Cancer and Chemotherapies that kill you.

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 

The whole concept of Chemo is to Kill the Cancer before the Chemo KILLS YOU!

Cancer is simply various forms of Human Cells that have had damage done to their DNA by various means and thus the Cells do not properly Divide and we get Human Cells that divide into Mutated Versions of themselves. The body many times will think these cells are an invading organism and our White Blood Cells get created in great numbers and attack our own improperly created Cancer Cells. So if the Cancer Cells are in an Organ...that Organ is attacked by our own body and will shut down from the damage created.

This is just one form of Cancer and one specific type of Body Reaction...there are many forms of both. There is however HOPE!

Genetic Engineering is a possible CURE for all forms of Disease including all known Cancers. We take a tissue sample from a Cancerous Area or Tumor...specifically engineer a Retro-Virus that specifically targets these particular Cancer Cells...and the after designing this Retro-Virus to also deliver a MARKER that allows our own Immune System to target Just the Cancer Cells and not the surrounding tissue...the Cancer Cells are killed in totality.

Or...a Cancer Cell is taken from a Tumor and re-engineered to be capable of Very Quick Reproduction by Mitosis and engineered to spread a Retro-Virus that targets only the other Cancer Cells which are killed off by the Body as new Fast Growing Healthy Cells immune to spreading Cancer introduced into the Tumor. Thus the Tumors own Cells are reprogrammed by an influx of fast growing Healthy Cells as well as the older Cancer Cells are killed by our immune system and after a specific FIXED number of Splitting of Cells engineered into the cells life spans of being able to reproduce...several other introductions of Engineered Healthy Cells that are not capable of being reprogrammed by the spreading Cancer Cells...thus the Tumor is virtually Eaten by the New Cells as well as the old Cancer Cells are Killed Off by the Body. The Retro-Virus as well is engineered to have a specific Lifespan.

All this can be done but the MONEY is in CANCER TREATMENT NOT IN A CURE! It will be difficult to change a MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY THAT WAITS FOR DEATH TO ARRIVE. Split Infinity




posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


You know me Boncho. I already found some of my better sources, and expect that anyone who wants to can research them. I provided what I stand behind as a decent expose on the matter, and could probably look into them for hours in debate format. But while debate is encouraged here, it is also not neccesary, especially when the emotional content is off the charts. I'll never side with the corrupt industry as my slant, by personal bias, that much is obvious - but it's not based on nothing. I want to clear up a few things here.

I'm angry with what I see as very unsafe procedure, and am connecting the dots with hundreds of articles that bring up warning flags. They're angry their careers are on the line, and have been educated/indoctrinated by ten years of medical school, funded by pharmaceutical companies, to believe they have the closest thing to a cure going.

First, the questionaire was valid. That means, in the beginning, well over half of doctors would not take the same treatments they were proscribing, in the event they were sick with cancer. What does that say about the industry right there?

Secondly, besides a passing mention, he does not debunk 97% of the contents of the sites he mentioned, and refers to almost nothing they contain!

Lastly, the Douglas Report does sell product, but the mods have allowed me in the past to link to his site for the awareness and light he shed to many issues. I'm not linking to, or promoting any products; the fact that he has selling information attests to its validity. In other words, my intents were noble. And yes, your post and mine crossed, so what?


In a speech to health journalists, Dr. Brawley called the current system “a subtle form of corruption” and admitted that doctors routinely lie about the success rates of both screenings and treatments alike — including PSA exams, bone marrow transplants, and chemotherapy.

He even ‘fessed up to the dirtiest secret of the cancer industry (and yes, make no mistake it IS an industry): The system is set up to steer patients not toward the best or most effective treatments — just the most profitable ones.

“Twenty-five years after graduating from medical school, I concluded that a lot of doctors are out to make a buck and a lot of doctors are out making stuff up as they go along,” he admitted.

Tell me something I don’t know.


