Cancer and Chemotherapies that kill you.

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


I can only speak from my son's experience. He was given a 20% chance to live. He lived after chemo and many surgeries.

CJ




posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I noted a little bit of irony in the conversation and the link to the site of "Dr." Douglas that caught my attention.

1 - Dr. Douglas ( as referred to by the first opposition poster) seems to group the standard chemotherapy as akin to other therapies,and includes in his list the 'poison AZT'. Those that like to debunk modern medicine always like to pull that boogyman out of the closet. THe same boogyman used by the posters that clain all treatments for HIV are money-making scams used to kill people.

2 - As further debunking about modern medicine sticking to money-making treatments as opposed to 'cures', the opposition brings up in another post the research into using genetically-engineered retroviruses (aka modified HIV if you have actually studied the current ongoing research) as a possible future treatment, and infers this new technique will be denied to the public in favor of the current 'money-making' treatments. How strange. I thought HIV (and retroviruses in general) didn't exist and was just another money-making scam to force AZT on people.

The common thread is that posters that love to debunk modern medicine pick on the crowd of desperate people that are running out of medical options except for harsh drugs and harsh treatments, but immediately refer them to 'experts' that love to toy with the emotions and pump up false hope - all the while these 'heroes' are finding a way to tap into that stream of money for themselves from peopel that won't live long enough to tell their story and warn others. And of course they will be written off as 'too far gone', even though this is NOT an acceptable argument to present when explaining chemotherapy deaths (or for that matter, any death that takes place after beginning one of the modern treatments)..

I see the posters that believe this tripe about current cancer treatments being just an industry to make money, and then posting links to their own heroes of medicine as guilty of attempted murder. Chemotherapy indeed kills some people. Because the people it kills are too far gone already. Those that get a diagnosis early enough have much better odds of making it thru the harsh side effects of chemotherapy, and therefore have more opportunity to live.

However, the hawkers of these 'alternative' cures make their money by fleecing the desperate that have been scared away from modern medicine by ancedotal stories of those that failed. And most all die taking this course of action.

And the dead are not able to post here to rebut the alternative cures.

I won't bother to post my research. The OP doesn't need it (he holds his ground well), and the opposition won't be bothered by it, as it contains science and logic, and no magic and conspiracy (they don't buy into logic and science as it doesn't steer any money their way).



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Most of your are so far off topic it's not funny. To justify alternative cancer therapies you go into, vaccinations = death, Chernobyl, magical radio waves, and then a peculiar logic which states if some company tried to make money in the past, the ones hawking alternative therapies must be telling the truth...



Off-topic? You entitled your thread "Cancer and Chemotherpies can kill you", present an article that seeks to damage two or three of the premier anti-industry sites on the web, entertain causilation between radiation and raadiation-therapy, present multiple sciences to the fore, argue the political "rightness" of standing up for our views against health issues then have a bitter point to make when it veers to those topics not mentioned but implied? I would say you set this thread for wide sailing. That article seeks to tear down three well-respected sites from their landing with barely an investigative detail on their behalf. Stop trampling and start learning ... they're not going to be "debunked" anytime, because they rest in the heart of the truths about health issues.

They already won. They proved the industry corruption. You can stop trying anytime you like!



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by lakesidepark
I noted a little bit of irony in the conversation and the link to the site of "Dr." Douglas that caught my attention.

1 - Dr. Douglas ( as referred to by the first opposition poster) seems to group the standard chemotherapy as akin to other therapies,and includes in his list the 'poison AZT'. Those that like to debunk modern medicine always like to pull that boogyman out of the closet. THe same boogyman used by the posters that clain all treatments for HIV are money-making scams used to kill people.


What is the "poison AZT"?


2 - As further debunking about modern medicine sticking to money-making treatments as opposed to 'cures', the opposition brings up in another post the research into using genetically-engineered retroviruses (aka modified HIV if you have actually studied the current ongoing research) as a possible future treatment, and infers this new technique will be denied to the public in favor of the current 'money-making' treatments. How strange. I thought HIV (and retroviruses in general) didn't exist and was just another money-making scam to force AZT on people.


If you are lookinginto costing matters, who is charging the most? Those in authorship of the "Cancer Cures, A-Z" thread, or the multi-billion dollar cancer industry ? Who is offering good advice, and who is out to make a lot of money? Who pays for those over-priced cancer cures ? Tax-payers of course. I personally haven't mentioned HIV once in this thread, if you are referring me by the tag "opposition". Again, AZT?


The common thread is that posters that love to debunk modern medicine pick on the crowd of desperate people that are running out of medical options except for harsh drugs and harsh treatments, but immediately refer them to 'experts' that love to toy with the emotions and pump up false hope - all the while these 'heroes' are finding a way to tap into that stream of money for themselves from peopel that won't live long enough to tell their story and warn others. And of course they will be written off as 'too far gone', even though this is NOT an acceptable argument to present when explaining chemotherapy deaths (or for that matter, any death that takes place after beginning one of the modern treatments)..


