It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
angelchemuel
75 % of oncologists, in one survey, said if they had cancer they would not participate in chemotherapy trials due to its "ineffectiveness and its unacceptable toxicity"?
www.whale.to...
One of my best girlfriends is a radiographer treating cancer patients...she wouldn't undergo the treatment and would persuade her family members not to either.
Another quote from the above link...
When President Reagan had his colon cancer successfully removed by surgery, his health was reported daily as he recovered. On his return to work, a spokesperson appeared, proclaimed him cured, and that was that.
Remove a cancer if its operable yes...but chemo et all is a no, no for me.
Rainbows
Jane
angelchemuel
75 % of oncologists, in one survey, said if they had cancer they would not participate in chemotherapy trials due to its "ineffectiveness and its unacceptable toxicity"?
www.whale.to...
One of my best girlfriends is a radiographer treating cancer patients...she wouldn't undergo the treatment and would persuade her family members not to either.
Another quote from the above link...
When President Reagan had his colon cancer successfully removed by surgery, his health was reported daily as he recovered. On his return to work, a spokesperson appeared, proclaimed him cured, and that was that.
Remove a cancer if its operable yes...but chemo et all is a no, no for me.
Rainbows
Jane
Pardon?
angelchemuel
75 % of oncologists, in one survey, said if they had cancer they would not participate in chemotherapy trials due to its "ineffectiveness and its unacceptable toxicity"?
www.whale.to...
One of my best girlfriends is a radiographer treating cancer patients...she wouldn't undergo the treatment and would persuade her family members not to either.
Another quote from the above link...
When President Reagan had his colon cancer successfully removed by surgery, his health was reported daily as he recovered. On his return to work, a spokesperson appeared, proclaimed him cured, and that was that.
Remove a cancer if its operable yes...but chemo et all is a no, no for me.
Rainbows
Jane
Whale not only put that completely out of context but got the number wrong too!
The original survey was done in the late 1980's and asked oncologists whether they would try a new chaemo drug which hadn't finished trials.
Not surprisingly 80% said no.
Ask an oncologist whether they would have chaemo and as long as it was the right protocol they would say yes.
I think people here are forgetting that although chaemo is horrible dying from cancer is far, far worse.
Dying from cancer is the most horrific thing you can ever experience.
Personally, I'll have whatever they've got thanks.
Forget alternative stuff, that just wastes time and when you have cancer time is precious, you don't want to waste it chasing rainbows.
Pardon?
angelchemuel
75 % of oncologists, in one survey, said if they had cancer they would not participate in chemotherapy trials due to its "ineffectiveness and its unacceptable toxicity"?
www.whale.to...
One of my best girlfriends is a radiographer treating cancer patients...she wouldn't undergo the treatment and would persuade her family members not to either.
Another quote from the above link...
When President Reagan had his colon cancer successfully removed by surgery, his health was reported daily as he recovered. On his return to work, a spokesperson appeared, proclaimed him cured, and that was that.
Remove a cancer if its operable yes...but chemo et all is a no, no for me.
Rainbows
Jane
Whale not only put that completely out of context but got the number wrong too!
The original survey was done in the late 1980's and asked oncologists whether they would try a new chaemo drug which hadn't finished trials.
Not surprisingly 80% said no.
Ask an oncologist whether they would have chaemo and as long as it was the right protocol they would say yes.
I think people here are forgetting that although chaemo is horrible dying from cancer is far, far worse.
Dying from cancer is the most horrific thing you can ever experience.
Personally, I'll have whatever they've got thanks.
Forget alternative stuff, that just wastes time and when you have cancer time is precious, you don't want to waste it chasing rainbows.
angelchemuel
Pardon?
angelchemuel
75 % of oncologists, in one survey, said if they had cancer they would not participate in chemotherapy trials due to its "ineffectiveness and its unacceptable toxicity"?
www.whale.to...
One of my best girlfriends is a radiographer treating cancer patients...she wouldn't undergo the treatment and would persuade her family members not to either.
Another quote from the above link...
