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.

 

Ultrasound Based Cancer Treatment

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Some of you will ask why this is in the 'Medical Issues and Conspiracies section, well, i'll give you a reason - some states such as Kalifornia obviously feel the obligation to outlaw any unorthodox cancer treatment...


...
However, if you live in California or some other "progressive" state which prefers their citizens not to think too much for themselves, you must ignore this entire last paragraph, despite my constitutional rights of free expression.

Under California law (AB 1707.1) "The sale, offering for sale, holding for sale, delivering, giving away, prescribing or administering of any drug, medicine, compound or device to be used in the diagnosis, treatment, alleviation or cure of cancer is unlawful unless (1) an application with respect thereto has been approved under Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act or..." .
In California, you are only allowed to treat cancer with 1) whole body poisoning chemotherapy which heavily damages the immune system and is sometimes carcinogenic in nature, 2) X-Ray radiation which is massively carcinogenic in nature, and 3) disfiguring and disabling surgery.

Your health and well being in California are, for all practical purposes, of very low priority to law makers. In my opinion, the law makers are a combination of dupes and PAC whores of the vested pharmaceutical / AMA interests of the main stream allopathic establishment. Under the guises of public health and safety, the allopathic medical establishment have (under the law) effectively taken away much of your control over your own body and the right to choose your own health / illness care treatment. The average chemo and radiation "doctor" makes well over two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year for what in my opinion is essentially quackery. The cancer industry in the U. S. is a two hundred billion dollar a year business. It is time to take back what is rightfully ours by changing the laws. Our state and ferderal legislative bodies need to do what the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Canada did in May 1996 when they got fed up with their allopathic medical establishment. Here is the paragraph they added to their law books.


" A registered practitioner shall not be found guilty of unbecoming conduct or be found to be incapable or unfit to practice medicine or osteopathy soley on the basis that the registered practitioner employs a therapy that is non-traditional or departs from the prevailing medical practices, unless it can be demonstrated that the therapy has a safety risk for that patient unreasonably greater than the prevailing treatment."

..


from educate-yourself.org...

Now on to the useful part:



..
The bonds between adjacent protein molecules in the virus capsid coat are generally hydrogen bonds and these are relatively weak chemical bonds. To a first approximation, we can treat each protein clump (molecule) in the capsid coat as a simple harmonic oscillator as illustrated in Figure 4C. Imagine in Figure 4C that the center of mass is a steel ball. Imagine that that steel ball has two elastic cords attached to it and that the cords are attached to the ceiling and floor respectfully. And furthermore, the elastic cords are under some tension. Now imagine that the ball is pulled back and then released. The ball will oscillate back and forth at some constant frequency. If the tension is now increased in the cords and the ball is again pulled back and let go, the ball will again oscillate back and forth at a constant frequency, but now at a higher frequency.



..

If the cords are not well secured to the ceiling or floor, the cords may decouple before the system goes into equilibrium with the rhythmic driving force. In the case of the periodically spaced, elastically coupled, and closed-on-themselves virus capsid sub-structures seen in Figure 4A, the "floor " and "ceiling" connections are weak hydrogen bonds between adjacent protein clumps of the virus capsid. Figure 4E illustrates the most stressful standing wave oscillation mode on a ten member protein clump ring. In this oscillation mode, adjacent protein clumps are oscillating 180 degrees out of phase, that is, as one protein clump is moving upward from its equilibrium position, the adjacent clumps are moving downward and visa versa. This type of oscillation mode puts maximum tension / stress on the weak hydrogen bonds holding the protein clumps to each other. At some relatively small displacement amplitude, the hydrogen bonds will fail and the ring /capsid coat will disintegrate. Rife observed viruses exploding like little hand grenades when they were exposed to their mortal oscillation rate (MOR).



Certain germs do not react well to certain frequencies, enabling their accurate targetting, this doesn't just include viruses, but any cell or particle whose tensile properties differ from normal surrounding tissue's - including various forms of Cancer Cells.

The advantages are obvious, cancer is targetted at a cellular level, basically reducing 'collateral damage' to zero.

see f.ex. www.newscientist.com...