This is the present topic, and the thread revolves around that topic. You make one mistake here, in calling chemotherapy "modern" by your umbrella standard. It has been around over three decades, and only offers a 35% chance of improved survival according to Bonchos' article. Sure, it doesn't offer much hope, but it's better than being unrealistic, right? Why don't we keep looking untl we find cures that are at least over 50% before we are satisfied in our "scientific" endevours. Are you satisfied by all the epic fails that chemo has produced along the way? I haven't had the heart to pull those out, nor should I need to. Please be aware that it is enough to be aware they are there, as evidence of medical malpractice and negligence, and will remain there for all time sake as the same. That may not be decided for ten years+, after the emotional attachments are ended, after the corrupt and misled doctors have moved on to other persuits. That's usually about the time our species likes to pull out an inquest into these sort of things. "Just wait a little longer. Then our horrid practices will be over, and you can bitch your heart out about yesteryears technology. But don't you dare whisper a word against our current goals".


I see the posters that believe this tripe about current cancer treatments being just an industry to make money, and then posting links to their own heroes of medicine as guilty of attempted murder. Chemotherapy indeed kills some people. Because the people it kills are too far gone already. Those that get a diagnosis early enough have much better odds of making it thru the harsh side effects of chemotherapy, and therefore have more opportunity to live.


Apologetic indeed. I won't apologize for modern doctors. They should know better than to proscribe such risky treatments : only modern medicine insists on microwaving people and calling it a cure. Dress it up all you want, but radioactivity and living cells do not mean a cure. It's the same as using a blowtorch to remove atheletes foot.
Please note that in todays high-tech, ultra-complex world, there is no "intelligent" way to combat cancer cells, nor any way to separate them from unaffected cells. No FoF recognition? Really? Micro-this and nano-that, and they can't OBSERVE or DETECT from that scale either? There is only this batch treatment, that affects the entire area, and it kills off all healthy cells too. Until they grow back. That's the true bunk you swallow. Too much money for that "cure".
edit on 18-11-2012 by Northwarden because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



People claim that pharma is just money hungry but WIlliam Douglas (Buy my miracle suppliments at $60 bucks a crack." "Buy ram's horn for erectile dysfuntion") is not? Seriouisly? Take goat horn pills to get an erection and you guys think he's not a con man? Seriously?


O-kay, I won't buy into that one for a second, but that will still be only two strikes against MD Douglas if it's so. My value-added on him puts his "allowable strikes against" at much higher than three too. I'm not blindly following anything either, and wonder what you speak of on that point. Source? I still have found lots of information, understanding, and wise avenues from reading his articles, and still think he steers a steady course through the medical minefield of industry crapola. You can throw the baby out with the bathwater if you like; according to you there is no "baby in the bathwater" to throw out. Just face it, he's a great man, and the only one fixating on "things to sell" is YOU. He's objective! He's on the issues, not his wares. I haven't bought a thing from him in my life, and I'm promoting him for information only, all along.

The mods know this, so give it up. The only reason why I think you try to dig at that concluded point is to discredit me now, and I've already covered my stance. If I wanted to sell you something, I would probably have pitched it by now, no? What have I pitched instead? I'm making points against something which is barbaric, and am defending a few good sites and people who made them valuable. There is nothing wrong with the vast vast majourity of that man's claims, they are very factual and reality-based, and I put Your values of fairness and critical reasoning into question.

Please remmber that every last human being can be exploited by slander and embezzlement of character. Usually it's reserved for those who are "deserving". Looks like here was another big exception.
edit on 18-11-2012 by Northwarden because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
You know the people labeling chemotherapy as a scam,simply has not had to rely on it to save a loved one.
This past June my mom was diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia. This form of leukemia is very aggressive.
With chemo. the avg. life span is 7mos. you must have a bone marrow transplant to beat this! The problem is a bone marrow transplant is not recommended for the elderly.

My mom has always been active and very healthy. At 74 she is the first person ever accepted into the stem cell/bone marrow transplant program at Emory University in Atlanta. In a week she will undergo the procedure, which takes place just as a blood transfusion. She has already had 13 weeks of chemo and has beaten the odds.

Please, until you are faced with these life and death decisions you never know what you will or will not do.
Thank God we have some of the more cutting edge research. Hopefully, we will develop a cure one day and this will be a thing of the past. I will say this, like Navy doc said...it depends on the type of cancer and your own personal circumstances as to what side of the coin you are on.

