It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by berenike
Thank you very much for this link - it's helped me a lot in my understanding of cancer and treatments. I had an idea, but this really clarifies things.
I hope people take the time to read it.
Sadly, I'm not optimistic that the person I need this information for will heed it. I've been pretty much flogging a dead horse on health issues for several years now. Actually, make that two people - the second one wouldn't listen to me if she was sitting on a railway track and I told her a train was coming.
Really, what do you do? People are just too frightened at the first hint that they are seriously ill to disregard or refuse any treatment held out to them. Unless, of course, it involves cleaning up their lifestyles. How much easier it is to swallow a few pills
Originally posted by jondave
Thanks, I have always suspected parasites. I even mentioned that to My Doctor, He did not seem interested.
So when I go in next week the Doctor will want to start Chemo and radiation. I am wondering if I should refuse this? I am in Canada, so when You refuse treatment, they put You on a long waiting list if You change your mind later.
Bilateral radical mastectomy of healthy breasts supposedly “reduces the risk
of getting breast cancer” by 90%!
! ! !
I am not making this up.
Obviously, if a woman doesn’t have breasts, how can she get breast cancer?
This type of insanity – a recommendation to remove healthy breasts with
the idea to prevent a disease a woman doesn’t have –
makes you wonder what’s next.
How about euthanasia? – that way the patient will have
a zero percent chance of ever getting any disease again.
Two groups of women should consider this procedure: One group consists of those who have had breast cancer in one breast and elect to have the other breast removed. This is called a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. The other group is those women who we know are at high risk--women with a strong family history of breast cancer. Especially families in which women younger than 40 or multiple family members have breast cancer. And, those who've had genetic testing and carry BRCA1 or BRCA2, the so-called breast cancer genes. Studies have predicted that wmen with these genes have an 85% chance of developing breast cancer over their lifetime. Also, Another group is women who become incapacitated by the fear of developing breast cancer.
If a woman is looking not to reduce the risk but just to have early detection then surveillance is a good option. If she is looking to reduce the risk but doesn't want to go through such a radical procedure then an anti-estrogen such as tamoxifen may be right. If she wants to minimize the risk down to the lowest level possible, which looks to be 99% or better, then a prophylactic mastectomy is the only option available to get to that level of risk reduction.
Originally posted by jondave
I did more homework, seems a new drug called sgn-35 was approved in the US. I live in Canada, I dont think its approved here yet. The drug seems to have mild side effects, and it is effective(in trials).
Also there is a lot of talk about parasites causing Hodgkins. I am wondering if geting rid of parasites also cures the cancer?