Focused pulses of ultrasound can eradicate prostate cancer as effectively as cutting the tumour out with surgery, but with far fewer side effects.

This conclusion comes from the most comprehensive study of the technique to date, carried out by Jean-Yves Chapelon, of the French Institute of Health and Medical Research in Paris, and colleagues. Prostate cancer is the third most common cause of cancer death among men.

"The results are very exciting," said Gail ter Harr, who is studying ultrasound as a means of treating liver cancer at the Royal Marsden Hospital in London, UK. "It is by far the most advanced area of clinical trials."

The researchers conducted a trial involving 243 prostate cancer patients at a hospital in Lyon. They found that a few seconds of concentrated ultrasound could obliterate a tumour, but without having to cut into the body. In contrast, surgery caused much more collateral damage.






more links:

www.dundee.ac.uk...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...




www.newscientist.com...

...
But many cancer treatments have shown promise in animals only to fail in humans. Reinforcing the need for scepticism at this very early stage, a spokesman for Cancer-Research UK says Gendel's work should be treated with "absolute caution" until more information is available



Most certainly, this method, like any other, is not omnipotent, it's merely another tool in the arsenal. Unfortunately, legislation such as cited above will not help its development




posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Hmmmm, I fail to see how the laws of California (which are designed to prevent Quackery and snake oil salesmen) would prevent research into this method of cancer treatment?

The research is at a basic stage and is hardly conclusive at this point. The point of these laws is not to protect the "cancer" industry but rather to prevent people from being harmed directly or indirectly by poorly researched medicine or something some guy whips up in his bathtub



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
We have been using focused ultrasound here in Massachusetts for awhile, for both prostate and for brain tumours; the success is dependent upon the cytpathology and makeup of the tumour. FA isnt a cure all or catch all ,and has seen mixed results thus far. Regardless, it is yet another weapon in the oncologists and surgeons toolbox, for sure...



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
Some of you will ask why this is in the 'Medical Issues and Conspiracies section, well, i'll give you a reason - some states such as Kalifornia obviously feel the obligation to outlaw any unorthodox cancer treatment...[/qupte]

May I point out that your source is extremely biased and does NOT quote the whole law?





Under California law (AB 1707.1) "The sale, offering for sale, holding for sale, delivering, giving away, prescribing or administering of any drug, medicine, compound or device to be used in the diagnosis, treatment, alleviation or cure of cancer is unlawful unless (1) an application with respect thereto has been approved under Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act or..." .


So you think that cancer treatments should be offered to the public, without any proof they work? In the past, such treatments have included making you drink a mix of tar and turpentine, plastering cow excrement on the cancer to "draw it out", etc, etc, etc.

I can understand that you might not want those options withdrawn from the public. Myself, I have a real problem with them being offered as treatments.


In California, you are only allowed to treat cancer with 1) whole body poisoning chemotherapy which heavily damages the immune system and is sometimes carcinogenic in nature, 2) X-Ray radiation which is massively carcinogenic in nature, and 3) disfiguring and disabling surgery.


Again, your sources are biased.

No one runs to The Department Of Medical Enforcement the second you have a diagnosis of cancer and hauls you off in chains for one of the three treatments. Doctors will suggest a number of conditions but they don't call the enforcers to make you take those treatments. You can walk off, ignore the suggested followup calls, and take whatever advice you find on Internet instead.





" A registered practitioner shall not be found guilty of unbecoming conduct or be found to be incapable or unfit to practice medicine or osteopathy soley on the basis that the registered practitioner employs a therapy that is non-traditional or departs from the prevailing medical practices, unless it can be demonstrated that the therapy has a safety risk for that patient unreasonably greater than the prevailing treatment."


Translation: A homeopath or osteopath can offer alternative treatments ONLY if it can be proved (by case studies and double-blind tests) that the treatment itself is not harmful.

In other words, if the homeopath/osteopath wants to treat your cancer by vitamin megadoses, that's okay. Vitamins aren't harmful. If that same person wants to treat you by making you swallow 1/4 ounce of mercury per day, then the state government will close them down and haul them to court.

