It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This Doctor’s 25 Years of Research Showed: Cancer Patients Live 4X Longer by Refusing Chemotherapy

page: 3
43
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Limbo
a reply to: Agartha

That's a common misconception and you are partially right, however if you look into the incidences of childhood cancers
you can see they indeed are too on the rise.
Limbo


Evidence please?


In the UK, according to Cancer Research, childhood cancer rates have decreased by 9% in the last decade.
I don't know where you are from but in the UK, where I live, rates are going down.
Only 1% of all cancer cases in the UK are children.



You can generate a nice graph here. It even shows the trend line.
seer.cancer.gov...

If you put in Age 1..20 all sexes 1975..2012 (SEER 9) All cancer sites combined. All races both sexes.
Limbo
edit on 22-11-2015 by Limbo because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Thank you for your reply.

Glad you got better from that. I was not really sure weather to post the thread or not. I didnt know if maybe I would give out ill advise. So I am glad to get your reply.

take care




posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Limbo

originally posted by: Pardon?
Seems like the "eminent" Dr Jones was using data from 80 and more years ago for his "studies".
Oncology has improved dramatically since then.

www.users.on.net...


Just curious, why did you parenthesize "studies" and "eminent"?
Wasn't Hardin Jones a well respected scientist?
As far as I can tell his work has not been refuted and was valid at the time of publish.

Is this the guy ?

"http://images.peabody.yale.edu/lepsoc/jls/1980s/1981/1981-35(3)249-Arnaud.pdf"

www.psiram.com...

In this paper (Written by Hardin Jones) he advocates the use of palliative chemotherapy.

If you listen to the conclusions of the nay sayers you come to the conclusion Hardin Jones was
anti chemotherapy, however as demonstrated in this paper he was not (Scroll down the conclusions.)
Limbo


I didn't parenthesize anything as that would mean to put something in brackets.

What I did do was to use quotation marks to highlight the words "studies" and "eminent".
This was done as the "study" used in the OP was, as I've already said, 80 years out of date.
"Eminent" because the use of the author of the study was out of context.

(Which logical fallacy is being used in the OP? Hmm, appeal to authority perhaps?)



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Many here seem to buy into this .... how do you say BS in english ? there i said it .

are we really commenting on a "opinion" posted in 1969 ? my favorite teacher told me that if you want to stay up to date as a doctor and do your society a real favor , you've gotta study at least 10 newly posted articles in World renown Journals everyday !

everyday !

and you guys are talking about 1969 ? what is this ? a joke ?



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Limbo

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Limbo
a reply to: Agartha

That's a common misconception and you are partially right, however if you look into the incidences of childhood cancers
you can see they indeed are too on the rise.
Limbo


Evidence please?


In the UK, according to Cancer Research, childhood cancer rates have decreased by 9% in the last decade.
I don't know where you are from but in the UK, where I live, rates are going down.
Only 1% of all cancer cases in the UK are children.



You can generate a nice graph here. It even shows the trend line.
seer.cancer.gov...

If you put in Age 1..20 all sexes 1975..2012 (SEER 9) All cancer sites combined. All races both sexes.
Limbo


Here's the UK stats in a nice graph too which mirrors what Agartha has said.
www.cancerresearchuk.org...-Fifteen



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Thanks for link.


Dear OP
Another controversial and more modern analysis about chemotherapy.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Google keywords : Ulrich Abel Cancer Chemotherpy
Limbo



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yes survival rates were really bad 46 years ago. But the survival rates for breast cancer are now up around 93% with no lifestyle changes involved . The hormone related cancers feed off Oestrogen and the main stock in trade are the Oestrogen blockers which stick to the rouge cell and tell it to stop dividing. When you consider that Oestrogen is being ingested in higher and higher quantities through, water and Dairy produce you would think the main force of the treatment centres would be to give patients the dietary tools to eliminate the offending hormone first, but it seems that this bit of info alone, would cause a reduction, in the sales of Chemo drugs , and is vary rarely hinted at treatment centres. So yes Cancer treatment is a business model, keeping vested interest parties in their high paying jobs, ignoring the collateral damage. Dairy produce, causes 75 % of all illness, and if removed would cause a drop of 75% income within the present business model.
So the Chemo drugs are getting better and better, and making more and more money, they have to or they wouldn't sell them, and it would be heresy to suggest anything else.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer
Well, radiation cured my prostate cancer and anybody who ways I made the wrong choice...or tries to discourage somebody else from making the same choice, can simply # off!



