The Great Cancer Hoax - There's Been a Cure Since 1977

reply to post by blackrain17

An MD whose license was revoked after he refused surgery to a cancer sufferer; and a chemist who thought Vitamin C was a panacea. I'm unimpressed.

reply to post by Ayjay


LOL... Let me see your credentials? If you can even come close to 1% of Linus Pauling, I'll give you some credit.

Originally posted by blackrain17


I'm beginning to wonder why you are so against alternative therapy for cancer but I realize that the big Pharmas give you a paycheck.

BZZZT! Wrong again.

I, like all doctors who work in public hospitals, am salaried. That means I am paid the same amount if I prescribe a generic drug or name-brand drug, and if I write one prescription or a thousand per day.

The reason I support chemotherapy and radiotherapy is that I have the ability to look at both sides logically, and I see that one side (medicine) has thousands of well-researched, statistically valid studies showing positive effects, while the other side (alternative) has nothing but blogs, random quotes from people who never performed a day of cancer research, and a mish-mash of anecdotes claiming cures.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Don't yout think it's unfair that some alternative medicines do not get the fair treatment as real medicine? Let's face it, some of them don't have a chance with FDA whether it has potential or not. And it's all based on profit.

Since you say you are a genetics expert, what are you views on stem-cells?

Originally posted by blackrain17
reply to post by Ayjay

 

LOL... Let me see your credentials?

I've lost two family members to cancer in the past eight weeks, a third in the past six months, and am following the remissions of four others. I daresay I've seen the inside of more cancer wards in this past year than you.

reply to post by Ayjay


What are your credentials? Not your experience with cancer. And please don't assume about my experiences with cancer.

reply to post by blackrain17


You know that you don't have to have FDA approval to perform research, right? You can do all the research you want, as long as you aren't trying to sell something as a medical treatment before it has been approved.

Why haven't ANY of these supposed "cures" produced any valid research? Don't you think it's just a tad bit odd that not a single person pushing one of these cures is able to show results of tests that would cost less than $100 to perform? Things like cell cultures that respond to treatments, before and after x-rays of tumor size, stuff like that? Why haven't ANY of them done this, and instead only offer stories that they "swear" are true?

As for my view on stem cells, I think both adult and embryonic stem cells are wonderful avenues for research. Right now, I'm putting more of my theoretical eggs in the adult stem cell basket, but I think with enough research in the right areas, we'll find some neat applications of embryonic cell lines, too.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


You make it sound so simple but it's not as simple as you put it. Anyway, we agree to disagree on alternative treatments.

I think stem cell treatment is the future but I don't like the fact that chemo and radiation is still included in those treatments. My main concern about chemo and radiation is it makes people sterile. And this is a big negative for young cancer patients.

My ex-girlfriend got treated for Leukemia with double cord blood transplant and she is in remission. But she is now sterile and can't have kids. That is one of the main reasons why we aren't together now. Do you think in the future by using stem cells or what not, we can eliminate chemo and radiation therapy forever? What are your thoughts?

Originally posted by blackrain17
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

You make it sound so simple but it's not as simple as you put it. Anyway, we agree to disagree on alternative treatments.

It's absolutely that simple. If someone claims they can cure cancer, they need to prove it. Why should we let any nutcase sell "cures" without any sort of proof? That's dangerous and just downright stupid.

My main concern about chemo and radiation is it makes people sterile.

That's only part true. SOME chemotherapies and SOME radiation therapies can make you sterile, but only for a short time. A classmate of mine was diagnosed with testicular cancer during our second year of medical school, had his testicle removed (orchiectomy), and had the appropriate round of radiotherapy. He was sterile for less than 6 months, and now has two healthy young children, a boy and a girl.

Can you provide me with your source that claims chemo and radiation therapy makes people sterile?

Do you think in the future by using stem cells or what not, we can eliminate chemo and radiation therapy forever? What are your thoughts?

I don't think so, no. Stem cells aren't really being used to treat cancers. Leukemia is slightly different (though, admittedly, it is a cancer subset). I think with enough research, we probably could find a way to treat leukemia without chemo/radiation. Other cancers, though, like squamous cell carcinoma, breast cancer, etc. are unlikely to benefit from this research, at least at the point we're at now.

Originally posted by blackrain17

My main concern about chemo and radiation is it makes people sterile.

