 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Cancer / May 2008Alternatves
What is so wrong about alternative treatments? The premise from the mainstream is that methods are banned because they do no good and may even cause harm while they take the patient's money and then the patient ends up dying anyway. But it seems that not just some alternatives are banned, but all alternatives are banned. ("Alternatives" are alternatives to chemotherapy and radiation, not yet another version of chemotherapy which is misleadingly labeled an "alternative".) Well, then. Lets see how chemotherapy compares. Studies have shown that cancer patients do as well or better without any treatment at all. Chemotherapy has very toxic effects on the body and in fact, chemotherapy frequently kills the patient before the cancer does. Chemotherapy and radiation are also very expensive, so expensive that it typically leaves the spouse of a dead cancer patient broke or deep in debt. Some 500,000 Americans die every year from having their cancer treated with conventional methods, but just one person dies attempting an alternative method and the response is lawsuits and even imprisonment. Which is the greater crime here? People die in droves on chemotherapy, but just one person die attempting an alternative and it's condemned as some horrific tragedy and the doctor is viewed as a criminal. Why is it cancer research is limited to the professionals? Why shouldn't various people be able to experiment on their own? How could it be any worse than chemotherapy? The reason alternatives are made illegal is not to protect the patient, but to protect the profits of mainstream medicine. > cancer research is limited to the professionals? Why shouldn't various > people be able to experiment on their own? How could it be any worse > than chemotherapy? The reason alternatives are made illegal is not to > protect the patient, but to protect the profits of mainstream medicine. "The reason alternatives are made illegal is not to protect the patient, but to protect the profits of mainstream medicine." Yeah, so? > What is so wrong about alternative treatments? The premise from the > mainstream is that methods are banned because they do no good and may [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > yet another version of chemotherapy which is misleadingly labeled an > "alternative".) This isn't exactly rocket science. By "alternatives", you are referring to treatments which have not been peer-reviewed to do what they actually say; In other words, the "proof" relies on anecdotal evidence from people who may or may not have had cancer, who may or may not have profited by it appearing to work and/or who may or may not even truly know of what they speak. There are lots of alternative treatments for lots of ailments out there. There are alternative treatments for a cold and for headaches, for example. The difference between taking an alt treatment for a cold versus cancer is that if/when it doesn't work, in one scenario you have a stuffy nose for an extra few days and in the other you may end up stuffed in a box forever. What is in exceptionally poor taste by those pushing the alternative treatments at the expense of what is currently advocated by the medical community is that the targets of these treatments are often desperate or in a less-than-normal state of mind - I.e. their capability for rational decision may not necessarily be the same. Personally, I would have *absolutely no problem* with those pushing the alternative treatments if they also made it clear that it *is* an alternative treatment and that it *has not* been peer reviewed by the medical community. Instead, we see a bunch of hucksters trying to tell us that their product/cure/salve/additive/snake oil is a *guaranteed* cure when they know darned well that it is no such thing. > Well, then. Lets see how chemotherapy compares. Studies have shown > that cancer patients do as well or better without any treatment at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it typically leaves the spouse of a dead cancer patient broke or deep > in debt. Which studies ? Provide a cite from a respected source - By that, I mean do not give us a website that is trying to sell something as an "alternative cure". What all cancer doctors know, and many of their patients, is that some cancers *cannot* be cured. Some treatments are designed to attempt to cure, whereas others are designed to prolong life. In all my dealings with oncology, I have never met a doctor, nurse, therapist or technician who told me that what I was undergoing was a *guaranteed* cure. Does that not strike you as odd that when you have people who are educated far beyond that of the average Joe who will give you the real numbers, with real stats and yet we get these hucksters of alternative cures telling us that they *guarantee* a cure ? > Some 500,000 Americans die every year from having their cancer treated > with conventional methods, but just one person dies attempting an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > not to protect the patient, but to protect the profits of mainstream > medicine. Who said that non-doctors cannot experiment ? They just can't experiment on people *other than themselves* because when they kill them - guess what ? That's murder at worst and manslaughter at best. Why is cancer research done primarily be the professionals ? I will leave it to you as an excersise in self-education to look up the meaning of the word "professional" (Hint: There are multiple meanings, all of which must be taken into account)  SignatureMarc Bissonnette Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com Largest ISP comparison site across Canada. > Who said that non-doctors cannot experiment ? They just can't experiment > on people *other than themselves* because when they kill them - guess > what ? That's murder at worst and manslaughter at best. What if a failed treatment is repeated to the tune of 500,000 deaths a year, year after year? (and that's just in the US). How does that stack up? > What if a failed treatment is repeated to the tune of 500,000 deaths a > year, year after year? (and that's just in the US). How does that stack > up? Were have you read that PC treatments kill 500,000 people? I.P. Quoting >> Who said that non-doctors cannot experiment ? They just can't experiment >> on people *other than themselves* because when they kill them - guess >> what ? That's murder at worst and manslaughter at best. He replied: > What if a failed treatment is repeated to the tune of 500,000 deaths a > year, year after year? (and that's just in the US). How does that stack > up? PPOR That, for those uninitiated to usenet protocols, means Provide Proof or Retract. Trust me, kids, it will not happen. Ralph is, as I posted on the "Hoxsey" thread, a True Believer. Such folks are immune to facts. Regards, Steve J "I am under no obligation to respect your beliefs. Respect is earned; it is not an entitlement..." -- Lionel