By the way, that "swallowing mercury" was indeed a cancer treatment offered by a well-known quack in America in the late 1800s. Mercury is a deadly poison and will turn your insides to goo in a matter of days and you will die a painful death from hemorrhage and the poisoning -- but, of course, by that time the quack had the money and was gone with his "medicine."

Now for the "Stupid Science" part:

The bonds between adjacent protein molecules in the virus capsid coat are generally hydrogen bonds and these are relatively weak chemical bonds.


...just like other parts of your body.


To a first approximation, we can treat each protein clump (molecule) in the capsid coat as a simple harmonic oscillator as illustrated in Figure 4C.

In other words, they're going to microwave you.

Exploding poodles, anyone?



(some Really Stupid Science clipped)
In the case of the periodically spaced, elastically coupled, and closed-on-themselves virus capsid sub-structures seen in Figure 4A, the "floor " and "ceiling" connections are weak hydrogen bonds between adjacent protein clumps of the virus capsid.

This is just plain lame. The writer of that web page has no clue about viruses or virus coats. They apparently saw a Discovery Channel program on viruses and now "know all there is to know about viruses and know more than doctors." Uhm... right.

Meanwhile, we know that the coat has differnt structures and different types of bonds and that the capsid substructures are not clumps but more often folded molecules However, the writer of that web page is not about to let electron microscopy and other modern technologies and the things that they reveal distract them from their mission -- selling YOU on the Evyl Medical Establishment with a subtopic of Buy All Our Stuff. :
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...
pubs.acs.org...



The advantages are obvious, cancer is targetted at a cellular level, basically reducing 'collateral damage' to zero.

see f.ex. www.newscientist.com...


You need to read that article better. Collateral damage is NOT zero. It's less than surgery. It is appropriate for SOME cancers of some sizes... but not all of them.

That said, it's an interesting new treatment and one that is waiting further tests.


Most certainly, this method, like any other, is not omnipotent, it's merely another tool in the arsenal. Unfortunately, legislation such as cited above will not help its development

Again, no. What that law says is that before it gets approved to be used, they have to show that this one study was NOT a fluke. Followup studies are being done, as well as longitudinal studies. They need to know if the cancer comes back more often in these same patients and they need to study other kinds of patients with this same kind of tumor.

Unlike the Quack Industry, they don't take a few successes and run out shouting "HALLELEUJAH! I FOUND IT! I HAVE THE CURE!!! IGNORE ALL THOSE OTHER BUFFOONS!!"

It may take another 5-10 years of tests (AND long-term followup) before this technique is approved for use.

In fact, studies will be funded by these same governments.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

...

Now for the "Stupid Science" part:

The bonds between adjacent protein molecules in the virus capsid coat are generally hydrogen bonds and these are relatively weak chemical bonds.
..

...just like other parts of your body.



Sure the explanation doesn't get to the root of the issue, the target entity needs to have a specific, harmless (to healthy tissue), natural oscillation frequency , otherwise, you couldn't target it without destroying everything..

fortunately, cancer cells usually exhibt different elastic properties, which is even used to diagnose cancer

from: www.cnn.com...



...Cancer cells differ from normal cells in that they are softer and more elastic....



... that's apparently enough of a difference to target them specifically.




In other words, they're going to microwave you.

Exploding poodles, anyone?



Sound isn't radiation, while i can't deny that it may be harmful if done incorrectly, it's a completely different ballpark.




You need to read that article better. Collateral damage is NOT zero. It's less than surgery. It is appropriate for SOME cancers of some sizes... but not all of them.
..
That said, it's an interesting new treatment and one that is waiting further tests.



It would be silly to expect nothing bad happens in the vicinity of cancer, especially when loads of cellular fluid are spilled due to disruption (provided it works), i don't know if that would qualify as collateral damage (ie. directly infliced, undesired damage), but i probably should have written 'close to zero' ot the like.

I understand your objections wrt the first source, his explanations leave a lot to be desired, especially concerning the actual mechanism, and usability - treating a viral infection would require exposing the entire body to ultrasound, which really isn't feasible...


But, why would the author single out California for no reason? are the other states' laws inadequate by your standards?



..
It may take another 5-10 years of tests (AND long-term followup) before this technique is approved for use.
..


