Pharmacists give themselves cancer from dispensing toxic chemotherapy chemicals!

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by jenmckin
 


Please explain this data:

Percent survival by year of diagnosis

This data has been collected nationwide (and in some cases, worldwide) by SEER since the early 1970s, around the time modern chemotherapeutics were starting to make it into limited practice. As you can see from the data, cancer survival rates have increased across the board for all sexes, ages, and types of cancer.

Why is that?


First this data has been collected from 9 states(San Francisco, Connecticut, Detroit, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, Seattle, Utah, and Atlanta). That is hardly "nationwide" and never "worldwide". Secondly your failed attempt to somehow associate chemotherapeutics as the cause for this less than miraculous 10% increase in survival rate made me laugh. I don't want people being confused by the dr.'s opinions over fact. The fact is that data is simply survival rate, anything additional is assumed or opinion. I could say that the minor increase in survival rate starting in the 70's was due to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty being enacted, but it would have about as much relevance to the data as chemotherapy... Advocating chemotherapy is a fools errand, and if the shoe fits well then


back to the article: Mike Adams is not someone I would be getting my information from even though he does pose some good questions...

"So next time he insists that you take some chemotherapy, ask him to drink some first. If your oncologist isn't willing to drink chemotherapy in front of you to prove it's safe, why on earth would you agree to have it injected in your body?"

That made me laugh, but the bottom line is everyone should educate themselves on any decision especially if it pertains to life. It is ultimately the consumers decision to proceed with this very dangerous procedure (for some reason treatment doesn't sound right) and the choice should always be left up to the person. So you take the chemo, I'm going to have an apple!




posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
This article arrived in one of my news feeds when it came out a few days ago. I get alternative medicine news and read a lot of it. I also this week got this image and it is related to this thread so I thought I would post it for you folks.

S&F on the thread OP.




posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by arpanet
 


I think you covered all the points:

Info from as few states, not nationwide/worldwide
A *10%* increase in survival rates in 40 years???

In 40 years, this is all of the progress they have made?

Let's take a look at what is proposed here:

Cure rate or survival rate is "did this person die within this given time frame?" So the standard 5 year survival rate means that between diagnosis & the 5th year anniversary of their diagnosis they did not die. If they died in the 6th year, they are not counted as a failure. If they die eventually from cancer, they are still counted in the survivor category...as long as they lived to 5 years they are counted as "cured."

"Keep in mind that the 5 year mark is still used as the official guideline for "cure" by mainstream oncologists. Statistically, the 5 year cure makes chemotherapy look good for certain kinds of cancer, but when you follow cancer patients beyond 5 years, the reality often shifts in a dramatic way."
John Diamond, M.D.

Could early detection have increased these "survival rates" in the last 40 years by boosting the number of those living to five years? Even though according to the science (Ulrich Abel link) chemo may shrink tumors but it doesn't actually extend life expectancy?.

I think a more fair "survival rate" calculator should be that people are only "cured" of cancer if they never die from the cancer or a side effect from the treatment for cancer. And that number should be compared to those who choose no treatment whatsoever. THAT would be a true number, not some bogus "if you don't die in 5 years, you're cured" standard.

"The five year cancer survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before…More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being "cured". When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly."
Dr J. Bailer, New England Journal of Medicine (Dr Bailer’s answer to questions put by Neal Barnard MD of the Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine and published in PCRM Update, Sept/Oct 1990)

Where did the Mike Adams quote come from? I didn't link to one of his articles. Did someone else & I miss it?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Is laughing at that title bad?
I dont think so pharmacists # with us by giving us 'antidotes' that just make us worse paying them more and more. And this hapens to them. AHAHAHA they deserve exactly what they are getting. I just hope the die faster from the cancer.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpanet

First this data has been collected from 9 states(San Francisco, Connecticut, Detroit, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, Seattle, Utah, and Atlanta).


False. SEER collects from regional cancer registries based in about twenty states. These registries are not local, they are regional.



Secondly your failed attempt to somehow associate chemotherapeutics as the cause for this less than miraculous 10% increase in survival rate made me laugh.


When I post a link, please actually click it. The first page was very clearly labele "ALL CANCER SITES". When you combine the survival of ALL cancers, of course the survival increase won't look as impressive. Pancreatic cancer is still incredibly fatal, as are a few other forms.

If you took the time to click down just a couple of pages, you would see different cancers with twenty and thirty percent increases in survival.