Dr. Otis Brawley, Chief Medical Officer of the American Cancer Society
douglassreport.com...

edit on 16-11-2012 by Northwarden because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jondave
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.


That is great advice! In the past year and a half I have had chemo and radiation. Cancer is gone and no traces are to be seen. Still, I am always fearful of it returning. We must be warriors and fight!



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden

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.
edit on 16-11-2012 by Northwarden because: (no reason given)

None of what you said was true. "bIlderburgers? Chair of lucifer?" These are not scientific principles and must be rejected by thinking people out of hand.

Trust me, I've done much, much more reaserch, using objective science than you have obviously.

Smoke and mirrors? THe site was full of ZERO facts. Do we need to get into the definition what a fact is? A bunch of uncoroberated stories are not facts. Anecdotes are not evidence and that is all the snake oil salesmen realy on--stories not facts.

My "death science?" That is a personal attack isnt it? Science has saved more people than superstition. If you had cancer a hundred of years ago, you would have died. Smallpocks? Gone because of science. Had you had pneumonia a 100 years ago, you would have died without antibiotics.

Built on industry lies? How so? Prove the lies. Evidence is objective. Science is objective. Science is tested. Homeopathic snake oil is not objectivelly tested.

Death sciences? The same mumbo-jumbo of the snake oils salesman. Modern science has eliminated polio. Has eliminated small posx. Due to moder science you will not die from sepsis due to an infected cut on your foot.

Modern science has brought us antibiotics, (pennicillin was a mold), pain killers (asprin was derived from willow bark) digitalis from foxglove. Many of the modern medicines were derived from natural plants and many more will follow from the rainforest. Here is new for you: science is working hard to find cures in nature. Science is working hard to not only extend life, but the quality of life. No conspiracy here. The man who discovers the definative cure for cancer will be a billionaire and will get the Noble Prise and will be remembered forever like Johnas Saulk who stopped Polio. We seek these things with an eager and open mind, but we want proof, not stories.

You site even lists average oncologist salaries as if that realy matters. IT is like rejecting having your broken leg splinted and fixed because you think that fixing broken legs is part of the orthopedic conspiracies. I tell you what. Next time you have an appendicitis or a broken leg, ignore your MD and have some snake oil rubbed in and see which works better, eh?

We are not barbaric and we are not based on the lies that your links provided. We are based on evidence based medicine. We are based on the scientific principle. WHich you obvioulsy do not understand.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden


You know me Boncho. I already found some of my better sources, and expect that anyone who wants to can research them. I provided what I stand behind as a decent expose on the matter, and could probably look into them for hours in debate format. But while debate is encouraged here, it is also not neccesary, especially when the emotional content is off the charts. I'll never side with the corrupt industry as my slant, by personal bias, that much is obvious - but it's not based on nothing. I want to clear up a few things here.

 


I took one quote from your sources and showed that it was a misrepresentation of the facts, and nearly an outright lie. You don't have a problem with that?




First, the questionaire was valid. That means, in the beginning, well over half of doctors would not take the same treatments they were proscribing, in the event they were sick with cancer. What does that say about the industry right there?



No, because it was for a new (experimental?) treatment, which was only used in very specific cases of a specific cancer which was going to kill the patient anyway. Most people would not opt for treatment in that scenario, but some do, doctors or regular folks with no medical training.

I will address your misquote of Oits Brawley in another post.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden
 


Otis Brawley was taken out of context by Douglass, just as he does with everything else he spews in his snakeoil sales pitch, which is directed at elderly (covered by linked blog post earlier) to bilk them out of their savings.

I am not saying there are not faults in the standard medical profession, and there are, which is what Brawley was referring to:


A doctor who is training with me to be an oncologist immediately realizes that this guy is getting a chemotherapy regimen for colon cancer that we stopped using about 15 years ago. His medical oncologist was practicing the best medicine of the late 1980s, but we were in 2006. The other drugs he was being prescribed were totally unnecessary. But the doctor could get a substantial markup and make a substantial amount of money by selling them. The oncologist had known just enough to be greedy and prescribe drugs he can make money off of, but he didn’t know enough to prescribe the chemotherapy that would have given the patient a much better chance of surviving his cancer.

