusting with our and our loved ones lives.
Anyone who believes that these directors had a change of heart and reformed their ways will receive their treatments from companies and doctors who are card carrying members of the orthodox medical establishment. They are in an incestuous relationship with the very profitable pharmaceutical industry.
Orthodox allopathic medicine and the entire field of oncology are married to the worst elements of modern history. One has to understand what one is trusting when walking into an oncologist's office of their own free will. The unfortunates in Europe had to be herded into the death camps at gun point but now people walk into hospitals of their own free will and receive tests and treatments that are brutally toxic.
In reality orthodox oncology invites people into a medical concentration camp where men, women and children are forced to bear cruel lethal treatments. Cancer patients are routinely poisoned on a massive scale with chemotherapy; they are exposed to massive amounts of radiation, to death rays, both of which are an invitation to premature death. Radiation is the death principle and scientists recognize that even in very small amounts all forms of artificially created radiation increase the likelihood of cancer. Patients are also put to the knife and the cancer is cut out even though surgery increases the chances of the cancer spreading to other parts of the body. All in all oncologists use treatments that cause cancer to treat cancer and this is the summation of their medical intelligence.
Medical truth is systematically ridiculed by the medical establishment so they can continue to get away with murder. Orthodox oncologists are in the business of death, medical henchmen trained to kill people in a very particular way. We have advanced greatly in a negative sense since the days of Hitler's concentration camps. Today people trust and embrace their killers willingly and that's just how the story goes. It is the story of modern medicine that harms more then it helps. America's health care system is neither healthy, caring, nor a system. -- Walter Cronkite
For example, evidence shows that the drug makers Merck and Schering-Plough have conducted several studies of their popular cholesterol medicine Zetia that raise questions about its risks to the liver, but the companies have never published those results. Partial results of the studies, alluded to in documents on the Food and Drug Administration's Web site, raise questions about whether Zetia can cause liver damage when used long term with other cholesterol drugs called statins.
http://webletter.net/cybrary/Facts.aft.perp.igpact.html
http://www.rense.com/general7/gw.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben
Carole www.cellsalts.net www.soiltheory.com
drceephd@insightbb.com - 19 Mar 2008 18:22 GMT > Should you trust your oncologist?http://www.winningcancer.com/txt/should-you-trust-your-oncologist/
> Carolewww.cellsalts.netwww.soiltheory.com Consider this as well:
Medical progress.
In former times, certain natives would be taught by an elder the ways of witch doctory.
The docs would dress up in their costumes. The docs would speak in an unknown jargon. The docs might provide some pill, potion, or lotion to give the ill. The docs might puncture the skin with foreign gunk to protect the believer. The docs might do surgery, but only the highest skilled could do it. The docs would act to drive the evil spirits called demons and devils out of the sick body. The docs had great power in the community. The docs were the wealthy of the community.
Compare this to modern allopathic medicine.
The docs are taught by elders the way of allopathic doctory. The docs dress up in their costumes, either the scrubs or the white coat and stethoscope. The docs are taught a jargon unknown to the sufferers. The docs provide pills, potions, and lotions to give to the ill. The docs puncture the skin with poisons and toxins and pronounce you protected. The docs do surgery, but only the highest skilled are allowed to do it. The docs act to drive the evil spirits called germs and viruses out of the sick body. The docs have great power in the community. The docs are the wealthy of the community.
So just how has modern witch doctory changed over the last 3,000 years?
Is allopathic medicine really witch doctory or just another religion?
DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons.
Carole - 21 Mar 2008 14:04 GMT > Should you trust your oncologist?http://www.winningcancer.com/txt/should-you-trust-your-oncologist /
> Carolewww.cellsalts.netwww.soiltheory.com Consider this as well:
Medical progress.
In former times, certain natives would be taught by an elder the ways of witch doctory.
The docs would dress up in their costumes. The docs would speak in an unknown jargon. The docs might provide some pill, potion, or lotion to give the ill. The docs might puncture the skin with foreign gunk to protect the believer. The docs might do surgery, but only the highest skilled could do it. The docs would act to drive the evil spirits called demons and devils out of the sick body. The docs had great power in the community. The docs were the wealthy of the community.
Compare this to modern allopathic medicine.
