Cancer and Chemotherapies that kill you.

I've read a few threads about first or second hand (anecdotal) accounts where chemo supposedly killed someone close to the poster, and they swear up and down it's the chemo.

Rebuttal to cancer disinfo.

So anyhow, gramps got cancer over 3 years ago. They gave him a few months to live originally but he's still alive and kicking following a few rounds of radiation and chemo.

Throw that in with a girl I knew as a kid that got a rare type of cancer and fought it twice, still alive, that means I am 3 for 3 in Chemo and Radiation working from personal reference.

Although I don't go by personal reference, the data suggests it's successful in most cancers. (Sometime depends on the types of cancers being treated.)

Just wondering if there is a rebuttal to this.

You know, from the person who said everyone they know who got cancer died from Chemo, "They were totally healthy until they got treatment and then dropped dead..."

Originally posted by boncho
I've read a few threads about first or second hand (anecdotal) accounts where chemo supposedly killed someone close to the poster, and they swear up and down it's the chemo.

Rebuttal to cancer disinfo.

So anyhow, gramps got cancer over 3 years ago. They gave him a few months to live originally but he's still alive and kicking following a few rounds of radiation and chemo.

Throw that in with a girl I knew as a kid that got a rare type of cancer and fought it twice, still alive, that means I am 3 for 3 in Chemo and Radiation working from personal reference.

Although I don't go by personal reference, the data suggests it's successful in most cancers. (Sometime depends on the types of cancers being treated.)

Just wondering if there is a rebuttal to this.

You know, from the person who said everyone they know who got cancer died from Chemo, "They were totally healthy until they got treatment and then dropped dead..."

To understand how chemo works, you must understand how cancer works. Cancer occurs when dividing cells have mutations on both strands of the DNA (two hit hypothesis) and the cell overcomes the natural apoptosis mechanism (a self destruct mechanism where abnormal cells actually kill themselves) and grow out of control.

The more dividing cells, the more genetic hits they get. This is why you rarely see primary cancer of the bone in adults (the bones stop growing after puberty) and the majority of cancers in adults are in active cell lines: breast, prostate, skin, colon, and so forth.

The idea of most chemotheraputic agents are to disrupt the rapidly growing cells by stopping DNA transcription. The problem is that transcription of other cells is stopped as well, which is why many chemo agents cause hair to fall out, nausea, vomiting, and other GI issues.

Chemo can be risky, but the alternative is not good either. YEs, some people die to complications of chemotherapy, but many, many more people survive with it than without it. Hopefully, a few hundred years from now people will laugh at how primitive we are now with chemo like we currently find using leeches back in the 1700s was primitive, but it is what we have at the moment.

All i know is that my girlfriend had cancer, lumps in her chest and neck,.......she had chemo and radiotherapy for it, and she's now been clear about 7 years.

Originally posted by boncho

You know, from the person who said everyone they know who got cancer died from Chemo, "They were totally healthy until they got treatment and then dropped dead..."

I've heard others say that. Can't help wondering why on earth they would have chemo if they were totally healthy?

CX.

Originally posted by CX
All i know is that my girlfriend had cancer, lumps in her chest and neck,.......she had chemo and radiotherapy for it, and she's now been clear about 7 years.

Originally posted by boncho

You know, from the person who said everyone they know who got cancer died from Chemo, "They were totally healthy until they got treatment and then dropped dead..."

I've heard others say that. Can't help wondering why on earth they would have chemo if they were totally healthy?

CX.

Valid point. If they were totally healthy they would not be getting the chemo in the first place.

reply to post by boncho


I know from what my sister-in-law went through with ovarian cancer, before taking the stronger dose of chemo, her doctor flat out told her that sometimes chemo can kill you. After hearing his warning, she went ahead and had the stronger dose of chemo. A week after the initial treatment she started going down hill and became bed ridden.

Although her cancer would have eventually killed her, the stronger dose of chemo definitely shortened her time here. She died 5 months later. The only reason she lived 5 months longer is because she requested to be kept alive using all means possible.

After seeing what she went through, having to be fed intravenously for 5 months, she had a tracheotomy and was on a respirator, kidney dialysis, blood transfusions, her feet ballooned up from water retention and she had heart monitors connected to her. It was really devastating to see her go through so much before she died.

After seeing that, I made out a living will. If you ever question whether to have your life prolonged, seeing something like that will definitely make your choice much clearer.

I'm studying how to prevent cancer, once cancer gets really bad, there appears to be nothing short of the radiation and chemo treatment that they are using. Many of the things I am studying can stimulate our bodies to fight cancer when it is small. That is the best time to kill it. Preventive measures can be applied to trigger the body to fight cancer. I see evidence that some organizations and industries know this but for some reason they do not investigate it further or publish anything that can negatively effect the medical and pharma industries. No money in preventing cancer, lots of money in treating it. Even the big charitable organizations would lose their income if people knew how not to get cancer. Follow the money

I disagree. Chemo is an atypical scam, with lots and lots of compassion washed through it. See through the emotional layer and once again, follow the money and power, and you will find it's a ...

