Children with Cancer

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   
This just sickens me

Its one thing to be an adult and aware of your choices in regards to treatment of cancer but children have no say-so and even if they do it can't be that well informed. They have to take the word of their parents, parents who are still sleeping. Still under the guise of 'modern medicine' and the only 'cure' for cancer. One thing i cannot stand is being misinformed especially when it comes to the lives and health of anyone.

ABC (surprisingly) posted this in 2006:


The study released tonight says the long-term side effects of children's cancer treaments are actually more common than doctors and survivors ever realized. Children getting chemotherapy or radiation are eight times more likely to develop severe health problems in their 20's and 30's includin heart attacks and strokes, second cancers such as breast and thyroid cancer, premature menopause and major joint replacement


Dr. Ralph Moss says


According to Dr. Ralph Moss, author of the book Questioning Chemotherapy, the success rate for "curing" cancer using chemotherapy is really only about 2 - 5 percent at best -- and this is only in certain types of cancers. This means that in about 98 percent of cases, chemotherapy is absolutely useless in treating those specific cancers, and in the others for which it is completely useless -- breast, colon, lung, brainstem gliomas -- it is 100 percent ineffective.


I dont even have to point out the irresponsibility and blatant ignorance in this


"If a 50-year-old woman came to the hospital with shortness of breath and had a history of breast cancer, there are a lot of (doctors) who would not know that the drugs could have caused cardiac issues," she said.


And again here


Like a lot of childhood cancer survivors, Isaac continues to feel the effects of his treatment years after it ended. Isaac, who was diagnosed when he was 9 weeks old with acute myelogenous leukemia, received eight doses of intrathecal chemotherapy—chemotherapy delivered directly to the brain—as part of his treatment. Although it saved his life, it interfered with his brain’s development, causing the learning disabilities.


What i dont understand is how we still believe this method to be the best solution?!

Children are the future whether we like it or not, and i'm affraid we are taking too many choices away from them that cause mental problems in the long run. WIth education in its current state, media in the #ter (disinformation, superficialism, social decay,etc.) our economic model, the last thing we need is positive reinforcement for mental degradation of our children.




posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
But if they did this then the pharmaceutical companies would not make any money!
And they sure don't want that!

one-minute-cure.com...



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   
The success rate for chemotherapy is around 60% on average.
Of course there are cases where the success rate is 1-2%. If you're horribly ill, you're horribly ill.

I would rather like someone else than parents to decide for children (like doctors), because if the child has a parent like you, he/she would face certain death.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   
I don't believe any of it. I've read from many reliable sources that Chemo has a much higher success rate and even if it were 1-2% or whatever, that's better than 0%. Until cures are made available for everyone, chemo is one of the best things there is to beat cancer. Taking the chances with chemo when applicable is better than praying and waiting for a miracle to happen because we've all seen what the success rate on prayer is. Hint, it's less than 1-2%.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   
I need to learn more about medicine.

I'll report back in eight years.


Kid's with cancer is sad, but dead kids are worse. I don't know enough about this to say stop the chemo.

I did go to a camp for children with illnesses for a few summers, incredible experience. One summer I roomed with a 14 year old with AIDS and an extremely disabled 15 year old, retarded and in a wheelchair, for a week.

I happened to have a minor form of hemophilia that allowed me to go, I think my parents were sort of unloading me for a week. But I'm glad they did

Anyway, I loved it. DONATE TO DOUBLE H RANCH IN LAKE LUZERNE NY IF YOU CAN. Sick kids are a reality, this camp provides a week of fun activity and amazing counselors. Best atmosphere I've ever been a part of.
edit on 9/10/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)
edit on 9/10/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Consequence
The success rate for chemotherapy is around 60% on average.
Of course there are cases where the success rate is 1-2%. If you're horribly ill, you're horribly ill.

I would rather like someone else than parents to decide for children (like doctors), because if the child has a parent like you, he/she would face certain death.

Only problem is that they call it a "success" if cancer is gone for a few years. If it comes back and kills you after lets say 5 years then they still call it a success and claim it treated the cancer.

Another thing I wonder is why there is such a huge increase in childhood cancers, which is something that was nearly unheard of just decades back.
I wonder if it can be all the chemicals and vaccines that the younger generation is feed with today....
I bet most of my generation and younger wont even make it to 50-60 years of age before they die.
edit on 10-9-2012 by juleol because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Here is an interesting piece by a doctor, worth a read www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by juleol
Only problem is that they call it a "success" if cancer is gone for a few years. If it comes back and kills you after lets say 5 years then they still call it a success and claim it treated the cancer.