The docs are taught by elders the way of allopathic doctory. The docs dress up in their costumes, either the scrubs or the white coat and stethoscope. The docs are taught a jargon unknown to the sufferers. The docs provide pills, potions, and lotions to give to the ill. The docs puncture the skin with poisons and toxins and pronounce you protected. The docs do surgery, but only the highest skilled are allowed to do it. The docs act to drive the evil spirits called germs and viruses out of the sick body. The docs have great power in the community. The docs are the wealthy of the community.
So just how has modern witch doctory changed over the last 3,000 years?
Is allopathic medicine really witch doctory or just another religion?
Carole > This is very good, and really it is right on the mark. No doubt the witch doctors of the times thought they were "cutting edge" and uptodate with their techniques.
Carole www.cellsalts.net
DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons.
Peter Moran - 19 Mar 2008 22:15 GMT > Should you trust your oncologist? > http://www.winningcancer.com/txt/should-you-trust-your-oncologist/ [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > disease and its devastating effects on the entire human organism. --Dr. > Tullio Simoncini (Oncologist) Nonsense. There has never ever been such a survery published anywhere. Try and find one. We would have heard of this many times over by now if it were true.
Carole, this is the idiot who thinks cancer is a fungus and that it can be cured by bicarbonate. Also, far from being a credible oncologist, this is a doctor (supposedly) who cannot read a CT scan. Remember? ,CT scans were wrongly labelled and interpreted on his own web site,
PM
Martin - 19 Mar 2008 22:40 GMT >> Should you trust your oncologist? >> http://www.winningcancer.com/txt/should-you-trust-your-oncologist/ [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >PM I've seen two of his patients on television. Their reason for using his treatment? They had looked into his eyes and they could tell he wasn't lying when he told them he was going to cure him. And mind you, he said that when he already lost his license to practice!
Carole - 20 Mar 2008 10:42 GMT > >> Should you trust your oncologist? > >> http://www.winningcancer.com/txt/should-you-trust-your-oncologist/ > >> > >> Polls and questionnaires show that three doctors out of four (75 per cent) > >> would refuse any chemotherapy because of its ineffectiveness against the > >> disease and its devastating effects on the entire human rganism. --Dr.
> >> Tullio Simoncini (Oncologist) > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > wasn't lying when he told them he was going to cure him. And mind you, > he said that when he already lost his license to practice! I think there's a little more to his treatment than merely trusting him by his honest face. Was the documentary some sort of pharmaceutical propaganda by any chance?
Carole www.cellsalts.net
D. C. Sessions - 20 Mar 2008 15:11 GMT > Was the documentary some sort of pharmaceutical propaganda by any chance? Of course it was. It was on television, which means that the Illuminati allowed it -- thus it was propaganda.
| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
Martin - 20 Mar 2008 18:00 GMT >> >> Should you trust your oncologist? >> >> http://www.winningcancer.com/txt/should-you-trust-your-oncologist/ [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >his honest face. >Was the documentary some sort of pharmaceutical propaganda by any chance? No, it was a consumer program where they showed that Simoncini had licence yanked but still treated patients (he said: "I only give advice, wink wink, nod nod"), that he can not read CT scans (as you can see on his site), that a patient died while he was treating her (sorry, while he was giving advice, wink wink, nod nod) and that at least two of his patients don't need any other proof than the fact that he looks like an honest guy. And they showed Simoncini saying that conventional oncologists kill thousands of people every year, so who are they to call him a charlatan. I think the guy is seriously deluded, and judging by his suit, which was very nice even for an Italian, he is making loads of money in the process.
>Carole >www.cellsalts.net Carole - 21 Mar 2008 14:18 GMT > >> >> Should you trust your oncologist? > >> >> http://www.winningcancer.com/txt/should-you-trust-your-oncologist/ [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > deluded, and judging by his suit, which was very nice even for an > Italian, he is making loads of money in the process. Simoncini is / was a qualified oncologist and its reasonable to say he knows what he is doing. The documentary was probably biased to portray him as incompetent. What you don't seem to understand is that bicarb is a very good fungicide, and it is quite likely that cancer is a fungus. Conventional medicine doesn't yet understand the cause of cancer.
