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