I’ve seen that so many times, where doctors really have failed to evolve and failed to learn as the profession and the scientific evidence have changed over time.


well.blogs.nytimes.com...

He was speaking about unscrupulous doctors who are using old medications that have been since improved upon, and the ironic thing here is, is that Douglass refers to studies done in 1985 and Brawley is railing out against doctors who use dated information.

Which makes Douglass and the unethical doctors, cut from the same cloth, because they are both trying to make money off years old data. The only difference with Douglass, is that he hawks his own "Natural cures" and spits out a lot of other unproven BS along with it.

This guy also claims things like smoking and butter are good for you.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



None of what you said was true. "bIlderburgers? Chair of lucifer?" These are not scientific principles and must be rejected by thinking people out of hand.


You mean to say unthinking people? That would be the truth of it. We know what's behind the movements of the UN, Codex Alimentarius, the council's of the unspoken who rule their corporations. You may have a very stitched-up, strait lace way of looking at things, but by bordering too much on pc publicized opinion to debate from, you "throw out the window" that which most of us have concluded here : that people who study satanism control much of the valid, material, next-door and down-the-block companies that create the backdrop of our universe. If you don't see this fact, and acknowedge this fact as truth and therefore discussion-worthy, where should I begin to explain how that eventually filters down to the patient, under the university-educated doctor?


Trust me, I've done much, much more reaserch, using objective science than you have obviously.


You crow loudly at me, but under-estimate what the abilities of research can incorporate above your head and out of your means to define. I've read about many a crumpled man, who later realizes his future was upended when he realized the depravity he supports was never worth his devotion. You will support your family, and friends, and every stranger under the hypocratic oath, under what - the hope - that those cash driven companies aren't creating massive side-effects to their tumours? You hope the FDA is properly regulating everything you have been proscribing to your patients?



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity


All this can be done but the MONEY is in CANCER TREATMENT NOT IN A CURE! It will be difficult to change a MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY THAT WAITS FOR DEATH TO ARRIVE. Split Infinity

 


Of course there is money in a cure. More money. Lets say I genetically engineer a cure that kills off cancer. Now I can put out of business all the companies offering current formal treatments. And just because it is cured once, does not mean another type of cancer couldn't develop (depending on the "cure" I guess-but that seems likely) so now I have repeat patients.

I have a proven cure so I get government funding. I cure the world of cancer, put everyone out of business, and create a multinational company that would be the probably the largest drug company in the world. Win a nobel prize, have a gold statue built in my honor.

Sounds pretty enticing.

Furthermore, if cures were not profitable penicillin and other antibiotics that cure disease would have been thrown in the trash years ago.

I will admit some are favoured over others because of patents and politics, but they still get the job done...



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden


You crow loudly at me, but under-estimate what the abilities of research can incorporate above your head and out of your means to define. I've read about many a crumpled man, who later realizes his future was upended when he realized the depravity he supports was never worth his devotion. You will support your family, and friends, and every stranger under the hypocratic oath, under what - the hope - that those cash driven companies aren't creating massive side-effects to their tumours? You hope the FDA is properly regulating everything you have been proscribing to your patients?


 


So far the only "evidence" you have provided to us about the subject is an alternative medicine doctor that flat out lies while trying to hawk his supplement line. What exactly are you trying to convince us of?