Which leads us to the million dollar question, do you think non-orthodox treatment should be available (as in not prohibited by law) as long as the patient intentionally opts for it or not. i mean if you admit that it may become standard procedure in a decade or so, why would you keep it from people who want to use it in its prototypical stage? it's not like they have an awful lot of time to decide, mind you.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
Sure the explanation doesn't get to the root of the issue, the target entity needs to have a specific, harmless (to healthy tissue), natural oscillation frequency , otherwise, you couldn't target it without destroying everything..


As I said, it's "stupid science."

Oscillation frequencies are the property of molecules and atoms. They are not a property of "blobs of stuff." In other words, while pure quartz has an oscillation frequency, other forms of quartz (including chert and quartzes such as amethyst which may have inclusions) do not.

Water molecules have oscillation frequencies (which is why microwaving works.) Viruses (complex structures of many different types of atoms and molecules) don't.



fortunately, cancer cells usually exhibt different elastic properties, which is even used to diagnose cancer

from: www.cnn.com...

But that's not "vibrational." It's an entirely different type of structure.


Sound isn't radiation, while i can't deny that it may be harmful if done incorrectly, it's a completely different ballpark.

Undoubtedly. But you seemed to be doing a "mix and match" with your initial posting -- a screed against the medical community and the way they treat cancers and then tying it in to some conspiratorial website of the "doctors only want you sick" kind (that ties into a rather expensive treatment that doesn't work).

And then you tie it in with current research which won't be approved until after clinical studies have proved that it works and there aren't any odd side effects (like breaking up the cancer so that it actually recurrs in many different areas within 5 years.)




You need to read that article better. Collateral damage is NOT zero. It's less than surgery. It is appropriate for SOME cancers of some sizes... but not all of them.
..
That said, it's an interesting new treatment and one that is waiting further tests.



It would be silly to expect nothing bad happens in the vicinity of cancer, especially when loads of cellular fluid are spilled due to disruption (provided it works), i don't know if that would qualify as collateral damage (ie. directly infliced, undesired damage), but i probably should have written 'close to zero' ot the like.

It's not the byproducts of the destruction of the cells. The method is also going to cause problems in nearby good cells (cavitation is one thing that comes to mind): www.bk.psu.edu...


I understand your objections wrt the first source, his explanations leave a lot to be desired, especially concerning the actual mechanism, and usability - treating a viral infection would require exposing the entire body to ultrasound, which really isn't feasible...

I'm seeing a lot of sites like that, which use phrases that are really kind of nonsense and science that is ... well... nonsense. They are designed to get you to stop going to doctors and instead buy their products (not always, but frequently MLM products.) They support their lack of evidence for healthful benefits with the occasional anecdote and rants against the medical establishment.

This says they have no science to back them up. That they didn't test their treatment in 500 or a thousand people (after testing it on lab animals) and they didn't do a double-blind test where you didn't know who took what treatment until the experiment ended, and that they didn't bother with a multiyear followup of the treatment.



But, why would the author single out California for no reason?


My guess is because they live in California or they know someone who tried the business in California and got shut down because they were advertising something as a "medical treatment." The author may have someone they know who died ... someone they felt (after being convinced by a website or a book) could have been saved if they'd only been allowed to take, for example Laetrille (ignoring the fact that Laetrille was once considered as a treatment for cancer and like many of these so-called treatments that the "alternative medicine" crew promotes it WAS seriously tested and it was found that the procedure/substance did a lot more harm to the body than if the person had simply done nothing.


Which leads us to the million dollar question, do you think non-orthodox treatment should be available (as in not prohibited by law) as long as the patient intentionally opts for it or not. i mean if you admit that it may become standard procedure in a decade or so, why would you keep it from people who want to use it in its prototypical stage? it's not like they have an awful lot of time to decide, mind you.

The law doesn't prohibit it, and I have no problem with it.

Fatal diseases very occasionally go into remission for reasons we don't understand. I have a friend who was diagnosed with the almost-always-fatal pancreatic cancer some 30 years ago, and he's still very much alive. I think that if someone wants to try a vinegar diet or whatever, that is their business... but I am against a "clinic" advertising that they can cure the things that doctors can't... particularly when there's no evidence for it.