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Hmmmmmm,

So this 'data" is pretty old. This Doctor is not an MD but rather a PhD etc, and basically is a statistician looking at numbers. If the data itself and its conclusions were published in 1969 it reflects medical practices that are at the very least 40+ years old and do not reflect advances or current practice in the field of oncology. Nor can I find his methodology for the study etc. Furthermore were are the peer reviewed published research article corroborating his story?

When something this supposedly groundbreaking is found other immediately try to verify it. Yet no one has? If you have metastatic cancer without treatment you will die. Its really that simple



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
Some of your statistics are skewed.

You mention witch doctors and then link to this... ...

What the hell is this too?

It's not

75% of doctors
- It's "75% of doctors asked.
Your source

The quote is exactly as I cited it, in fact the word 'asked' does not even appear on that link...

Concerning Ty Bollinger's book, do you also ask your Doctor 'what the hell is this?' after he hands you a massive bill for something that is most likely doing you far more harm than good?

I didn't think so...

FYI, Mr. Bollinger sent me his book simply for the asking, though I would have gladly paid for it if I could have....


I have given away over 10,000 free books and ebooks to ANYONE who requests one. Are you asking for a free book Matt? If I’m greedy, then I guess I’m not doing a very good job, since I give away more free ebooks than I sell... Perhaps you should research your accusations before you post them. You’re just flat wrong. Ty Bollinger

www.cancertruth.net...

Ty says in this interview that if people can’t afford his books, he will give all three away for free!

Source

If people cant afford the book I give it to them - Ive given away over 10,000 books... - Ty Bollinger

www.youtube.com...

If giving away 10,000 free books to people who cannot afford it is “making money off the backs of the afflicted,” then I guess your ignorant accusation is true. I’m sorry to hear about your friend that died. ~ Ty Bollinger

www.cancertruth.net...

Ty is on coasttocoastam right now and said if you can’t afford, send him an email...

www.cancertruth.net...



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Not surprising since radiation is obviously highly acidic to the body. Cancer is caused by cells mutating from being in an acid medium so what happens you put acids on acids? Hmm...why not address what caused the cancer in the first place like poor lifestyle, weak genetics, and the environment you reside in. We're talking chemistry here. Remove acids from the body by getting your kidneys filtering, leaving cooked acid forming foods in the dust and consuming alkaline living hydrating foods our bodies were designed to eat. Or you can go through chemotherapy and hope it works then hope cancer doesn't return since you haven't done anything to change the reason you got it in the first place. What a stupid ass way to treat a condition. I don't give an acrobatic f*** if it worked for you either. It's not the way, don't promote it.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Limbo

Thank you!
Pardon? has provided you with UK graphs too that back up what I said earlier.
I have to admit that the UK's statistics regarding childhood cancer look a lot better than the US ones, I'm still trying to think why. But, we cannot deny that survival has improved a lot, up to 80% which is three times more than 30 years ago! That says a lot about medical advances.

Cancer have always existed but in the past people used to die pretty quickly. Now most people can survive for decades and most manage to live a good life, I have met many.




originally posted by: NautPsycho
Not surprising since radiation is obviously highly acidic to the body. Cancer is caused by cells mutating from being in an acid medium so what happens you put acids on acids? Hmm...why not address what caused the cancer in the first place like poor lifestyle, weak genetics, and the environment you reside in.


Please enlighten us with your solution regarding weak genetics: how can we fix it?
And the acid theory, I'm sure you have good evidence to share here.

There is no simple answer to cancer, it can happen even if you live a very healthy life away from civilization. Of course there are clear things we can do to prevent it, like not smoking for example, but scientists are yet to discover exactly why cancer happens, especially childhood one.
edit on 23-11-2015 by Agartha because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: NautPsycho
Not surprising since radiation is obviously highly acidic to the body. Cancer is caused by cells mutating from being in an acid medium so what happens you put acids on acids? Hmm...why not address what caused the cancer in the first place like poor lifestyle, weak genetics, and the environment you reside in. We're talking chemistry here. Remove acids from the body by getting your kidneys filtering, leaving cooked acid forming foods in the dust and consuming alkaline living hydrating foods our bodies were designed to eat. Or you can go through chemotherapy and hope it works then hope cancer doesn't return since you haven't done anything to change the reason you got it in the first place. What a stupid ass way to treat a condition. I don't give an acrobatic f*** if it worked for you either. It's not the way, don't promote it.