I could say that the minor increase in survival rate starting in the 70's was due to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty being enacted, but it would have about as much relevance to the data as chemotherapy...


Quit using strawmen arguments. It is well documented that the introduction of modern chemotherapeutics has increased the survival of cancers dramatically. We are even reaching about 90% five year survival for breast cancer, something that was unheard of even a decade ago, and it is purely thanks to taxol and other chemotherapeutic agents.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
If all these alternative medicines are as effective as you say, then why has the survival rate of cancer not increased to 100%? The same claim could be made about these alternative cures.

And asking the doctor to drink chemotherapy when he doesn't need it? What kind of crap is that. I call cowpoo on that one. A doctor won't take medicine he doesn't need and rightfully so, I wouldn't either. I guarantee any oncologist that came down with cancer would receive chemotherapy as a treatment.

You still fail to realize that the alternative medicine and traditional medicine fields make exactly the same claims against each other and spread the same propaganda and are both lucrative businesses.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbloch7986
If all these alternative medicines are as effective as you say, then why has the survival rate of cancer not increased to 100%? The same claim could be made about these alternative cures.


Nothing, and I mean nothing, can be a sure thing in medicine. Not conventional. Not alternative. And I never said that the alternative methods were 100% effective (because nothing can be). There are too many variables in cancer that make that impossible. BUT if we could get conventional medicine to stop marginalizing natural therapies, maybe the cancer survival rate could be increased.

There is some fantastic research being done on graviola! It's even on pubmed to keep our conventional medicine friends happy.


I met a woman in the grocery store one day a few months ago. She asked me what I did for a living and I told her that I was in school to become a Naturopath but was already a Nutritional Consultant & Master Herbalist. She chose at that point to tell me that she was diagnosed with breast cancer 25 years ago. She went through chemo & radiation went into remission & it came back 5 years later. She decided to begin fresh juicing fruits & vegetables. She basically turned vegetarian and only eats meat on occasion. She has been back and the tumor shrank & disappeared and has not returned according to her story. And yet, conventional medicine counts her in the fold of their "survival rate" even though they had nothing to do with her survival.

I think there was a woman with Stage IV inoperable cancer that did the same thing and was on Oprah a few years ago. She went to juicing and vegetarianism (I am not vegetarian by the way), and the tumor stopped growing and she's alive & well.


I guarantee any oncologist that came down with cancer would receive chemotherapy as a treatment.


Actually, if you look at that research by Dr. Abel that I posted the link to, of the Dr's he surveyed, 75% would not take chemotherapy. To be fair, I think he only surveyed the doctors at his research hospital, so I am not sure how many doctors that included. I would have to dig further. Still your assertion is incorrect.


You still fail to realize that the alternative medicine and traditional medicine fields make exactly the same claims against each other and spread the same propaganda and are both lucrative businesses.


Forgive me, but I don't see any Naturopath's driving BMW's. And any one in the field that's worth a damn is going to tell you NOT to buy your vitamins at Walmart or the grocery because they are crap and are not bioavailable to begin with. The SUPPLEMENT industry is lucrative...and most of it is crap. Unless you are taking wholefood supplements that cover minerals as well, you aren't doing yourself any good.

If chemo is only 10% more effective in 40 years for some cancers, then why are they still using it? Why not move on to something else? With all the billions that have been dumped into cancer research, this is the best they've got? Okay...some have seen a 30% increase in "survival rate" (as bogus as I think that is), so continue using chemo for those cancers that it appears to help and come up with something else for the ones that have only shown a 10% increase in survival. Revamp the way "survival" is calculated because 7 years after your diagnosed with cancer and your counted as "cured" but "cured" & dead isn't fair, now is it?

I didn't say modern medicine should be done away with. If you read back over my posts, I said that it certainly has it's place but I think that true numbers of efficacy should be given. I actually believe quite a bit in integrated medicine. My allopathic friend above, does not.

It's not that I fail to realize anything. I simply disagree with you.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa


False. SEER collects from regional cancer registries based in about twenty states. These registries are not local, they are regional.

Then please explain to me why at the bottom of every page on there it says "Based on the SEER 9 areas (San Francisco, Connecticut, Detroit, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, Seattle, Utah, and Atlanta)."


When I post a link, please actually click it. The first page was very clearly labele "ALL CANCER SITES". When you combine the survival of ALL cancers, of course the survival increase won't look as impressive. Pancreatic cancer is still incredibly fatal, as are a few other forms.