As simoncini says -
"The implications from my hypothesis that cancer is a fungus which can be eradicated with sodium bicarbonate are that: 1) eighty years of genetic study and application has been for nothing, especially considering that the genetic theory of cancer has never been demonstrated; 2) the loss of millions, if not billions, of lives with all the suffering has been for nothing; 3) the billions of dollars spent on chemotherapy medicine, radiotherapy, etc. has been for nothing; 4) the recognition and prizes given to eminent researchers and professors has been for nothing; 5) the oncologist could be replaced by the family doctor; and 6) the pharmaceutical industry will incur tremendous financial losses (sodium bicarbonate is inexpensive and impossible to patent). My methods have cured people for 20 years. Many of my patients recovered completely from cancer, even in cases where official oncology had given up."
Carole www.cellsalts.net
Martin - 21 Mar 2008 17:37 GMT >> >> >> Should you trust your oncologist? >> >> >> http://www.winningcancer.com/txt/should-you-trust-your-oncologist/ [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >Simoncini is / was a qualified oncologist and its reasonable to say he knows >what he is doing. He *was* qualified. The unqualified him when he demonstrated that he choose to ignore what he'd been taught in favor of very dangerous woo that already killed several people.
>The documentary was probably biased to portray him as incompetent. No it wasn't. They showed he lost his license, they showed he was still treating patients despite that fact (sorry, I mean, just giving advice, wink wink, nod nod) and they had an oncologist saying that he talks nonsense.
>What you don't seem to understand is that bicarb is a very good fungicide, >and it is quite likely that cancer is a fungus. No it's not. We know what cancer is and it's not a fungus. It's the DNA of your own cells gone wild. Now *why* that is isn't exactly known, but it sure as hell isn't a fungus.
>Conventional medicine doesn't yet understand the cause of cancer. Not in every case, but it's better than Simoncini's ideas, which he simply makes up.
>As simoncini says - > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >especially considering that the genetic theory of cancer has never been >demonstrated; I wonder if he's had an accident that gave him brain damage or memory loss. He did have an education as an oncologist, so why he would say something so stupid I can not understand.
>2) the loss of millions, if not billions, of lives with all the suffering >has been for nothing; [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >My methods have cured people for 20 years. Many of my patients recovered >completely from cancer, even in cases where official oncology had given up." And that's where is lying, plain and simple. And he can apparently do it while still appearing to be an honest man to some. He doesn't have 20 years of patient files showing his therapy works. You probably have an excuse for that, like that they have been confiscated by the government or something, but sorry, that is your delusion, not the truth.
>Carole >www.cellsalts.net Carole - 25 Mar 2008 14:31 GMT > >Simoncini is / was a qualified oncologist and its reasonable to say he knows > >what he is doing. > > He *was* qualified. The unqualified him when he demonstrated that he > choose to ignore what he'd been taught in favor of very dangerous woo > that already killed several people. He had a high success rate, but not all patients survived. If the death of a patient is reason to debar a doctor, why aren't all the conventional oncologists struck off?
> >The documentary was probably biased to portray him as incompetent. > > No it wasn't. They showed he lost his license, they showed he was > still treating patients despite that fact (sorry, I mean, just giving > advice, wink wink, nod nod) and they had an oncologist saying that he > talks nonsense. He was a qualified oncologist and had a lot of success with his bicarb method. Why debar him in the first place? The only reason is to protect the pharmaceutical cartel -- you can't patent bicarb.
> >What you don't seem to understand is that bicarb is a very good fungicide, > >and it is quite likely that cancer is a fungus. > > No it's not. We know what cancer is and it's not a fungus. It's the > DNA of your own cells gone wild. Now *why* that is isn't exactly > known, but it sure as hell isn't a fungus. No, we don't know what cancer is. they theorise its the DNA gone wrong but really it is a lesion where toxic rubbish from the body is dumped, which then turns into cancer because the environment is so bad. The tissue begins to break down and the fungus is part of nature's tactics to return what is dead and dying back to the soil.
> >Conventional medicine doesn't yet understand the cause of cancer. > > Not in every case, but it's better than Simoncini's ideas, which he > simply makes up. So you say, and so conventional medicine would like us to believe. However, there is a lot of repression of facts in medicine and innovation is frowned upon. There is virtually no way that anybody can come up with a cure because it will be bought out, killed off and otherwise gotten rid of -- just like the electric car and many other discoveries that would help humanity.
