To a conventional physician, the tumor is the enemy.
Cancer is viewed as a local disease, namely the tumor. By cutting out
the tumor, irradiating it, or flooding the body with toxic (and often
carcinogenic) drugs, the conventional physician hopes to destroy the
tumor and restore the patient to health.
But all too often, the cancer is still present and has metastasized, or
re-occurs.
In contrast, the alternative physician regards cancer as one that
involves the whole body.
The tumor is merely a symptom and the cancer treatment aims to correct
the root causes of disease in the whole body.
Dr. Josef Issels, who successfully treated many "incurable" cancer
patients, stated:
.. those who believe cancer is a local disease [that is, conventional
physicians] think that the tumor comes first and only afterwards
follows the generalised illness; those who think it is a generalised
disease of the body [alternative physicians] believe that first comes
the illness, and only afterwards the tumor... from this basically
different way of looking at cancer, [the two types of physicians] take
separate paths towards the solution to cancer.
Cancer is a general disease of the whole body from the outset.
The tumor is a symptom of that illness.
It is my contention, based on twenty-five years of clinical experience
with over eight thousand cancer patients, that only by recognising the
disease is, and always has been, one affecting the whole body from the
outset, can it be more effectively arrested. By adopting that
principle, the statistics of survival can be improved from the present
grim position where eight out of every ten patients die having received
all possible surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy."
http://cancertreatmentqi.blogspot.com/#
Alan Meyer - 24 Nov 2006 03:01 GMT
...
> Cancer is a general disease of the whole body from the outset.
> The tumor is a symptom of that illness.
...
This is a provably false statement. Millions of patients have
experienced local cancers for which they have been completely
and permanently cured by removing the tumor.
If the tumor were merely a symptom of a more general disease
then patients would never be cured by surgery or radiation.
> It is my contention, based on twenty-five years of clinical experience
> with over eight thousand cancer patients, that only by recognising the
> disease is, and always has been, one affecting the whole body from the
> outset, can it be more effectively arrested.
If it is true that you have treated 8,000 cancer patients, and if you
have told them that their tumors are merely symptoms of a more
general illness and not directly treated their tumors, then you are
guilty of malpractice at best and manslaughter at worst.
> By adopting that
> principle, the statistics of survival can be improved from the present
> grim position where eight out of every ten patients die having received
> all possible surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy."
> http://cancertreatmentqi.blogspot.com/#
Thank you for posting this message on the newsgroup. I will
forward it to the FCC and the AMA to ask if it is possible to
prosecute you for fraud, malpractice and manslaughter.
I.P. Freely - 24 Nov 2006 04:15 GMT
Great one! Here I thought at first you were being way too nice with this
goombah, but you were just setting him up for the kick in the groin he
deserves.
I.P.
> ...
>> Cancer is a general disease of the whole body from the outset.
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> forward it to the FCC and the AMA to ask if it is possible to
> prosecute you for fraud, malpractice and manslaughter.