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
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.