Why don't doctors recommend different types of cancer treatments, besides radiation?

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by electrobadgr
I don't have a child but if i got cancer i would be more inclined to use Hemp Oil than i would be to bombard my body with radiation for a possible temporary fix.


With all due respect, walk the walk...then report back to me.


If i get cancer, you'll be the first to know what treatment i go for, however as a cannabis smoker i could be waiting a while. If Hemp oil works or not i don't know, there are some very convincing testimonials in the video link i posted, in any case i would favour spending potentially my final days stoned, hoping the #'ll work rather than vomiting into a bucket filled with my own hair, bed ridden being bombarded with radiation & sympathy i don't want.


Perhaps that's because i don't feel the need to desperately cling to life, i am not scared of death and certainly wouldn't favour months of painful treatment to scrape another month or two out of the ether.




posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


A real MD would never use the term lipid dystrophy plain and simple.


Sure they would. It's all about where and how you were taught. I have the double disadvantage of having been taught by a pathologist who was not a native English-speaker, and I am not a native English-speaker myself. This makes it a bit easier for archaic or alternate forms of disease pathology to creep into my writing.


Anyone with ANY familiarity of the terminology used in AIDS/HIV which is where it is so commonly applied knows it's lipodystrophy. Along with your complete irrelevant discussion of ART/LIPO dystrophy and cancer you are at worst a fraud and at best an out of the loop primary MD with little knowledge of cancer and oncology in general.


The discussion of HIV/AIDS wasn't irrelevant at all. You said that doctors ignore Pauling's research on vitamin C, and I was demonstrating that we don't. Vitamin C levels are frequently monitored in patients of all stripes, most notable cancer and HIV patients. How is that irrelevant information?


Ascrobate plays many roles in many physiological pathways.....for you to insuate that intravenous vitamin C therapy is commonly used in cancer treatment among mainstream oncologists is downright laughable and shows just how out of touch you are.


I never insinuated that. You understand that IV isn't the only method vitamin C can be given, right?


In fact with MANY oncologists Vitamin C therapy especially intravenously is contraindicated due to research showing it can actually protect cancer cells as it does healthy cells and can lessen the effectiveness of chemotherapy.


Incorrect.


MANY oncologists are apt to prescribe it concomittantly with chemo drugs. That came to light in 2008. Now they are saying vitamin C doesn't affect cancer cells. so again they the medical establishment has no clue what they are talking about. And 40 years later the war on cancer is producing MISERABLE results.


Again, incorrect. Please see my links above showing the wonderful increases in survival for nearly all cancers.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by electrobadgr
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

.....if you believe that Big Pharma cares for you and are dilegently working on a cancer cure for the benefit of mankind then you sir are sadly deluded. Big Pharma doesn't care and GP's are nothing more than salesmen.


Electrobadgr.....

I work at a senior level in the medical industry.

I can assure there are many, many thousands of extremely decent, extremely intelligent hard working men & women who are doing everything they can to achieve cures for cancer.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


I believe you man, as with many industries and professions which recieve bad public opinion, most people who enter these careers do so for genuine reasons, however it's not the people that are the problem, it is the companies themselves IMHO. If some low level chemist discovers a naturally occuring substance that would cure cancer i.e. some form of plant extract what do you think would happen, here are three options, feel free to add more

1. The chemist in question is lauded as the saviour of mankind, Big Pharm Inc make a big public announcement that they have the cancer cure and it is available for everyone right now at minimum cost.

2. Because the cure is from a natural source it cannot be patented therefore there is no money in it so Big Pharm Inc start investigating how to synthesise the substance.

3. Because the cure is from a natural source it cannot be patented therefore there is no money in it so Big Pharm Inc scrap the substance and put a gag order on the chemist who discovered it and go back to work trying to produce an expensive sythetic treatment for symptoms.

Maybe my views on the Industry is jaded, but as with all industry it is Profit 1st, socio-environmental considerations further down the line.






posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by electrobadgr
If i get cancer, you'll be the first to know what treatment i go for, however as a cannabis smoker i could be waiting a while.


Without violating the terms and conditions of ATS...I can report that I wouldn't be factoring that into the equation. Trust me.


Perhaps that's because i don't feel the need to desperately cling to life, i am not scared of death and certainly wouldn't favour months of painful treatment to scrape another month or two out of the ether.


There is a large area in between that speaks to both longevity and quality of life. And again, you won't know unless you are unfortunate enough to walk that walk.

I'm just sayin'.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Let us hope none of us or our loved ones have to walk that path friend, and you are right, it is easy for me to say these things being a relatively healthy person, who knows what i would be like if myself or anyone i care about got ill.

Peace



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Zosynspiracy
 




Hodgkin's lymphoma has a 90% cure rate with early detection. Nice try........NEXT!