I think that if I was diagnosed with a fatal disease, I would follow the doctors' recommendations, but that I would also hie myself to a good nutritionist and work with them and exercise and massage therapists -- in part to ensure a better quality of life. I might also try accupuncture for chronic pain or other such treatments... treatments that ARE appoved under the law and for which there are some studies indicating that it seems to work for some people.

As for new treatments, I think that these "stupid science" sites tend to make people less aware that there are clinical trials that they can participate in and try out new treatments. One that I'm aware of is a clinical trial being run in several cities to see if yoga does have an impact on depression and the quality of life for depressives. Patients who participate in clinical trials are heavily monitored and compensated for their time (the treatments are free) and issues that they may have get prompt response.

Well.. I kinda got long winded, there. But if someone's going to hold out hope to people with severe illnesses, there really needs to be some good research behind it (checked by other independant researchers) and not just a handfull of "mah momma done told me" anecdotes.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   
I've read up on some of the clinical trials that have been done with cancer treatments. Some of the treatments were only tested with a test group of 20 people. More common is a test group of 100 people. The subjects are selected at random to receive either the test drug or a placebo. The subject is not to know which they are receiving. Often with a group of 100 people, they break the group into 3 sets...those that get the test drug, those that get the test drug accompanied by a another drug that has had success, and then the group that get the placebo. Test groups are monitored usually for 6, 12 or 18 months. After that, it is common to lose contact with the test subjects.

If a drug is proven to be better than a placebo with no extreme side effects, then it receives its' approval quite quickly for the general population...all this after sometimes as few as 10 people are tested with the drug.

A common belief about drugs on the market is that they have been tested on thousands of people. Although it may be the case once in a while, this is simply NOT SO in many cases.

Once a drug is approved for the general population, the pharmaceutical companies pretty much cross their fingers and hope that there are no serious side effects or deaths from the use of their drugs. If there are, they quickly pull the drugs, hire lawyers to engage the victims in negotiations, and lay low for a while until the news is forgotten.

When it comes to alternative treatments, it is usually the patient that researches and works these alternative treatments. There are no groups that I know of out there performing clinical trials on vitamin use over placebos, herbal use over placebos, carrot juice over....etc. Patients that are open to alternative treatments are usually not willing to take the chance of receiving the placebo, therefore finding people willing to enter such a program is difficult in itself. Another factor to that is: those who know that certain things aid recovery from cancer would find it difficult to give test people placebos allowing them to get sicker just to prove a point.

So, until someone performs clinical trials on willing subjects for vitamins, herbals, fruits, nuts, vegatables, sound waves, classical music, rock music, prayer, meditation or whatever else to prove that they don't help, we could do just as well to assume that they do.

There is, yet, another possibility that most in the medical community seem to avoid, the possiblity that cancer is more of a symptom than a disease. It is possible that the real cause of cancer comes from a difficiency in the body and thus a weakened system that supports the cancered organ. Much of the foods we eat today have been processed so much, stored for so long or microwaved so much that the life giving elements within them have depleted.

As we examine disease, we must realize that it is a part of the circle of life (think of the tune from Lion King here). Everything in this world lives off of something else. Everything we consume must be living or at least recently living with the exception of vitamins and minerals. It has been said that man has no predators. This is not true. Viruses, parasites and bacteria are our predators. Some of these are symbiotic in nature, but most are detrimental to our health.

It should be considered that bacteria, parasites, viruses, or just deficiencies MAY be the underlying cause of cancer. Cancer MAY just be a symptom of another problem.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by davenman
I've read up on some of the clinical trials that have been done with cancer treatments. Some of the treatments were only tested with a test group of 20 people. More common is a test group of 100 people. The subjects are selected at random to receive either the test drug or a placebo. The subject is not to know which they are receiving. Often with a group of 100 people, they break the group into 3 sets...those that get the test drug, those that get the test drug accompanied by a another drug that has had success, and then the group that get the placebo. Test groups are monitored usually for 6, 12 or 18 months. After that, it is common to lose contact with the test subjects.