Shriver > Quoting > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That, for those uninitiated to usenet protocols, means Provide Proof or > Retract. In fact about 550,000 Americans die every year from cancer, most of whom go broke taking the conventional route of chemotherapy and radiation. > Trust me, kids, it will not happen. Ralph is, as I posted on the > "Hoxsey" thread, a True Believer. Such folks are immune to facts. Here's some facts: http://www.altcancer.com/vidgal.htm#hoxsey > Regards, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is not an entitlement..." > -- Lionel Shriver On May 18 Ralph tried to respond to me: > Here's some facts: > > http://www.altcancer.com/vidgal.htm#hoxsey If Ralph truly believes that that commercial site includes scientific facts, he is sorely mistaken. FACTS, Ralph, not commercials. Regards, Steve J "What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget 'what the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' -- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!" --Lazarus Long >> Who said that non-doctors cannot experiment ? They just can't experiment >> on people *other than themselves* because when they kill them - guess [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > year, year after year? (and that's just in the US). How does that stack > up? As many others have repeatedly asked you: Where is your proof of this claim ? Just because you make it up to make your argument sound better does not a true statement make. SignatureMarc Bissonnette Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com Largest ISP comparison site across Canada. > As many others have repeatedly asked you: Where is your proof of this claim? Here's some proof: http://www.altcancer.com/vidgal.htm#hoxsey >> As many others have repeatedly asked you: Where is your proof of this >> claim? > > Here's some proof: > > http://www.altcancer.com/vidgal.htm#hoxsey I don't know how to say this without being rude, but: Are you trying to be obtuse intentionally ? *Proof* was asked for your claims of 500K Americans dying each year from Chemotherapy. Here's a little proof for you that shows you are talking where feces is primarily expelled: In 2005, there were a total of 2,448,017 deaths in the United States of America. Out of all those deaths, 559,312 of them were from cancer. So what you are trying to tell us is that all but 59,312 of those were from chemotherapy. Half a million. 20% of *ALL* deaths in the United States were from chemo. You're serious, right ? You believe you're telling the truth, right ? You want *us* to believe you're telling the truth, right ? Where did *I* get *my* proof ? http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/deaths.htm Do you feel a little silly, yet ? Is there something else you'd like to try to sell us ? Perhaps a cure for the common cold ? A cure for male pattern baldness ? A penis enlarger, perhaps ? I mean, you're on a roll, so far. SignatureMarc Bissonnette Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com Largest ISP comparison site across Canada. >>> As many others have repeatedly asked you: Where is your proof of >>> this claim? [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > for the common cold ? A cure for male pattern baldness ? A penis > enlarger, perhaps ? I mean, you're on a roll, so far. As a follow-up to my own post, I thought it would be interesting to look at the numbers for Canada; Usually, trends tend to be nearly the same as the States, but at 10% of their number (Since we're 10% of their population) - In 2002, the latest I could find for Canada in a quick search, there were a total of 226,169 deaths - Similar to the States, percentage-wise. Cancer represents 29.2%, or 66,041 deaths. So if your numbers were anything even remotely resembling reality, 59,040 of those Canadian cancer deaths would be from chemotherapy - Which, one hardly needs to be reminded, is not even statistically possible, given that there are so many fatal iterations of cancer. SignatureMarc Bissonnette Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com Largest ISP comparison site across Canada. >> As many others have repeatedly asked you: Where is your proof of this claim? > > Here's some proof: > > http://www.altcancer.com/vidgal.htm#hoxsey Ralph, Al Gore and Michael Moore can and do make visually stunning movies without an ounce of science in them. We're asking for scientific prof, not radical claims. I.P. > This isn't exactly rocket science. > ... Excellent response Marc. I was thinking of what to say when I read Ralph's posting, but your response says everything. Alan >> This isn't exactly rocket science. >> ... > > Excellent response Marc. I was thinking of what to say when I read > Ralph's posting, but your response says everything. I probably should have added an apology to all rocket scientists reading the post :) People like this Ralph and the rusty iron guy still really tick me off. I mean, I was told that even with radiation, there is a 30% chance of the cancer coming back - It might go forward, which is treatable for me, it might go backwards (into the brain cavity), which would be fatal. Would I be looking at alternative treatments if they told me that this was it ? Yeah, I'd look at them, but I sure as hell wouldn't be taking numbers from websites or people that were trying to sell the "cures". They're almost as bad, if not worse, than mobsters selling "protection" rackets - People who are desperate, knowing they've got no other alternatives to living, giving their money to these quacks and the quacks take it all with a smug grin, knowing that their customers are going to be dead soon, anyway. SignatureMarc Bissonnette Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com Largest ISP comparison site across Canada. >... >Instead, we see a bunch of hucksters trying to tell us that their >product/cure/salve/additive/snake oil is a *guaranteed* cure when they >know darned well that it is no such thing. Did you know that snake oil often is very high in omega-3 fatty acids? Oil from one particular species of Chinese water snake is, in fact, the most highly concentrated food source currently known for omega-3 fatty acids. So maybe the 19th-century snake oil salesmen were in fact onto something that had a real health benefit! And we reward them by turning "snake oil" into basically a synonym for charlatanry! -JS :^) >>... >>Instead, we see a bunch of hucksters trying to tell us that their [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > something that had a real health benefit! And we reward them by > turning "snake oil" into basically a synonym for charlatanry! ROFL - I *knew* someone would point that out, especially since I heard the same thing on CBC's radio science show, Quirks and Quarks, a couple of weeks ago :) SignatureMarc Bissonnette Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com Largest ISP comparison site across Canada. |
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.