Oh I am sorry you should have mentioned beforehand that you wanted me to ignore certain sections of that data that negatively portrays your point.



Quit using strawmen arguments. It is well documented that the introduction of modern chemotherapeutics has increased the survival of cancers dramatically. We are even reaching about 90% five year survival for breast cancer, something that was unheard of even a decade ago, and it is purely thanks to taxol and other chemotherapeutic agents.


I understand when someone attacks an already incredibly weak argument it could look like they are using a strawmen, but when you realize that I haven't replaced any of your prepositions and just destroyed your original argument it becomes easy to see who is trying to use a strawman. If it is so well documented feel free to provide that data, and I hope it is better than the last link you posted.

Just to reiterate you were trying to use statistics from 9 states, claiming it was nationwide/worldwide. The data is purely survival rate, and your claiming the 10% survival increase from the 70's to 2006 is due to chemotherapeutics; which is fine because that is merely your opinion and not fact. I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page.


It is like talking to a wall sometimes...
Great thread OP sorry for derailing it

[edit on 15-7-2010 by arpanet]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpanet
Then please explain to me why at the bottom of every page on there it says "Based on the SEER 9 areas (San Francisco, Connecticut, Detroit, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, Seattle, Utah, and Atlanta)."


As I stated above (and you summarily ignored) these are regional epidemiologic data centers. Notice how the nine states correspond with the major geographical regions of the nation? That's because it's silly to build a data center for each state when you could just as easily have doctors send their data in to a regional center for regional analysis. Every geographic region has different environmental risks, which makes regional analysis preferable.

Get it now?


Oh I am sorry you should have mentioned beforehand that you wanted me to ignore certain sections of that data that negatively portrays your point.


So, pointing out that you cherry-picked the data is somehow me telling you to ignore certain sections? Interesting. Why didn't you mention the cancers with twenty percent survival increases? Why not the ones with thirty? Are you asking ME to ignore those sections?


I understand when someone attacks an already incredibly weak argument it could look like they are using a strawmen, but when you realize that I haven't replaced any of your prepositions and just destroyed your original argument it becomes easy to see who is trying to use a strawman. If it is so well documented feel free to provide that data, and I hope it is better than the last link you posted.


No problem.

Overview of Chemotherapy History, emphasis on 1960s and 1970s.


Just to reiterate you were trying to use statistics from 9 states, claiming it was nationwide/worldwide. The data is purely survival rate, and your claiming the 10% survival increase from the 70's to 2006 is due to chemotherapeutics; which is fine because that is merely your opinion and not fact. I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page.


Do you have to lie and put words in my mouth in order to make your argument seem viable?

I'm using statistics from 9 REGIONAL DATA CENTERS, which shows survival increases ranging from 10% to 30% among every major type of cancer. The increase in survival begins at the time period in which combination chemotherapeutics were introduced, the same time period in which papers were published showing remarkable success with the therapies.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jenmckin
 


I will agree with you here. Modern and holistic medicine should absolutely be combined.

I just don't think the hateful attitude towards modern medicine is fair. Most of the people working in modern medicine are doing the best they can with what they have.

I still will assert that both fields are very lucrative for those that are involved in them.

I was getting the feeling that you think we should forego modern medical procedure in favor of alternative medicine.

I also am of the opinion that people make far too much profit off of our health.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by dbloch7986
 


No. That was not my intention. Modern medicine has certainly saved countless lives.

What I hate is collusion, conflicts of interest such as heads if FDA/AMA/NIH owning & having major stakes in pharmaceutical companies, stifling/suppressing good science for inexpensive treatments, etc (I am working on a thorough post for this subject right now to do with chemo actually that I found two nights ago! I look forward to hearing your comments! Keep an eye out!)

The pharmacists that were originally discussed in the OP are highly unfortunate victims of their profession. But it raises many questions about what they are handling. I do not share some opinions here that they deserve it.

No one deserves that kind of death IMO.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jenmckin
 


I personally feel that it all comes down to making a profit for the most part.

I mean when you put the head of major drug companies in charge of the agency that's supposed to regulate drugs, well you end up with cheap drugs sold for massive profits that make people kill themselves.

Its cheaper to reproduce a chemical in a lab than to obtain it naturally.

The ridiculous thing is that a natural substance causes one death and it banned from the market. A drug causes suicide (it doesn't even kill you, it makes you kill yourself!!) and it gets a warning label.

Yes I heavily disagree with collusion. I also disagree with for-profit industries managing our health. I think all health-related companies should be not-for-profit.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join