Without treatment Hodgkin's is 100% fatal. But that doesn't count. Why? Because it doesn't fit your picture of the world?




Let's see where you are 5-10 years from now and if you're "cured".

Stage 3b Hodgkin's is not really considered early detection. But that's not the point. You're claiming that no one is cured by radiation or chemotherapy. They are. I was, 23 years ago.

I don't care what you do with your body and no one is stopping you from using hydrazine sulfate if you want to. Like I said, I had a choice.

[edit on 4/12/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Like anything the medical industry is compartmentalized. Just like government, just like military, just like fianance. It doesn't matter how well intentioned someone is. I can give you the names of LOTS of doctors who have found cancer breakthroughs only to be shunned by the FDA. There are VERY powerful people who are in control of this country. The rest of us are just along for the ride. You're on a conspiracy website.......of all people YOU should understand that. That's like saying........oh well but but there are so many well intentioned people in government. Oh well but but there were so many well intentioned Germans during Hitler's reign.
Your naivety is amazing.



[edit on 12-4-2010 by Zosynspiracy]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by chorizo4
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


Alternative Cancer Treatments Home Page (the Cancer Tutor Website). This is one site I have looked at it is interesting.



That's the best alternative cancer website that I've found as well. It has a mountain of info and lays it all out. It also makes it crystal clear that for an alternative approach to be effective, you have to know exactly what type of cancer you're dealing with, then decide on which alternative will be most effective.

Just trying any alternative that you heard was effective, will in most cases greatly lower your odds of it being effective. Cancer can be and usually is very complex, so the approach and 'method of delivery' needs to be very well thought out.

This site explains the entire alternative cancer philosophy and all the different angles to attack it.

Here's the home page. www.cancertutor.com...

I would start with the introduction on the home page, then I highly recommend that you read this section called 'the war on medicine'...

www.cancertutor.com...

A good quote from Chapter 4 of this section....

"Most people who 'die of cancer' really die as a result of the treatment of the cancer by orthodox methods before they would have died of the cancer itself. In other words: the treatment kills them before the cancer kills them.

Most cancer patients die of malnutrition (cancer cells steal nutrients from normal cells thus cancer patients need a stronger than normal immunity system) or opportunistic infections caused by a weakened immune system."



An absolutely amazing collection of alternative information. If you're looking for an alternative approach to cancer, this site is a must study.




[edit on 12-4-2010 by shasta9600]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
Oh well but but there were so many well intentioned Germans during Hitler's reign.
Your naivety is amazing.


There were...care to clarify your remarks in that regard?



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Mr. Skeptic I suggest you stick to debunking the alien and UFO threads. You have very little knowledge regarding the alternative cancer treatment and the history in general. Your point is moot. Hodgkin's lymphoma like I said regardless of stage or early detection is one of the most treatable and curable cancers around. And you are twisting the argument to fit your context as well. I never said radiation doesn't work. You can stop a headache with a lead bullet. The point is we have been losing the war on cancer ever since it was declared and safe, effective, nontoxic alternative cancer treatments have been blocked and shunned by the FDA for the last 60 years. You seem to be ignorant about some of these treatments and just which doctors have been behind them.

Dr. Andrew Ivy was one of the most famous doctors in the country around 1945. Dr. Stanely Jacobs was a Harvard trained researcher and physician/surgeon. Dr. Gold was awarded a Presidential Citation for his work with NASA under Eisenhower. The doctors behind some of these breakthrough cancer treatments are not simply uneducated charlatan quacks.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Exactly..and not only were many clueless as to what was going on right under their noses.....they were powerless to stop it. THAT IS MY POINT! There are medical breakthroughs that happen on a daily basis. The general public never sees let alone hears about any of them. Some are extremely groundbreaking. But if any happen to challenge the existing cash cow status quo treatment they are shunned, ridiculed and lied about. Happens all the time. Sounds to me like you are very ignorant about the history of medicine in general and how allopathic medicine came to power in the United States.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Zosynspiracy
 

I don't recall saying anything about quackery.

Like I said, you can buy hydrazine sulfate on ebay. Go ahead. Use it when you've been diagnosed with cancer.


# Hydrazine sulfate is a chemical compound that has been studied as a treatment for cancer and certain side effects caused by cancer (see Question 1).

# Hydrazine sulfate may block the tumor from taking in glucose, which is a type of sugar that tumor cells need to grow (see Question 3).

# In randomized clinical trials (a type of research study), hydrazine sulfate did not make tumors shrink or go away. In some randomized trials, however, hydrazine sulfate was reported to be helpful in treating anorexia and cachexia caused by cancer. (See Question 6.)

# Hydrazine sulfate is sold as a dietary supplement in the United States. The US Food and Drug Administration has not approved the use of hydrazine sulfate as a cancer treatment, except in clinical trials (see Question 8).

www.cancer.gov...