Hello Davenman

I don't think that's completely fair - I was under the impression that pharmaceutical companies had to jump through a lot of hoops to get their stuff fast-tracked. I'm not saying it's perfect, and I'm not saying they're particularly nice people, but it's at least a bit better than the way you've described it.

idid.essortment.com...




A common belief about drugs on the market is that they have been tested on thousands of people. Although it may be the case once in a while, this is simply NOT SO in many cases.


I have heard of drugs being 'rushed' into service to fill a void where there's nothing appropriate to treat, but even the FDA review of that takes 6 months, surely?

www.accessdata.fda.gov...

Please, correct me if I am wrong - I'm simply reporting what I believe to be true.



Once a drug is approved for the general population, the pharmaceutical companies pretty much cross their fingers and hope that there are no serious side effects or deaths from the use of their drugs. If there are, they quickly pull the drugs, hire lawyers to engage the victims in negotiations, and lay low for a while until the news is forgotten.


I agree with that
. Only more so. Please don't think I'm arguing that pharmaceutical companies are altruists! Or that the FDA is great, but surely things have improved a bit since Thalidomide. Although, of course, Vioxx proves that even today things ain't perfect.



When it comes to alternative treatments, it is usually the patient that researches and works these alternative treatments. There are no groups that I know of out there performing clinical trials on vitamin use over placebos, herbal use over placebos, carrot juice over....etc. Patients that are open to alternative treatments are usually not willing to take the chance of receiving the placebo, therefore finding people willing to enter such a program is difficult in itself. Another factor to that is: those who know that certain things aid recovery from cancer would find it difficult to give test people placebos allowing them to get sicker just to prove a point.


That's the big thing, and I completely agree - but until there is evidence in prospective, clinical double-blinded trials, then each and every patient that wants to take the alternative route is groping in the dark - which isn't fair on anyone. If there *was* the evidence that this stuff worked, then everyone would be happier; and if there *wasn't* the evidence it worked then a lot of people would save their money and probably live longer.

I'd argue that 'alternatives' should jump through exactly the same hoops as the big pharmaceutical companies, because it would protect the public *and* hopefully identify good therapies and destroy quacks.



So, until someone performs clinical trials on willing subjects for vitamins, herbals, fruits, nuts, vegatables, sound waves, classical music, rock music, prayer, meditation or whatever else to prove that they don't help, we could do just as well to assume that they do.


Or assume that they don't. Or at least, sign a legal document saying that you are renouncing conventional therapy and have been informed of the probable consequences. As an adult capable of making grown-up decisions I don't see how anyone could argue with that.

But I would definitely make 'alternative' practitioners keep independently-verified records of their diagnosis and kill-cure ratios.




There is, yet, another possibility that most in the medical community seem to avoid, the possiblity that cancer is more of a symptom than a disease. It is possible that the real cause of cancer comes from a difficiency in the body and thus a weakened system that supports the cancered organ. Much of the foods we eat today have been processed so much, stored for so long or microwaved so much that the life giving elements within them have depleted.

As we examine disease, we must realize that it is a part of the circle of life (think of the tune from Lion King here). Everything in this world lives off of something else. Everything we consume must be living or at least recently living with the exception of vitamins and minerals. It has been said that man has no predators. This is not true. Viruses, parasites and bacteria are our predators. Some of these are symbiotic in nature, but most are detrimental to our health.


I always thought that being alive for long enough meant that you would get cancer!
It just comes down to the basic cell biology of DNA replication - there are 'safeguards' but there's an inbuilt error rate in replication of the cell, and when enough 'changes' build up in your tumor suppressor genes or proto-oncogenes, it's neoplasm time!

Here's a link which uses small words that I can understand:

www.learner.org...


It should be considered that bacteria, parasites, viruses, or just deficiencies MAY be the underlying cause of cancer. Cancer MAY just be a symptom of another problem.


I kind of agree with you that mutagens in our diet can increase the chance of DNA damage and therefore cancer. I also agree that nutritional deficiency and stress can make you more susceptible to those mutagens. Maybe Pauling was (slightly) right after all with his vitamin C theory!

