You have no facts. Why do you insist on demonstrating that?

You really should read this:

http://www.pharmamafia.com
http://www.pharmamafia.de
http://www.impfkritiker.de
http://wehrhafte.medizin.se

That is a compilation of material for pediatricians.

Um, why do you think other people would read those magazines under your
pillow?

You read the wrong magazines, I am afraid.

You should read this:

http://www.pharmamafia.com
http://www.pharmamafia.de
http://www.impfkritiker.de
http://wehrhafte.medizin.se

Stroke stroke stroke. w.nker!

You have a problem which in medical terms is called logorrhoe.

http://www.pharmamafia.com
http://www.pharmamafia.de
http://www.impfkritiker.de
http://wehrhafte.medizin.se

Mutual masturbation  again? Have you guys no shame?

Imagine what would happen if the testing demonstrated it worked with
an adverse reaction of inducing a Lupus like reaction in 1 out of
1,000,000 cases. Would the antivaxers would be up in arms? (that is
the case they are using to discourage influenza vaccines.)

You know her study she cited didn't show anything, did it.

And, the trial is not one of boosting one's immune system, but uses a
totally artificial, unnatural, technique.

If you read the article and understood it, they used a artificial
method of changing the T-cell to target a specific type of bowel
cancer. This was tested by watching a limited number of cells in a
culture and how the gene-modified t-cells responded.

There is also a cravat:
[cite]
"We've shown that the technique works a hundred per cent of the time
in the laboratory, but the real test will be whether it works in
cancer patients, which we'll begin to look at in the clinical trial."

The trial of the technique will take place next year at Manchester's
Christie Hospital. [/cite]

and

[cite]
"There's still a long way to go in the development of this new
technique, but it does seem to hold promise for the treatment of
cases which are out of reach of conventional medicine."
[/cite]

So what they doing was run some test on grown cultures in a lab.
There have been no test on how the modified cells react with the
human body or apparently any test on the "Modified cells" to see if
there is any self limiting activity. Do the modified t-cells go on
and attack other parts of the body, isn't even addressed?

and still get cancer.

Did you read the article I posted?

Then read this also...

GENE THERAPY BOOSTS IMMUNE SYSTEM AGAINST CANCER

What we've done in this new study is give our immune cells the
equipment they need to recognise, home in on and destroy cells from
tumours, allowing us to harness the power of the immune system to
tackle the disease.

http://www.nature.com/bjc/press_releases/p_r_apr03_6600857.html

Prevention is always the best medicine, Boost your immune system, Get
healthy eat healthy foods, drink lots of water, juice, take vitamins
and EXERCISE!

What makes you believe that cancer is responsive to your immune
system?

Well then I guess the best defense is a better offense. Keep your
immune system strong so it can do its job to begin with! I would
assume this would be the case for any cancers..

Women who possess variations at either of two locations of the
transporter associated with antigen processing (TAP) genes are less
than half as likely to develope high-grade cervical intraepithelial
neoplasia (CIN), they found.

“Some people are better able than others to mount an immune response
that suppresses their HPV infection,” says Mark H. Einstein, M.D.,
associate professor of obstetrics & gynecology and women’s health at
Einstein. “We suspected that this advantage was probably due to
variations in genes that play key roles in the body’s immune
response.” They thus focused on TAP, which is known to be crucial to
the immune system's ability to recognize viruses and eliminate them
from the body.

http://www.genengnews.com/news/bnitem.aspx?name=51097439

because it isn't always the same gene with every cancer. Inmost cases
I understand it is something called a branch site which is part of
the gene. once the branch becomes defective, the cancer starts its
uncontrolled growth.

Check with the National Cancer Institute for up to date information.

I know science is working on how to turn certain genes back on after
they have been turned off. And they use mice to turn off specific genes
(e.g ALS) Then they try different things to try and turn that specific
cell back on.  Science has had success in reversing RETTS Syndrome.

But, if science knows how to target a specific gene and turn just that
gene off, why cant they do this for cancer?

Chemotherapy targets cells that are rapidly dividing, like cancer cells,
which is why people with chemo often have problems with making enough
blood cells, leading to immunodeficiency and anemia, hair loss and
intestinal problems. Radiation and chemotherapy kill both healthy and
cancercous cells. So, unless you can kill only cancer cells, the patient
is going to have side effects. Both radiation and chemo are unable only
to target cancerous cells.

Type cancer into google, and you will find links to wikipedia, the
American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute, each of which
has pages that answer your question more fully.

Jeff

Why does cancer grow? When cells are partially damaged  they  keep
producing and you land up with an over-expression of cells(Thats what
cancer is, an over-expression of cells) If you can use radiation to
completely destroy that particular cell, it will "turn it off". Isnt
that what Chemo does?

On May 26, 10:15 am, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:

Cancer is still a "mystery" disease for the allopath, and why anyone
survives their cut/burn/poison approach is also a mystery.  The
allopath does not know why chemo works as poorly as it does.
Experts in this area report that the correct cure rate for cancer
treated allopathically is 2.1%.  2.1% is hardly 85%.

DrCee
You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons

With Hodgkin's Disease, there is about an 85% chance of survival with
proper treatment. The so-called "natural treatments" that the family is
trying to use not only are not working in this case (the tumors are
getting larger), but, there is no evidence that "natural treatments" work.

The question the court is dealing with is: Does the state have the right
to force treatment on a child with a disease that has a 85% survival
rate when the family wants to do nothing?

In this case, the courts are ruling not to give the kid chemotherapy is
medical neglect.

Jeff