Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Boys family forced into chemo.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Caesar J. B. Squitti - 14 May 2008 15:27 GMT
Boys family forced into chemo.

Here are some references to the fact that many people do not benefit
from chemo, in fact many people die not from the cancer but from the
chemo.

The New England Journal of Medicine Reports— War on Cancer Is a
Failure: Despite $30 billion spent on research and treatments since
1970, cancer remains "undefeated," with a death rate not lower but 6%
higher in 1997 than 1970, stated John C. Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D., and
Heather L. Gornik, M.H.S., both of the Department of Health Studies at
the University of Chicago in Illinois. "The war against cancer is far
from over," stated Dr. Bailar. "The effect of new treatments for
cancer on mortality has been largely disappointing."

Here is a link to other sites:
http://www.whale.to/cancer/quotes1.html

Having said that  I am shocked that 'The Chidlren's Aid Society' woudl
force a family away from alternative medicine, or the choices the
family wants to make concerning their child.

Perhpa what is more tragic is that the Childrens Aid Society does not
say anything about the millions of healthy unborn children that are
killed by doctors in abortions at taxpayers expense.  In Thunder Bay
alone, some 400 unborn children are killed each year in the Hospital.
Enough to fill a small school.

Sad to say, I think we have some sort of 'Nazi Germany" all over again
in Canada, where doctors and hospitals are doing things that they
should not be.  (abortions should be down by abortionists, not doctors
in publically funded hospitals )

Caesar J. B. Squitti
THE LIGHT: The Jesus Christ Code.
http://www.thejesuschristcode.com

"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right
and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see
whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that
poison."—Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist.

 John Robbins:

"Percentage of cancer patients whose lives are predictably saved by
chemotherapy - 3%
Conclusive evidence (majority of cancers) that chemotherapy has any
positive influcence on survival or quality of life - none.
Percentage of oncologists who said if they had cancer they would not
participate in chemotherapy trials due to its "ineffectiveness and its
unacceptable toxicity" - 75%
Percentage of people with cancer in the U.S. who receive chemotherapy
- 75%.
Company that accounts for nearly half of the chemotherapy sales in the
world - Bristol-Meyers Squibb.
Chairman of the board of Bristol-Meyers - Richard L. Gelb.
Mr. Gelb's other job: vice chairman, board of overseers, board of
managers, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, World's largest
private cancer treatment and research center.
Chairman, Memorial Sloan-Kettering's board of overseers, board of
managers - John S. Reed.
Reed's other job - director, Philip Morris (tobacco company).
Director, Ivax, Inc., a prominent chemotherapy company - Samuel
Broder.
Broder's other job (until 1995) - executive director, National Cancer
Institute."from Reclaiming Our Health: Exploding the Medical Myth and
Embracing the Source of True Healing by John Robbins
Peter Moran - 14 May 2008 23:20 GMT
Boys family forced into chemo.

PM  Because it offers the best chance of cure?   This crops up regularly,
but only because childhood cancers are among the few cancers where
chemotherapy has quite a respectable cure rate,  even after metastases have
occurred.

The rest of this material is superficial and misleading.    It fails to
recognise that the vast majority of chemotherapy is used for cancers that
are well recognised to be rarely ever cured by chemotherapy alone.   That is
not news to any informed person.   But there can be other benefits,  either
as palliation, prolonging life,  or as an adjunct to other treatments.

There are certainly some cancers which are very unlikely to respond
significantly to chemotherapy and there will be argument as to whether such
patients should be offered what small chances there are.    Response rates
are not wholly predictable.

PM
drceephd@insightbb.com - 15 May 2008 01:59 GMT
> The rest of this material is superficial and misleading.    It fails to
> recognise that the vast majority of chemotherapy is used for cancers that
> are well recognised to be rarely ever cured by chemotherapy

Wellll, Moron, why in the hell is chemo always offered?  Why put the
victims though all the suffering, pain, and sorrow?  Why not just tell
the dumb sheeple to curl up in a ball and kiss their sorry a.s
goodbye?

DrCee
You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons.

I say this because there are so many better options, unkown and
unsupported by the medical monopoly.
Mark Probert - 15 May 2008 15:31 GMT
On May 14, 8:59 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:

> > The rest of this material is superficial and misleading.    It fails to
> > recognise that the vast majority of chemotherapy is used for cancers that
> > are well recognised to be rarely ever cured by chemotherapy
>
> Wellll, Moron,

Chuckie, every time I read that, I get the distinctive feeling that
you substituted a mirror for your monitor.

> why in the hell is chemo always offered?  

Please prove that chemo is *always* being offered. Do show that women
who have a simple lumpectomy for breast cancer are *always* offered
chemo.

Why put the
> victims though all the suffering, pain, and sorrow?  Why not just tell
> the dumb sheeple to curl up in a ball and kiss their sorry a.s
> goodbye?

Why do you advocate lying to people?

> DrCee
> You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons.

However, you use pus and poisons in lieu of a brain to think with.

> I say this because there are so many better options, unkown and
> unsupported by the medical monopoly.

Do list them, and proof of efficacy.
Hawki - 15 May 2008 18:19 GMT
On May 14, 8:59 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
> On May 14, 6:20 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Wellll, Moron,

Chuckie, every time I read that, I get the distinctive feeling that
you substituted a mirror for your monitor.

> why in the hell is chemo always offered?

chemo was not offered...nor indicated...when my hubby had colon cancer was
found two years ago...the malignancy was NOT thru the colon wall...and all
scans etc found NO metastatic disease

surgery only...no doc even mentioned the need for chemo..

so guess what...it is NOT always offered...

except in your head

Please prove that chemo is *always* being offered. Do show that women
who have a simple lumpectomy for breast cancer are *always* offered
chemo.

Why put the
> victims though all the suffering, pain, and sorrow? Why not just tell
> the dumb sheeple to curl up in a ball and kiss their sorry a.s
> goodbye?

Why do you advocate lying to people?

> DrCee
> You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons.

However, you use pus and poisons in lieu of a brain to think with.

> I say this because there are so many better options, unkown and
> unsupported by the medical monopoly.

Do list them, and proof of efficacy.
Jan Drew - 16 May 2008 02:45 GMT
Markey sits in front on his monitor instead of reading Torah everday.

"Mark Probert"
Citizen Jimserac - 16 May 2008 13:13 GMT
> Boys family forced into chemo.
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> PM

Historians of the future will look upon
chemotherapy in our era exactly as we
look askance at the bloodletting
and other primitive practices of
past eras.

OH, "chemotherapy" (polite name for poison) does
indeed kill cancer cells - problem is, it kills
other cells, including IMMUNE system cells.

In the closed minded little world of "scientific"
standard medicine, this is deemed a triumph
for modern medicine, and patients really
do survive (the lucky ones whose immune systems
recover fast enough).

But there is a word, a word SO frightening
to standard medicine that it has become
demonized, hysterically denounced, heaped
innuendo upon, lobbyists sent forth to
attack it, a word so terrifying to the
"scientists" (sic) that it is found necessary
to misrepresent research, lie,  ridicule
with woo-woo, denounce as mere placebo
and/or discredit either the perfectly
well credentialed researchers (many of them
MD's and PhD') or their scientific journals...

What is this word so terrifying as to have caused
all this ruckus, this stampede of innuendo,
this hysterical dennunciation when supposed
scientists start acting in very unscientific
ways, start whining and jumping up and down
with temper tantrums like little
3 year old children...

The word is...

ALTERNATIVES.

Citizen Jimserac

Rate this thread:






 
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.