In conclusion, it's a difficult ethical area - people have a right to choose alternative therapies, but desperate people have a right to be protected from mercenaries peddling snake-oil. Don't see what else you *can* do except say 'where's the evidence'?

Cheers

TD

[edit on 17-1-2006 by TaupeDragon]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by TaupeDragon]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I forgot to mention that I live in California and had to go through the search for alternative treatments for my wife who is dealing with cancer. It nearly took her life when the cancer ate a hole in her colon and duadenum. Many doctors have been baffled at this cancer existing in a 33 yr old woman.

She did follow her doctors instructions to a 'T'. She did 2 surgeries, chemo & radiation. When we asked about other alternative courses of treatment for this, we mostly got blank stares and warnings that those treatments don't work. They said these things before they even knew what alternatives we were considering.

The good news today is that there are currently no signs of the cancer. The courses of treatment were....Surgery, prayer, chemo, prayer, surgery, improved diet with fresh veggies and fruits and less meat, addition of regular doses of calcium, magnesium, folic acid, multiple vitamins, Vitamin E for healing, enzymes, prayer, chemo, radiation, a variety of herbals in normal dosages and applications, wormwood, cloves, black walnut hull tincture, much more prayer and supplication.

It is now approaching 3 years since first discovery and we are grateful to God and to the surgeons. I give a tremendous amount of credit to God who is able and willing to give second chances. He alse gave the wisdom to discern between flaky treatments and honestly good and reasonable treatments.

Oh...I almost forgot to mention THE most important thing in treating all diseases....WATER!! Drink lots of it!



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
this brings me to a question that concerns me greatly.
namely: is it, then, possible to "produce" a state where the mind, or the organism, neutralizes cancerous, or other "harmful" processes and conditions?

some buddhists chant many sounds, but i am referring, specifically, to the sound "Om".

is it possible that this vibration, when meditated upon, and absorbed in/of (in vibrational harmony with it) that "disorders" are verily neutralized? like "returning to the source", per se?



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   
TaupeDragon,

Thank you for those links. You also bring up good points and that's why I chose to find as much information about as many treatments as possible. As I found new information I presented it to my wife. She made her own decisions about what she would do. I only meddled when she came near to killing herself WITH the chemo treatments. She was on Irinotecan...that was one of the ones on your fast track link. It's an extremely tough treatment to endure. She lost all of her hair and had no appetite until just before the next treatment. Fortunately, she is one of those women that is beautiful when bald. She tried wigs, but I liked her so much better bald. It took a lot to get used to because she's always had hair down to her waist. She's growing it back now and it's down to shoulder length, but it has turned halfway to grey. That chemo aged her about 10 years in just 6 months.

I think that patients should also be made aware of the very serious risk of these treatments and not just the possible, but rather the likely side effects that a person will experience. While it is true that the cancer can cut your life short, it is almost equally true that the chemo can too.

Anyway, on one of the links that you provided, it explained the 3rd phase of the trials....that phase is the one where the pharmaceuticals release it to the public and cross their fingers. It is up to the doctors at that point to watch their patients carefully for serious side effects. Patients can request these 3rd phase treatments as we did for Avatar on the day it was released. My wife had a hard time with that and the doctor immediately cut it off.

I had been reading about the Avatar and how it was a drug that was supposed to cause a person's own immune system to go on alert or something like that. I encourages her to try it. It was a little disappointing that the doctor chose to cut it rather than the chemo.

We were examining the possibility of getting in on the 2nd phase of a couple of different trials. There were generally openings for around 80-150 patients and the requirements were quite strict. They usually don't want you if you've ever used any chemo treatments in the past...or at least within the past year.

The last link that you provided is very lenthy. I'll try to read it later.

Thanks,
DavenMan



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   
i'm sorry to hear that, davenman.
i wish you both the best.
and vitality, to boot!



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Hello Davenman

I know you mentioned nutrition and linked it to cancer in your original post - and I forgot to post a link concerning it. Sounds like you are bang on with your diet! I think the role of nutrition in the cause of cancers, and as an important supportive factor during treatment is becoming well-recognized.

www.cancer.gov...

www.cancer.med.umich.edu...

I hope that everything is moving in the right direction for your family - it must have been a very stressful time for you.

TD



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join