Cancer is what it is. If it's not fully gone, it will come back. You need to make sure to monitor it.



Another thing I wonder is why there is such a huge increase in childhood cancers, which is something that was nearly unheard of just decades back.

No, childhood cancer was not unheard or decades back. Also, the claim that childhood cancer has skyrocketed is also false.
Maybe you should read this:
[link]http://stats.org/stories/2010/childhood_cancer_may28_10.html[/link]



I wonder if it can be all the chemicals and vaccines that the younger generation is feed with today....

The chemicals in our modern products, highly likely.
Why the medicine?



I bet most of my generation and younger wont even make it to 50-60 years of age before they die.
edit on 10-9-2012 by juleol because: (no reason given)

Happy betting.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I have a nephew from my husband's side who had cancer as a child, was treated with chemo and is in his thirties and fine now. Each person, whether a child or not, reacts differently to the same treatments. Chemo and radiation has saved many lives, including my own.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by juleol
 


If it comes back and kills you after lets say 5 years then they still call it a success and claim it treated the cancer.

Incorrect. Cancer statistics are based on survival rates of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years.

Too bad they don't go beyond 20 years...I just made the 30 year category (I wasn't a child patient).

BTW, that "Dr. Ralph Moss"? He isn't a medical doctor. He's a hack.
en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 9/10/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Congratulations on 30 years cancer free!!!!!!!!

I just made my first year and am hoping for many more.

People automatically think the worst when it comes to cancer and traditional medicine. They have to realise that there are plenty of success stories out there and not all doctors are in it just for the money. I had the most caring and capable group looking after me physically and emotionlly.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I feel so sorry for the kids that get cancer. There wasn't much cancer in kids when I was young. Something we are doing is changing that and also giving people of all ages cancer. Maybe backtracking to the sixties might be wise. The problems in our foods, in the soaps, and in the chemicals they feed us. They don't force us to eat them they just make the poison available. We can't keep ingesting immune system suppressants everyday and expect to not get sick.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
I should have known better than to go on a conspiracy forum and talk about cancer.

For there is indeed no other alternative or safer treatments available atleast in the eye of the cancer patient right? Why not just lay back and completely allow someone to burn away all of your cells and torture you even further than the cancer is already? I mean with any success rate thats peer reviewed you have to try it right?

Look, i understand that cancer is a bit of tough subject for most people but my point is there are other options, less invasive options and much less costly options that may or may not cure cancer. Shouldn't they atleast be available as an option to start with? How many years have we gone on with this technology and reportedly there is no method better than Chemo and radiation? How much money do we throw at institutions, institutions mind you that have created a synthetic heart, vitamins, and the discovery of DNA for crying out loud; and they have yet to find a more suitable, less detrimental, both physically and monetarily, solution?

I'm not saying all doctors are out to get everyone with their big pharma pushers backing them. But you can't realistically tell me that after the same basic concept in the 60's and 70's is the ultimate and only way to cure cancer. I mean you can, and technically your right because no doctor book in the world will say otherwise. But consider the time and assests we've used over the years, and consider the output. Zero.

Maybe i'm wrong maybe cancer is infinitely as complicated as it appears to be and there is no other means. But why would people go through the trouble of anouncing breakthroughs knowing that in the past it has been shutdown, manipulated, sent to prison, or some possibly even died for their information. Thats a pretty high risk low reward ratio if you ask me: Money/Fame vs. Imprisonment


The trial of 1939 put an end to any proper scientific investigation of the Frequency Instrument. The trial was the undoing of Rife. Not used to being savagely attacked in open court he crumbled under the pressure. Although he won the case, he turned to alcohol and became an alcoholic. Fishbein used his pervasive power within the AMA to thwart further investigation of Rife's work. Dr. Millbank Johnson died in 1944. In 1950 Rife joined up with John Crane who was an electrical engineer. They worked together for ten years building more advanced frequency machines. But in 1960 the AMA closed them down. Crane was imprisoned for three years and a month, even though fourteen patients testified as to the effectiveness of the machine. Rife died in 1971.


Then again when you put dollar signs on everything it kinda makes sense. In a very twisted inhumane way.





new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join