 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Cancer / March 2008Cancer Death Rate Down, But Deaths Up by 5,400
The age-adjusted percent went down by 1%. Meanwhile total deaths went up 5,400. Unfortunately percents don't do the dying. Family members are who dies. So the family members of 5,400 more patients suffered and cried. How many tears? Isn't one too many? on 2/20/08 1:24 PM Kelley Eidem said the following: > The age-adjusted percent went down by 1%. Meanwhile total deaths went > up 5,400. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > How many tears? Isn't one too many? What until Epigenetic treatments hit in force. The rate will start to go down drastically. Some think cancer will be a thing of the past in 10 years including Kurzweil. > on 2/20/08 1:24 PM Kelley Eidem said the following: >> The age-adjusted percent went down by 1%. Meanwhile total deaths went [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > down drastically. Some think cancer will be a thing of the past in 10 > years including Kurzweil. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard that in the past 30 years........... on 2/21/08 12:12 AM Steph said the following: >> on 2/20/08 1:24 PM Kelley Eidem said the following: >>> The age-adjusted percent went down by 1%. Meanwhile total deaths went [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If I had a dollar for every time I've heard that in the past 30 > years........... Biotech is now starting to deliver. Researchers were looking only at genes for a long time. Now they have discovered the software interface layer (the epigenome). Via this programmable software layer environmental factors affect cells for the worse or better, including causing cancers. In principle, we should be able to reverse engineer these processes and then re-program the software layer like a programmer fixes bugs in operating systems like Windows. > on 2/21/08 12:12 AM Steph said the following: >>> on 2/20/08 1:24 PM Kelley Eidem said the following: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > then re-program the software layer like a programmer fixes bugs in > operating systems like Windows. Call me back when there is a single well-designed clinical trial showing unequivocal evidence of meaningful benefit. I'm not holding my breath on 2/25/08 9:00 PM Steph said the following: >> on 2/21/08 12:12 AM Steph said the following: >>>> on 2/20/08 1:24 PM Kelley Eidem said the following: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > unequivocal evidence of meaningful benefit. > I'm not holding my breath Look up a PBS special called Nova on Epigenetics. Especially the last part with the MDS patient. Here is the link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/02.html > on 2/25/08 9:00 PM Steph said the following: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/02.html There is a retired European pharmacist who has been in contact with me through email who is quite familiar with the work of Dr. Emanuel Revici. On one occasion, he sent me links to two articles regarding epigenetics to told me that it helped to confirm Revici's theories. The articles themselves were too technical for me, but for the pharmacist they were a clear example pointing to where Revici was correct. The same pharmacist had used one of Revici's discoveries to treat hundreds of migraine sufferers, enabling them to be rid of their migraines in about 1 to 3 minutes. > The age-adjusted percent went down by 1%. Meanwhile total deaths went > up 5,400. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > How many tears? Isn't one too many? That's because cancer is mostly a disease of old people, and there are more old people than ever. How many more people would have died had the age-adjusted rate not gone down? Jeff > > The age-adjusted percent went down by 1%. Meanwhile total deaths went > > up 5,400. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Jeff Plenty more, although the death rate only went down about 1%. Decreases of that small amount are subject to the vagaries of statistics and other factors. One article said the 2% decrease reported last year was due in large part to the "Katie Couric" effect of lots of colonoscopies, after her husband died about 5 years earlier. For a real decrease in the death rate, do what New Mexico does. They have the lowest cancer death rate in the country or close to it. What's their secret? Significant portions of the population eat lots of hot peppers. Not sort of hot peppers...hot peppers. So the real secret if you get cancer is to grate a habeneros pepper each day and grate a garlic clove or two each day, put it on some bread with some butter, lots of butter 'cuz it's hot, and eat it. It worked for me. Helped me get rid of Stage 4 Cancer. And it seems to be working a little bit for NM. <...> > So the real secret if you get cancer is to grate a habeneros pepper > each day and grate a garlic clove or two each day, put it on some > bread with some butter, lots of butter 'cuz it's hot, and eat it. > > It worked for me. Helped me get rid of Stage 4 Cancer. And it seems to > be working a little bit for NM. Do you have any real evidence to back this claim up? I mean evidence backed by real science, not just your case. The plural of anecdote is not data. Jeff on 2/22/08 2:44 PM Jeff said the following: > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Jeff Anecdote proves nothing. You may simply be a very lucky person whose body reprogrammed itself and the cancer went away. Very lucky. > on 2/22/08 2:44 PM Jeff said the following: >> <...> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Anecdote proves nothing. You may simply be a very lucky person whose > body reprogrammed itself and the cancer went away. Very lucky. Or alternatively, the person had both conventional treatment and took supplements or other alternative treatments. The credit for the cure is given to the alternative treatments, not the conventional treatment that actually worked. Jeff > > on 2/22/08 2:44 PM Jeff said the following: > >> <...> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Jeff Nope, the ONLY treatment I used was the one I described above. You should know better than that..I would never subject myself to a method that would make me sicker. As I told a lady the other day, which gave us both a good laugh, "You gotta be healthy to get well!" > on 2/22/08 2:44 PM Jeff said the following: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > The plural of anecdote is not data. Do you know what a Classic Case Study is?? > > Jeff > > Anecdote proves nothing. Once again, the ability to ignore a good anecdotal account is the hallmark of the mediocre scientist. > You may simply be a very lucky person whose > body reprogrammed itself and the cancer went away. Very lucky. I got lucky twice then...by reprogramming myself twice. The lesions went away in less than a week in the first programming, so I stopped the protocol. Then 4 came back within a few days of stopping. So I did it again and the remaining lesions went away AGAIN. After that, I continued with the cod liver oil for maybe six months. I must be the best darn reprogrammer in the world to have success like that...twice! > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Jeff The failure to recognize the value of a good anecdotal case is the hallmark of the mediocre scientist. The evidence I have for you is that I am alive nine years later. I was pleased to see about a year or so ago that researchers from UCLA were able to shrink tumors 80% in mice with just one of the three ingredients I suggest. They did it with capsaicin, the hot part of peppers. An 80% decrease is pretty extraordinary compared to what the FDA-crap can do. But that said, 80% is one thing. I shrank mine 100% in two weeks, twice. Because the lesions disappeared in the first week only to come back after I stopped the protocol (4 out of more than a dozen came back). They disappeared again after about 4 days the second time. I used freshly a tincture of freshly grated habeneros peppers, freshly grated garlic, and emulsified cod liver oil. The lesions never had a chance against that combination. But don't expect any of the drug companies to rush out with their detail men to promote the fastest cancer cure method there is, because there aren't a lot of dividends to be paid from 50 cents worth of garlic bulbs. >> <...> >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > promote the fastest cancer cure method there is, because there aren't > a lot of dividends to be paid from 50 cents worth of garlic bulbs. What lesions? As you know, I am prepared to look at anecdotal evidence of cancer cures, and so is the NCCAM, but we do require cases of sufficient quality and quantity involving types of cancer that are normally very predictable in their behavior. With most anecdote the claims are invalid even on the internal evidence e.g. http://www.users.on.net/~pmoran/cancer/how_to_read_a_testimonial.htm . Care to test us out with yours? PM www.cancerwatcher.com > >> <...> > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > PMwww.cancerwatcher.com You are not a reputable or a disinterested party. NCCAM gave Dr. Seymour Brenner all of 5 minutes, as a perfunctory and legally required gesture. I'm not interested in show trials. Deal with UCLA's 80% shrinkage of prostate tumors if you want to. Results like that should have created a groundswell of interest and research. It should be the first topic of discussion whenever cancer is talked about. >> >> <...> >> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > Seymour Brenner all of 5 minutes, as a perfunctory and legally > required gesture. I'm not interested in show trials. It was YOUR claim that I was interested in. I have already examined Brenner's on my web site http://www.users.on.net/~pmoran/cancer/Brenneranecdote.htm. So, you are not interested in revealing the details of your own cancer cure claim? > Deal with UCLA's 80% shrinkage of prostate tumors if you want to. > Results like that should have created a groundswell of interest and > research. It should be the first topic of discussion whenever cancer > is talked about. Prostate cancer is extremely responsive to hormonal influences, even when metastatic. I suspect this is in some way connected to the responsiveness of prostate cancer to so many agents when in tissue culture and animal studies. Any new treatments will have to prove themselves in practice. PM (PS How's your back?) www.cancerwatcher.com on 2/24/08 3:24 PM Peter Moran said the following: >>> >> <...> >>> [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > www.cancerwatcher.com Here here! We need statistical evidence. Humans have a tendency to find a pattern in anything. This led to mystic beliefs (and still does). Science was founded because clues revealed the senses and mind itself can be misleading. We are getting to the point were medicines will be delivered on the molecular level with precision not imagined 20 years ago. For this to work, we will understand the precise mechanisms of cells and cell systems for healthy function as well as pathology. Let us focus here. Once we get there, pet theories will be easily tested on a molecular scale, and either a surprising find will celebrated or it will be shot down. If fact, we may have a virtual human on the Internet soon that anyone can test his pet theory on very quickly because nature runs on algorithms. Dan > >> "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > So, you are not interested in revealing the details of your own cancer cure > claim? I am only interested in sharing it with regular people. For instance i shared it yesterday with a man whose 80 year old father has prostate cancer. Today the man told me his father was very interested in trying it. I have very little faith in the types of things you fervently believe in because they are used to delay help rather than to foster it. > > Deal with UCLA's 80% shrinkage of prostate tumors if you want to. > > Results like that should have created a groundswell of interest and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Prostate cancer is extremely responsive to hormonal influences, even when > metastatic. Your reply is emblematic of exactly why you're not a reputable or disinterested source. The mice were not given hormones. They were given capsaicin. To try to fob that off as a hormone response is irrelevant because the mice were responding to the hot pepper compound they were given. > I suspect this is in some way connected to the responsiveness > of prostate cancer to so many agents when in tissue culture and animal > studies. Any new treatments will have to prove themselves in practice. I am not a petrie dish or a mouse. It worked for me when combined with garlic and cod liver oil (for anabolic imbalances). > PM (PS How's your back?) Thanks for asking. The CoQ10 (400 mgs daily) is still working. I have no pain 95% of the time and barely noticeable pain for maybe 15 minutes a day tops. Some days there is no pain whatsoever. I don't walk normally, but functionally. Meanwhile, my back is unstable. At one point I might have destabilized it more while swimming (pushing off the wall?) because my other leg started to misbehave. It's better now since I've quit swimming. But bending over does aggravate it. When I'm bent over the x-ray showed a 75% spondo. Otherwise it's about 40%. I think I will get the surgery at some point, to prevent a distabilization of a serious nature. Also, I trust my neurosurgeon, but a couple of the emergency room neurosurgeons have a bad reputation. > www.cancerwatcher.com > > "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > I am only interested in sharing it with regular people. I'm a regular people. Please email it to callforvotes@yahoo.ca By *it*, I mean a letter (and/or biopsy report) from a (current) mainstream doctor (stating) the type of cancer. And a scan showing where it has spread. Thank you. J |
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.