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


What do you think about this part? :


Moreover, such “skepticism” completely dismisses as worthless survival benefits of a few months, which certainly aren’t “worthless” to many patients. Such briefly lengthened survival times can mean the difference between seeing a child graduate from college or not, seeing a child get married or not, or seeing the birth of a grandchild or not. It must also be remembered that the measured improvements in survival due to chemotherapy are usually medians. Not uncommonly, buried in that median are “outliers” who derive a huge survival benefit from the chemotherapy and survive many more months than expected, sometimes many more years than expected.
The Sales Pitch


Moreover, it does patients no favor to try to use the observation that chemotherapy has at best relatively modest benefits in patients with advanced epithelial malignancies to try to imply that chemotherapy doesn’t work for all patients. In particular, patients have to remember that just because chemotherapy doesn’t do that well against advanced malignancies does not, as the quacks would have you believe, imply that “alternative medicine” can do better.
The Hook and Closure

It's a bit long-winded, but that's a compassionate sale pitch! For a very expensive product and service.
Is there something about "In particular", that the phrase gets people extra deep for that friendly bit of carry-on info at the end? Are they your friend now? What about a list of all the known side effects now, to balance all that emotional appeal out, to make a pro-con decision. Depending on your standards folks, it can be considered barbaric, feel free to call it what it is. My shelf includes a few other products other than "deadly radiation treatment" to cure me of the diseases the same industries created.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden
 


I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to convey in your latest post.




posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


That's just plain rude Boncho, I think you missed the part about M.D. Douglas having peoples best interests in mind. He already helped build a good working map of understanding, by tying in exposure of corruption to techniques already in place, he draws up many a consumer report to guide decision-making by. That's a job not too many are doing, and he's pointing out hazards admirably. And you seem to swallow all of Natural News in one swoop too, unfortunately brought up by one chemo-peddler defending his turf. I would say discounting either as sources of information are terrible choices, and I like to think my bottom lines are healthy, pro-active, and very much for the people and against depopulation. Good people can make money among good people and it doesn't phase very much if we bend our consumer will to an alternative market, so you don't really convince me it's a money-making scheme - we want to spend our money elsewheres for that matter. Who is the one who has read that material on the sites, is it not self-explanitory, and does it need to come to semantics over "why exactly I distrust something", when I have a mountain of evidence to support me? What more proof are you asking for?

There's something to be said for taking the good and pouring out the bad. Other things you can't even pour in your cup without poisoning it. Where are my proofs? In that site you call poison. Too bad it has the real story!
I still stand by all three of those sources, despite anything that over-wordy article had to say.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 

The amount of Money that would be generated by a cure is NO WHERE NEAR the amount of Money spent on relief of symptoms. A cure would force many companies to loose money. Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden


That's just plain rude Boncho, I think you missed the part about M.D. Douglas having peoples best interests in mind. He already helped build a good working map of understanding, by tying in exposure of corruption to techniques already in place, he draws up many a consumer report to guide decision-making by.

 


He's lying! And misquoting people! For his own monetary gains!

Jesus...



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by boncho
 

The amount of Money that would be generated by a cure is NO WHERE NEAR the amount of Money spent on relief of symptoms. A cure would force many companies to loose money. Split Infinity



You realize most people undergoing chemo and radiation are usually ready to die without treatment right? And the treatments are not lifetime, they go until the cancer is eradicated or if it fails, the patient is dead.

A cure would be absolutely no different. Only the survival rate would increase. Meaning more money. People alive tend to pay more than dead people. And offer another chance of treatment if they came back with another form of cancer.

You can argue your point with psychologists and their brand of medicine, but hard to do with something like cancer. By the way, cancer treatments are not "relief of symptoms". It's a treatment that either puts the cancer into remission, or it is ineffective. The symptoms/side effects from treatment (which I do not deny) are terrible.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 

One of my Families Companies is in the field of Medicine and Treatment. I KNOW exactly how vast the amounts of Money that are spent in the Relief of Symptoms as well as Treatment for those unfortunates that have a form of Cancer.

These expenditures by both Insurance as well as the Families of the afflicted to hold back Cancers advance are Many Times that of what a CURE would generate. This is unfortunate as it is PROFITS that dictate where R&D Money's are spent.