> >As simoncini says - > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > loss. He did have an education as an oncologist, so why he would say > something so stupid I can not understand. I wouldn't expect you to say anything else, which just goes to demonstrate how mind controlled in your thinking you really are.
> >2) the loss of millions, if not billions, of lives with all the suffering > >has been for nothing; [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > government or something, but sorry, that is your delusion, not the > truth. Yep, confiscated by the hospital where he worked. Wouldn't any and all records remain the property of the hospital / facility where he worked?
Carole www.cellsalts.net www.soiltheory.com
Peter Bowditch - 25 Mar 2008 21:28 GMT >He was a qualified oncologist and had a lot of success with his bicarb >method. >Why debar him in the first place? >The only reason is to protect the pharmaceutical cartel -- you can't patent >bicarb. The drug tamoxifen is used to treat certain cancers. It is not covered by a patent, so according to your "logic" oncologists who prescribe it are breaking the rules of the "pharmaceutical cartel". Why are they allowed to get away with this?
Please explain.
 Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
MothWrangler - 26 Mar 2008 00:55 GMT >>He was a qualified oncologist and had a lot of success with his bicarb >>method. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Please explain. Oh, com'on, the explanation is simple:
The Cartel (TINC) has allowed an exception, allowing the use of tamoxifen to treat cancer, to its general prohibition against using non-patented treatments, solely so folks like you can point to it and thereby, counter the claim of people like Carole that The Cartel (TINC) doesn't allow non-patented treatments.
The Cartel (TINC) is sneaky like that.
 Signature Proud member since 2007, WWWSC #1 Ann/Emma Anne #4
D. C. Sessions - 21 Mar 2008 18:03 GMT > What you don't seem to understand is that bicarb is a very good fungicide, > and it is quite likely that cancer is a fungus. Sodium bicarbonate is a totally useless fungicide, since it only inhibits fungi by raising the pH to lethal levels and cranking up the osmotic pressure from saline imbalance. That's fine if you're cleaning out a shower, but the trouble is that there are plenty of fungi tolerate that kind of abuse better than human tissues do.
We have fungi around here that live on rocks and in the soil. So what, you may ask? Well, the soil is basically a granitic clay (loaded with soda) bound together with /caliche/ (carbonates). You can extract sodium bicarbonate from it if you want to, if not in a useful commercial process. The ground is so loaded with these salts that it fizzes if you expose it to any kind of acid.
The soil fungus loves it, even while it's killing plants.
| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
Vern Nance - 20 Mar 2008 04:11 GMT Regarding the statement that studies have shown that oncologists themselves would refuse chemotherapy, here is one frequently cited survey:
" In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a questionnaire to 118 doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. More than three quarters of them recruited patients and carried out trials of toxic drugs for lung cancer. They were asked to imagine that they themselves had cancer, and were asked which of six current trials they themselves would choose. Of the 79 respondents, 64 said they would not consent to be in a trial containing cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug Fifty-eight found all the trials unacceptable."
While dated, it certainly lends credence to the idea that many oncologists would themselves decline the treatment they routinely prescribe for their patients.
Peter Moran - 20 Mar 2008 05:11 GMT > Regarding the statement that studies have shown that oncologists > themselves would refuse chemotherapy, here is one frequently cited survey: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > would themselves decline the treatment they routinely prescribe for their > patients. Even if an accurate report, this is NO support for the very general claim that was being made i.e. that 75% of oncologists would refuse any form of chemotherapy for any condition. It refers to a partticularly poor prognosis cancer where the gains are generally small with any form of chemotherapy, especially in those days. If you asked the same oncologists whether they would accept chemotherapy for leukemia or lymphoma or secondary testicular cancer or breast cancer, the results would be spectacularly different.
I agree that it is poor if doctors are subjecting patients to trials that they would not undergo themsleves, but the information supplied does not really allow us to know what is going on in the doctors' minds.
PM
Jan Drew - 20 Mar 2008 07:01 GMT >> Regarding the statement that studies have shown that oncologists >> themselves would refuse chemotherapy, here is one frequently cited [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >We knew EXACTLY what was going on in the mind of Dr Wilson, who deliberately and repeatedly filed lying reports.
Deliberately witheld information from Jesse's parents. Do NOT report momkeys had died. Thrid and forth time was warned, he ignored it. Yet, he REMAINS ON STAFF.
Conclusion, one can NOT believe a word PM says.
|
|
|