CHEMOTHERAPY GENOCIDE
www.whale.to...

No one wants to debunk this site thus far on ATS. They can't, it's too much scope pulled together, and too many facts making sense. It exposes the situation too harshly for some perhaps.

Douglas report search for chemotherapy. Lots of healthy reading in his reports, and he's an excellant industry whistleblower. He does get to the facts.
douglassreport.com...

Cancer is DEAD: Cancer cures from A to Z, page 1
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by boncho

Go to Google Scholar and search on long term cohort studies on post chemotherapy treatment survival rates.

Originally posted by Northwarden
I disagree. Chemo is an atypical scam, with lots and lots of compassion washed through it. See through the emotional layer and once again, follow the money and power, and you will find it's a ...

CHEMOTHERAPY GENOCIDE
www.whale.to...

No one wants to debunk this site thus far on ATS. They can't, it's too much scope pulled together, and too many facts making sense. It exposes the situation too harshly for some perhaps.

Douglas report search for chemotherapy. Lots of healthy reading in his reports, and he's an excellant industry whistleblower. He does get to the facts.
douglassreport.com...

Cancer is DEAD: Cancer cures from A to Z, page 1
www.abovetopsecret.com...

LOL. I looked at the first link. "Satanic racket?" I would humbly suggest that any site perporting itself to be an evaluation of the treatment that starts off by calling it a "Satanic racket" is not an objective, scientific, study of the issue.

And, yes, I'm not going to bother citing thousands of studies of different agents that increase survival rates and quality of life because I know that if you are using a site as a reference that uses the term "satanic racket" there is no way that you will accept scientific data for an answer and you will disregard all such studies and data as part of the great "satanic" conspiracy.

I only post in hope that some other reader will at least think before declining potentially lifesaving treatment.

All treatments have risks and benefits. It is up to the end user to determine what is correct for them.

reply to post by Northwarden

I disagree. Chemo is an atypical scam, with lots and lots of compassion washed through it. See through the emotional layer and once again, follow the money and power, and you will find it's a ...

CHEMOTHERAPY GENOCIDE
www.whale.to...

Did you even read through your own link? Most of that was debunked in the OP with the link I provided. Misquotes and out of context BS.

LOL. I looked at the first link. "Satanic racket?" I would humbly suggest that any site perporting itself to be an evaluation of the treatment that starts off by calling it a "Satanic racket" is not an objective, scientific, study of the issue.

Did anyone mention that it doesn't matter what I, or you, or anyone believes, it's about what they believe. Bilderbergers leave a chair open at their tables for Lucifier. You are unaware this happens, or that many support that ideology? I humbly submit that you need to do much, much more research then.

And, yes, I'm not going to bother citing thousands of studies of different agents that increase survival rates and quality of life because I know that if you are using a site as a reference that uses the term "satanic racket" there is no way that you will accept scientific data for an answer and you will disregard all such studies and data as part of the great "satanic" conspiracy.

You're being hysterical in your efforts to create smoke and mirrors. The site is full of facts, reports, and information that not only "suggests" corruption at work, it knocks the possibility of it being "on the level" out of the ballpark. It's heart-warming to see people educated, aware, and against your death sciences.

I only post in hope that some other reader will at least think before declining potentially lifesaving treatment.

It's barbaric and built on an industry of lies. It's criminal.

All treatments have risks and benefits. It is up to the end user to determine what is correct for them.

Allopathy : Fit the fear of their engineered cure against the fear of the disease for the sake of profit.

reply to post by Northwarden

Douglas report search for chemotherapy. Lots of healthy reading in his reports, and he's an excellant industry whistleblower. He does get to the facts.
douglassreport.com...

He gets the distorted facts (Let's look at his):

To understand the utter hypocrisy of chemotherapy, consider the following:

The McGill Cancer Center in Canada, one of the largest and most prestigious cancer treatment centers in the world, did a study of oncologists to determine how they would respond to a diagnosis of cancer. On the confidential questionnaire, 58 out of 79 doctors said that all chemotherapy programs were unacceptable to them and their family members.

Source

And what is the other version of the facts?

he first thing that stands out is that the 1985 (!!) survey was not, as Philip Day claims, about all available therapies for lung cancer, but about cisplatin, a then new chemotherapy with considerable side effects. The question also pertained to the use of cisplatin as a palliative treatment for “symptomatic metastatic bone disease,” i.e. for incurable (non-small-cell) lung cancer. The 1985 survey found that about one-third of physicians and oncology nurses would have consented to chemotherapy in a situation like this.