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


NCI has posted an entry on the Internet, “date last modified: 6/18/04,” stating “hydrazine sulfate has shown no anticancer activity in randomized clinical trials,” which as will be seen is patently untrue and does not reflect the ten years of randomized clinical trials performed by Harbor-UCLA Medical Center from 1981-1990 and the many published, peer-reviewed clinical studies based on that body of work......www.hydrazinesulfate.org

And please don't argue whether or not cancer.gov is any more of a reputable website. If you don't believe the NCI, FDA, AMA, NIH lie than this entire thread is pointless.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Conservative main-line medicine cannot cure every cancer, but neither can alternative medicine. There are so many different presentations, types and sub-types of cancer, the idea of finding perfect treatment for them all in every single individual is utterly ridiculous. Nothing works for everyone. Doctors are not God, regardless of how most of them act. I believe in miracles, but like Phage, I am not willing to risk my life thinking one would happen to me. It might, but it isn't my call. It is nutrition, spiritual health, risk factors, personal psychology, and body makeup. We are all very different in these ways. We should pay attention to anecdotal evidence, sure, but because of the complexity of cancer and the many differences between individuals, the anecdotal often ends up leaving us just scratching our heads in wonder.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Exactly..and not only were many clueless as to what was going on right under their noses.....they were powerless to stop it. THAT IS MY POINT! There are medical breakthroughs that happen on a daily basis. The general public never sees let alone hears about any of them. Some are extremely groundbreaking. But if any happen to challenge the existing cash cow status quo treatment they are shunned, ridiculed and lied about. Happens all the time. Sounds to me like you are very ignorant about the history of medicine in general and how allopathic medicine came to power in the United States.



Sorry, as ignorant as it makes me, I will continue to put my primary faith in my medical providers as opposed to 'some guy on the internet' who yells in arrogance because he read something by 'some other guy on the internet'.

What would we call them? Keyboard Klinicians?

Like I said...you're not held responsible for the people you kill by talking them out of conventional treatment. Maybe you ought to be.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


haha............and the keyboard skeptics with no comparable experience or medical knowledge are out in droves today. You can put all the faith you want in mainstream medicine......but the facts speak for themselves. We have been losing the war on cancer after spending billions and billions of dollars on research, treatment etc. You know what it's called when you do the same thing over and over but expecting different results???????? INSANITY!



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by deadred
 


Most alternative medical treatments are grounded in science not miracles.

I think what is the most illustrative aspect of this thread, especially being on a conspiracy website......is that those of you who would shun the government, the military, alien skeptics/debunkers etc. at the drop of the hat so blindly follow and support mainstream medicine as if it's so different so much more honest and altruistic. I find that hilarious.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
You can put all the faith you want in mainstream medicine......but the facts speak for themselves. We have been losing the war on cancer after spending billions and billions of dollars on research, treatment etc. You know what it's called when you do the same thing over and over but expecting different results???????? INSANITY!


Who told you you need to YELL to communicate on this site, anyway?

My facts speak for themselves...I spent 3 months on alternative treatments prescribed by a naturopath, and they did virtually nothing to lower my PSA. Those are the facts that I chose not to expect different results from. So, I had brachytherapy...while I still could...and the cancer was cured.

And I ought to listen to you, instead? This is where the rubber hits the road, Jack. Phage has a similar story, and you've ignored my other points simply to continue to rant about what 'some guy on the net' said.

Go buy his books...fill yer boots...but our conversation is over.



[edit on 12-4-2010 by JohnnyCanuck]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


What alternative cancer treatment were you on? What was your diet like? There are so many factors to consider. To poo poo alternative medicine because you were told to take such and such by a naturopath or follow such and such only to see no results after three months is a little ignorant. The cancer that infiltrated your body didn't take 3 months to get there. I'll be the first one to admit there is a lot of bs and quackery when it comes to supplements being claimed to solve, fight, or cure such and such disease. That's why you should do your own research. I would never put all my faith in a naturopath nor would I put all my faith in an oncologist or medical doctor. By the way if you kept up with this thread you'd realize that most of the alternative cancer treatments I've mentioned came from medical doctors not homeopathy or naturopathy.

Hydrazine sulfate for example has to be taken with very stringent guidelines meaning that if you take anything with tyramine, benzodiazepines, alcohol etc. concomittantly it will make it ineffective.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Which chemotherapeutic treatment were you on? What was your diet like? There are so many factors to consider. To poo poo conventional medicine because you were told to take such and such by a single physician or follow such and such only to see no results after three months is a little ignorant. The cancer that infiltrated your body didn't take 3 months to get there.


It's interesting how your statement can make a fairly solid counter-argument to most of your own posts with a little word substitution.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join