Thanks,
Pax



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by paxnatus
 


I covered this :


I have no problem seeing anyone debunk a scam, or a procedure, but then to default back to chemo as their pre-programmed minds covet th knowledge-base they've accumulated there over actually viable alternatives. With the possible exception of Leukemia, So sad. It's a total brainwash, complete with a complex education. The bigger and shinier they make those machines, the costlier they are, and the longer they glitter in your eyes.
- me



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



People claim that pharma is just money hungry but WIlliam Douglas (Buy my miracle suppliments at $60 bucks a crack." "Buy ram's horn for erectile dysfuntion") is not? Seriouisly? Take goat horn pills to get an erection and you guys think he's not a con man? Seriously?


O-kay, I won't buy into that one for a second, but that will still be only two strikes against MD Douglas if it's so. My value-added on him puts his "allowable strikes against" at much higher than three too. I'm not blindly following anything either, and wonder what you speak of on that point. Source? I still have found lots of information, understanding, and wise avenues from reading his articles, and still think he steers a steady course through the medical minefield of industry crapola. You can throw the baby out with the bathwater if you like; according to you there is no "baby in the bathwater" to throw out. Just face it, he's a great man, and the only one fixating on "things to sell" is YOU. He's objective! He's on the issues, not his wares. I haven't bought a thing from him in my life, and I'm promoting him for information only, all along.

The mods know this, so give it up. The only reason why I think you try to dig at that concluded point is to discredit me now, and I've already covered my stance. If I wanted to sell you something, I would probably have pitched it by now, no? What have I pitched instead? I'm making points against something which is barbaric, and am defending a few good sites and people who made them valuable. There is nothing wrong with the vast vast majourity of that man's claims, they are very factual and reality-based, and I put Your values of fairness and critical reasoning into question.

Please remmber that every last human being can be exploited by slander and embezzlement of character. Usually it's reserved for those who are "deserving". Looks like here was another big exception.
edit on 18-11-2012 by Northwarden because: (no reason given)


Why would I be trying to discretdit you? Why do you bring up you not having a"pitch?" Neither were said, so they don't refer to you unless you are involved with one of the pyramid schemes.

Douglass presents silly items for sale, claiming they are benefitcial, without proof. Such as the ram's horn trablet for erectile dysfunction. That is the whole issue, that the man is untrustworthy. He makes claims that are unfounded and outright rediculous such as eating goat horn to keep your pecker up. Selling obvious snake-oil puts him and his veracity in doubt. As does his other unverifiable claims. If you want something that sounds good, fine, but he has neither science nor data to back up his claims and if you look at all of the books he has for sale on Amazon, the motivation behind his snake oil selling is quite clear.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I said my piece for him above, and agreed to disagree. Then again, I've looked over his material for a couple of years now. He has lots of education to offer, for those with more open minds. I'm off the goats horn topic - doesn't sound like his normal scope of ingredients, I don't think much of it as an ingredient from what you've said, but I am willing to see the "how" and "why" of it whould I come across the source for it as a matter of principle. He has good basis for all his science that he presents, and the industry is exposed for what it is along the way. If he says it's goats horn, then there is probably something in goats horn that you are unaware of which makes it valuable this way. You don't easily undermine someone whose bottom line is "there is no such thing as an unproveable medical fact". Inconclusive ...

I'm reading up a a good related thread in this vein to pass along :

Cancer Documentary: Cancer - The Forbidden Cures
www.abovetopsecret.com...&flagit=900030



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden
 


That is great, please keep it up. Thank you for all the information.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Science daily has plenty of articles about "new" cancer treatments. A bio luminescent chemical called luciferin found in fire flies; the ink and the chromosphores of squids. The venom of a deadly night stalker scorpion can treat brain cancer apparently; sea cucumber can treat lung cancer, chemicals from the blister beetle and various types of snake venoms are all being investigated. Even bee venom; not to mention their honey that can be made out of pollen from any number of medicinal plants. Most of these must hurt quite a bit; but the venom of the night stalker can even allow for easier DNA transfer for stem cell treatments. If they wanted to keep these things secret they wouldn't be posting them on one of the largest MLA citable online science journals. Here's a disturbing conspiracy; I think some of the people in the government might actually want to save lives and cure diseases. Imagine that.
edit on 23-2-2013 by DiogenestheWanker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
All treatments have risks and benefits. It is up to the end user to determine what is correct for them.
Here's the deal. Cancer kills. Punkt.

If I had not had radiation therapy for a fast-growing prostate cancer, I'd be as dead as my brother-in-law who chose to fight same with Essiac. I'm now 5 years clear (and it cost me $32 out of pocket). He, unfortunately, is still dead.

Couple of statements, there.


Originally posted by paxnatus
Please, until you are faced with these life and death decisions you never know what you will or will not do.

Very wise words, indeed!
edit on 23-2-2013 by JohnnyCanuck because: ...just because, eh?





top topics
 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join