And a few years later...

The study from 1991, “Oncologists vary in their willingness to undertake anti-cancer therapies,” pertains not just to lung cancer, but to many kinds of cancer and cancer stages, from early stage to terminal, as well as to experimental therapies. It shows percentages as high as 98% of doctors willing to undergo chemotherapy, while the remaining 2 % were uncertain, and none answered “definitely no” or “probably no” to chemotherapy.

Source

Like I said, your sites were debunked in the OP. The ones that "everyone on ATS is too afraid to debunk".

By the way:

The venerable "Dr. Douglass" hawks alternative cures on His website.

So if you want to talk about someone making profit off people's plights, than you ought to look at your own sources.

reply to post by boncho


I'm familiar with mine, thamk you. And I don't buy your offering, don't believe much of it actually.

Whose got the bottom line of it do you suppose?

When the cure is worse than the sickness

To understand the utter hypocrisy of chemotherapy, consider the following:

The McGill Cancer Center in Canada, one of the largest and most prestigious cancer treatment centers in the world, did a study of oncologists to determine how they would respond to a diagnosis of cancer. On the confidential questionnaire, 58 out of 64 doctors said that all chemotherapy programs were unacceptable to them and their family members. The overriding reason for this decision was that the drugs are ineffective and have an unacceptable degree of toxicity. These are the same doctors who will tell you that their chemotherapy treatments will shrink your tumor and prolong your life!

Thirty years ago, I worked with a radiologist who told me this: “If I get cancer, I’m going to Mexico.” So if you get cancer, don’t call your doctor; call your travel agent.

There are alternative treatments available, but you will have to run the gamut of outraged chemotherapists, radiologists, and surgeons to find one. They will use cajolery, insults, fear, threats (“If you do this, I am off the case”), and misrepresentation to dissuade you.

Two excellent clinics offering alternative treatments are the following:

douglassreport.com...

Please realize they providing alternatives can be seen as "Hey, that's just to advertise alternates", and "Hey, they care enough to provide alternatives". I move that the interpretation is to the latter with M. Douglas.

It's corrupt as hell Boncho, have no doubt.

reply to post by boncho

dont give cancer the grounds to live and thrive and you will have eliminated the problem at the source, chemo/radiation are temporary dangerous solutions that work 25% of the time and damage the human body, they do not get to the root of the problem. Keeping your PH levels balanced and alkaline and cancer doesnt stand a chance, yes its that simple.

reply to post by Northwarden


By the way, Douglass who has been playing the alternative medicine flute for years now, likes to direct his energy towards the elderly to take their money for his "cures"...

This is a blog of the various forms of mail advertisements that are targeted toward the elderly. Each entry represents a mailing from a company that sends material to my father, who, as he was falling into dementia, fell for a lot of these "cures", "newsletters", "hot stocks", etc.

sunshine-for-seniors.blogspot.ca...

All the companies in the blog (from what I can tell) are connected directly or indirectly to Douglass.

reply to post by Northwarden


Please go back to this post. where i just debunked you reply, (preemptively) it seems.

As your rebuttal was just the same information that I covered.

He is flat out lying.

The doctors (survey) were taken out of context. When asked about a new chemotherapy concerning a very specific type of cancer that was terminal. (and in 1985 no less)

In other words, the person was going to die no matter what and the treatment was new and didn't offer much chance of a difference. I would probably not opt for it too. But nevertheless, the amount of doctors that answered yes or no was still not accurately represented.

This is skewed information and completely dishonest. And this is coming from your source, the supposed "good doctor".

All he has done is talk around the bush, bring up conspiracy sites and make fun of them, building towards his entire arguement that "cancer is actually hundreds of diseases acting against the body". It's sooo amazing that radiation is the best way society has of curing cancer. Hint. They don't measure all the fifty types of radiation we receive, only three types are recorded. How many do the typical hospital have monitors for? Fact is, they are putting a front on it to address the conspiracy side, but what of the hundreds and hundreds of articles and items on those sites which remain un-addressed? Sorry, this article is a complete fail to debunk Whale.to. It's self-glorifying, and hopes to create enough chaos that people will gloss over all the holes and flaws of the industry and it's supporters. I'll be sad to hear anyone leaving out Whale from their understandings because well-spoken shills in a corporate article glossed them over in fact.

I have had chemo in 2006 and 2012 for a relapse. It was stage 4, and now I am in remission again. My advise is live every moment an fight every setback.

reply to post by Northwarden


Name something specific.

You are taking pages of half-truths, mis quotes and studies that are either taken completely out of context, or show that some drugs are ineffective (some are) and using it as a "Cancer treatment is BS" argument.

But it is completely ambiguous and completely non-specific.

So start laying out your best arguments.