Nearly.
But not quite.

Firstly, how is "radiation obviously acidic to the body"?
Be as specific as you can be and go into as much detail as you're able to please.

Cancer cells produce a transient, localised acidic environment due to the way they metabolise (it's also extremely weak and neutralised almost immediately).
They do not mutate nor do they grow due to an acidic environment in fact they require exactly the same pH levels as normal cells in order to grow.
That's physiological fact.
I'm talking BIOchemistry here.
Unfortunately the woo-meisters have either misunderstood this basic fact or are twisting it to sell books, therapies etc (my guess is the latter).

Even if this wasn't the case, eating alkaline foods would have no effect on the body's pH levels (food goes into stomach acid and anything alkaline is neutralised before it goes any further).
Homeostasis. Look it up.

I'll paraphrase your last sentence to bring it into the real world.
What a stupid ass way to treat a condition. There's no scientific way that it could work. The only way it could work is by magic but it doesn't anyway. It's not the way, don't promote it.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 02:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: and14263
Some of your statistics are skewed.

You mention witch doctors and then link to this... ...

What the hell is this too?

It's not

75% of doctors
- It's "75% of doctors asked.
Your source

The quote is exactly as I cited it, in fact the word 'asked' does not even appear on that link...

Concerning Ty Bollinger's book, do you also ask your Doctor 'what the hell is this?' after he hands you a massive bill for something that is most likely doing you far more harm than good?

I didn't think so...

FYI, Mr. Bollinger sent me his book simply for the asking, though I would have gladly paid for it if I could have....


I have given away over 10,000 free books and ebooks to ANYONE who requests one. Are you asking for a free book Matt? If I’m greedy, then I guess I’m not doing a very good job, since I give away more free ebooks than I sell... Perhaps you should research your accusations before you post them. You’re just flat wrong. Ty Bollinger

www.cancertruth.net...

Ty says in this interview that if people can’t afford his books, he will give all three away for free!

Source

If people cant afford the book I give it to them - Ive given away over 10,000 books... - Ty Bollinger

www.youtube.com...

If giving away 10,000 free books to people who cannot afford it is “making money off the backs of the afflicted,” then I guess your ignorant accusation is true. I’m sorry to hear about your friend that died. ~ Ty Bollinger

www.cancertruth.net...

Ty is on coasttocoastam right now and said if you can’t afford, send him an email...

www.cancertruth.net...



It's very noble of him to give away free books.
But does he offer any advice should his methods not work?
What responsibility does he take?
Will he accept any reproach?

Given that he has the standard Quack Miranda Warning on his website I would guess that he would accept no reproach nor any responsibility for anything adverse whatsoever.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Limbo
Thanks for link.


Dear OP
Another controversial and more modern analysis about chemotherapy.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Google keywords : Ulrich Abel Cancer Chemotherpy
Limbo



My definition of "modern" when applied to the medical field is in the last 5 years.
This review was published in 1992 which if my maths serves me correct is 23 years ago.
That's a long time and medicine has changed considerably.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Chemo for some cancers is extremely successful. I would hate for any one who ever gets diagnose with one of those cancers to come across this thread and avoid chemo as a treatment. That would be an unintended tragedy of such threads as these.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 03:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
Chemo for some cancers is extremely successful. I would hate for any one who ever gets diagnose with one of those cancers to come across this thread and avoid chemo as a treatment. That would be an unintended tragedy of such threads as these.

I 100% agree with this statement.

Chemo is not a guaranteed cure. We simply do not have that yet for cancer and I contend anyone who argues differently.

My wife's family has a few DRs in it - one of them an oncologist in London. At family gatherings I always chat to her because, like many people here, I always wonder, "WHY is cancer not 'fixed' yet? Why can't we just stop it and cure it? How hard can it be?"

She explains the complexities of cancer and how cancers are very different and depending on the person's genetics and location of the cancer, the treatments vary, with success rates varying as well, etc.