It can make people sterile. It's a risk, not the foregone conclusion you imply. (Speaking as someone who suffers infertility factors.)

One can freeze ova/sperm before beginning therapy.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Can you provide me with your source that claims chemo and radiation therapy makes people sterile?

This is first hand knowledge. Not just with my ex-girlfriend but with others that went through chemo and radiation. It might be just for females though, all the ones I know personally are all females. They stopped having their menstrual cycles.

Originally posted by Ayjay

Originally posted by blackrain17

My main concern about chemo and radiation is it makes people sterile.

It can make people sterile. It's a risk, not the foregone conclusion you imply. (Speaking as someone who suffers infertility factors.)

One can freeze ova/sperm before beginning therapy.

How many young females can afford this? I'm pretty sure no insurance will cover this procedure.

Originally posted by blackrain17
How many young females can afford this? I'm pretty sure no insurance will cover this procedure.

Come to Australia.

reply to post by blackrain17


A few first-hand anecdotes does not equal a medical fact. Most people who go through chemo are not permanently sterile.

reply to post by Ayjay


Unfortunately, I live in the Land of the anything but "Free". .

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by blackrain17

 

A few first-hand anecdotes does not equal a medical fact. Most people who go through chemo are not permanently sterile.

Most people that go through chemo are not permanently sterile? Is this study done in your country or in the US? Your sources?

Well it's a fact to me when her doctor told her she's most likely gonna be infertile after chemo and radiation. She stopped having her menstrual cycle and it's been over 3 years now.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Can you provide me with your source that claims chemo and radiation therapy makes people sterile?

Well I don't know where you get your info from but this is the first thing that popped up on google search.

Does Chemo Cause Infertility?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by blackrain17
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

You make it sound so simple but it's not as simple as you put it. Anyway, we agree to disagree on alternative treatments.

It's absolutely that simple. If someone claims they can cure cancer, they need to prove it. Why should we let any nutcase sell "cures" without any sort of proof? That's dangerous and just downright stupid.

More and more I exchange words with you, I'm starting to think you are just one of those shills that will not question your system.

Once again, it's not as easy as you think. Cancer research is highly regulated and the gatekeepers are gonna keep it that way. I trust this guy way more than a shill like you.

Dr. James Watson on Cancer Research...




Anway, keep defending the corrupt system. Maybe one day you will realize FDA and ACS are not what you thought they were...

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by blackrain17


I'm beginning to wonder why you are so against alternative therapy for cancer but I realize that the big Pharmas give you a paycheck.

BZZZT! Wrong again.

I, like all doctors who work in public hospitals, am salaried. That means I am paid the same amount if I prescribe a generic drug or name-brand drug, and if I write one prescription or a thousand per day.

The reason I support chemotherapy and radiotherapy is that I have the ability to look at both sides logically, and I see that one side (medicine) has thousands of well-researched, statistically valid studies showing positive effects, while the other side (alternative) has nothing but blogs, random quotes from people who never performed a day of cancer research, and a mish-mash of anecdotes claiming cures.

Of course they are gonna have the most data, whether scewed or not, these chemo and radiation therapy originate from the Big Pharmaceutical companies and are backed by the FDA. And they have the money to go through all the trials. It's so frustrating to talk to someone that's in the industry that doens't want to see the truth. Besides, you're not an oncologist, do not act like you are a cancer specialist.

If you think the system is perfect, what do you think about FDA and Monsantos working together to pass Aspartame to the general public knowing the fact that in lab tests, Aspartame caused brain tumors on rats? Or FDA hiding information about arsenic in chicken since the 1940s? Or FDA letting Bayer sell HIV infected blood to other countries to treat hemophiliac patients?

Originally posted by blackrain17
Cancer research is highly regulated and the gatekeepers are gonna keep it that way. I trust this guy way more than a shill like you.

Dr. James Watson on Cancer Research...

In your linked article, Watson said:

"We're terribly held back on clinical tests by regulations which say that no one should die unnecessarily during trials; but they are going to die anyway unless we do something radical. I think the ethics committees are out of control and that it should be put back in the hands of the doctors. There is an extraordinary amount of red tape which is slowing us down. We could go five times faster without these committees."

...which I read as, "Cancer patients are going to die anyway, so why are we bothering to be safe and careful with them when we could have unrestricted access to them as guinea pigs?"

You said you trust this guy. Do you share his lack of respect for patients' safety?