A Genetic CURE would be viable for just about any form of Disease this includes Cancer, AIDS, HEP C, M.S....etc.

Thus since such a Genetic Cure could be so widely applicable for such a wide scoping variety of diseases...cures have been slow in coming. Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


You realize it's not easy to just "cure" things right?

Hell, a large number of groundbreaking scientific discoveries that have come about in all fields were by accident. While I am not suggesting the medical establishment is void of corruption, nor is it perfect, I also will not proclaim that a cure for cancer is being held back by evil satanists trying to kill us with chemo and radiation.

A cure might not sound profitable when you are counting the drug industry as a whole, but the thing is, is the competition is fierce. And if my company's drug cure's something that your company can only alleviate symptoms for, my company wins and you go out of business.

The whole "there's no money in is" argument is utter BS, and the evidence is drugs that costs $20-30 a pill. Go to Mexico and those same medications are a few dollars or even in the cents.

They get away with higher price and margins citing r&d spending, and it goes to show, that if I have a cure I can charge up the ass to make an exorbitant profit.

-

But this thread was based on the old anecdotal "Thousands of people die from chemo and radiation and not cancer" (No sources cited).

-

This thread is about Chemo and radiation.

Cite something saying it's useless. . .

Not that I was really expecting anyone to.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
I was diagnosed with stage 4 metastatic melanoma last July. I went through 5 months of biochemotherapy and also the gamma knife procedure for a tumor in my brain as well as endoscopic surgury for a tumor in my sinus cavities. The biochemo is really rough. You take normal chemo as well as another drug called IL2. Normal chemo and radiation do absolutely nothing for melanoma. You swell up, turn red as an apple, get alternating bouts of diarrhea and constipation, your skin peels off like a sunburn and it also caused hearing loss for me as well as nerve damage to my back hands and feet. Pile that on top of the side effects of the chemo and it takes a real bad toll on your body. The doctors told me that there is no way to know how much a dose is for each individual. So they basically give you 6 treatments (if you are lucky enough to take all 6 without the side effects being too drastic, most people have to stop around the 3rd-4th round because of dementia or non-stop vomiting or other weird side effects.) It brings you to the brink of death. Literally. I was so sick I lost 60 pounds. My bone marrow was so slammed I needed blood transfusions almost weekly. I always thought that cancer patients just weren't hungry. Not true. Its like you can feel every cell in your body screaming for some nutrition, but seeing or smelling food, or sometimes just watching a commercial with food in it would make me throw up. And when I could eat a little something and could hold it down, the cancer takes its nutrients out of your blood first before your body does. Only 12 people out of a hundred have a positive response to the IL2 (positive response means your tumors stop growing). And only 3 people out of those 12 will have the response that I did, which is NED. (no evidence of disease, tumors shrink and die.) The side effects are horrible and i can see how someone that is weak to begin with could get sick and die with a compromised immune system and not getting enough nutrition. I think me being a 33 year old that was always pretty healthy had alot to do with my getting better like I have. A year ago they were telling me to go ahead and make a will out while I was still alive. But against the odds I am still here. Its just not my time yet and God has something important for me to do I feel. My heart goes out to anyone battling a horrible disease like this.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Chemo is just controlled radiation, and radiation can no only kill healthy cells but cause cancer itself. They don't really help unless you get very lucky. Macrobiotic and alkaline diets do wonders to put cancers into remission, but they don't make drug companies money. I have had two friends that had to cancel their chemo treatments because they were failing and making them worse off who tried it and lived years (still alive) after the doctors said they would be dead.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Dad died of cancer in June. I found this video, and there is a book of the same name out there. Will link to my blog about it. Everyone needs to go and research this and find the answer for yourself. I take this stuff as a preventative that is available from amazon and comes from Mexico.

Blog here

Amazon B17 here






top topics
 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join