Bottom line though, chemo and radio treatment are the best options we have right now. They aren't nice, but they can work. She says there are some very exciting things just around the corner, but the medical evidence is not there yet to give credence or public backing to it yet. Which is understandable.

So yes, Chemo and Radio treatment suck in regards to their side effects. But reading some of the positive comments from the people on the thread who have had the misfortune to suffer cancer themselves, it seems to have helped them.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 04:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
Chemo for some cancers is extremely successful. I would hate for any one who ever gets diagnose with one of those cancers to come across this thread and avoid chemo as a treatment. That would be an unintended tragedy of such threads as these.

I 100% agree with this statement.

Chemo is not a guaranteed cure. We simply do not have that yet for cancer and I contend anyone who argues differently.

My wife's family has a few DRs in it - one of them an oncologist in London. At family gatherings I always chat to her because, like many people here, I always wonder, "WHY is cancer not 'fixed' yet? Why can't we just stop it and cure it? How hard can it be?"

She explains the complexities of cancer and how cancers are very different and depending on the person's genetics and location of the cancer, the treatments vary, with success rates varying as well, etc.

Bottom line though, chemo and radio treatment are the best options we have right now. They aren't nice, but they can work. She says there are some very exciting things just around the corner, but the medical evidence is not there yet to give credence or public backing to it yet. Which is understandable.

So yes, Chemo and Radio treatment suck in regards to their side effects. But reading some of the positive comments from the people on the thread who have had the misfortune to suffer cancer themselves, it seems to have helped them.


Good post.
Can I just add though that there are other medically sound treatments for cancer, the most well known one being surgery (and similar procedures such as radio-frequency and/or laser ablation).

Chemo is only given as a standalone therapy for a small number of cancers, quite often it's used as what's known as an adjunctive therapy when one or more of the other types are used as the primary intervention or indeed combined.
There are also different types, dosages and protocols of chemo, it's not and will never be a one-size-fits-all therapy mainly because cancer is not a single disease.

I don't usually do testimonial type things on here but currently, the 16 year old daughter of a good friend of mine is about in the middle of her chemo treatment.
A while ago she noticed a lump on her leg and after a few checks she was diagnosed with a rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS).
This, in simple terms, is a cancer which effects muscle and connective tissues.
Immediately after diagnosis she went through a course of radiotherapy to limit the cancer spread (it's a pretty nasty one and can spread very quickly.)
She tolerated the rad reasonably well and that was successful and as I said, she's now halfway through her chemo.

She's doing well, the outlook is promising as they caught it and started treatment in its early stages but they won't know for definite how she will do until the middle of next year.
She's an otherwise fit and healthy girl so everyone's feeling very positive.
As has been mentioned, cancer treatment can be brutal however cancer is far, far worse.

The reason I mention that is that if she or other members of her family had wasted time on non-standard and ineffective "therapies" as have been mentioned in this thread, there is a huge chance that she would now be untreatable and only able to be offered palliative care.
That's the real world scenario.
The woo that people push has devastating consequences.

The only scenario where I would allow myself or my family to try alternative treatments was if all conventional treatments had failed.
I would never do it the other way around because when the alternative treatment fails (which they undoubtedly do) it will be too late for conventional therapy and I will have wasted the most precious thing anyone diagnosed with cancer has.
Time.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

Apologies -- I didn't mean to imply chemo and radio were the only sound treatments.

You're absolutely correct that there are others and far less "damaging" to the patient. I was only replying to the OP about the validity and prognosis concepts of avoiding chemo/radio altogether.

But yes, surgery and other medicines can certainly be far more effective than chemo/radio in certain instances. Sadly, chemo is like a scattergun approach, which, thankfully, can work in some cases and very well. Though, with some particularly bad side effects.

And it does annoy me about all these amazing new medical techniques coming online about stem-cell treatments, targeted gold-nano particles and so on are all "5-10 years away". Always 5-10 years away...



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

I really don't know if survival is up because of bias in the way the patients are selected etc.
If cancer is a metabolic disease and it surely points to that being true then no matter of drugs
would be able to cure it. The only way to deal with it would be to back peddle and accept
what evolution did to combat the disease i.e. restore the missing defence mechanisms...
Limbo



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join