When President Reagan had his colon cancer successfully removed by surgery, his health was reported daily as he recovered. On his return to work, a spokesperson appeared, proclaimed him cured, and that was that.
Remove a cancer if its operable yes...but chemo et all is a no, no for me.
Rainbows
Jane
Whale not only put that completely out of context but got the number wrong too!
The original survey was done in the late 1980's and asked oncologists whether they would try a new chaemo drug which hadn't finished trials.
Not surprisingly 80% said no.
Ask an oncologist whether they would have chaemo and as long as it was the right protocol they would say yes.
I think people here are forgetting that although chaemo is horrible dying from cancer is far, far worse.
Dying from cancer is the most horrific thing you can ever experience.
Personally, I'll have whatever they've got thanks.
Forget alternative stuff, that just wastes time and when you have cancer time is precious, you don't want to waste it chasing rainbows.
You wanted me to provide stats...well where's yours to show "if it was the right protocol they would say yes".
Also it was 75% not 80% as you misquoted. And whilst I'm in a picky mood..you might want to check out your spelling of chemo.
And please refrain from preaching to me how horrible dying of cancer is....I KNOW....I have seen far too many family members, friends and clients suffer and die from this disease.
Your choice, which I respect, to "have whatever they've got", but by the same token just respect others choices to go "chasing rainbows" OK.
whitewave
Alternative treatments DO have scientific evidence to justify their use as intended but the difference is that they are not FDA approved. Gaining FDA approval requires a butt-load of money and years of paying it to them before they'll approve a treatment for use. Mosby's Handbook of Herbs and Supplements gives a list of completed and ongoing scientific studies done on each of the scores of entries in the book.
....I've detected cancer in MANY people BEFORE the medical establishment have as their tests came back negative.
may be surprised to learn that they were repeating 60-year-old justifications of Chinese medicine put forward by Chairman Mao. Unlike Mikulski, however, Mao was under no illusion that Chinese medicine—a key component of naturopathic education—actually worked. In The Private Life of Chairman Mao, Li Zhisui, one of Mao’s personal physicians, recounts a conversation they had on the subject. Trained as an M.D. in Western medicine, Li admitted to being baffled by ancient Chinese medical books, especially their theories relating to the five elements. It turns out his employer also found them implausible.
“Even though I believe we should promote Chinese medicine,” Mao told him, “I personally do not believe in it. I don’t take Chinese medicine.”
angelchemuel
reply to post by Pardon?
Here they are deary.
Patronising much?
Grimpachi
The woman had abnormally high cesium levels in her blood from oral cesium chloride supplements she took for many months. The metal can cause an abnormal heart rhythm
A Colorado woman died after using cesium chloride supplements as an alternative treatment for breast cancer, a new case study reports.
The 61-year-old woman had been takingcesium supplements daily for a year as a treatment for breast cancer, but it was a single injection of cesium chloride liquid into a lump in her right breast that is likely what ultimately proved fatal, the report said.
The woman had been following the advice of a nutritionist, who had recommended cesium chloride to help shrink her breast tumor.
Cesium chloride is an alternative treatment that "supposedly increases the pH level of cancer cells to kill them, while not altering the pH of healthy cells," said study author Dr. Daniel Sessions, who was a medical toxicology fellow at the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center in Denver and was involved in the case. (A cell's pH is a measure of how acidic or basic its internal environment is.)
However, this theory of how cesium chloride works "has not been scientifically proven to be true," Sessions said. [7 Medical Myths Even Doctors Believe]
According to a review of alternative treatments on the American Cancer Society's website, the "available scientific evidence does not support the claim that the pH inside a cancer cell is any different than that of a normal cell, or that cancer cells are more susceptible to toxic effects of high pH."
Cesium chloride is available in both an oral supplement and a liquid form, and it's found in stores that sell dietary supplements as well as online. Some alternative medicine practitioners who promote the treatment's use for cancer also refer to it as "high pH therapy."
The case report appeared in the December issue of The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine.
Scientific American
This is really sad the couple never sought and mainstream medical treatment, yet more than 80% of breast cancers are now cured.
The husband must feel horrible for assisting in his wife's death (he administered the fatal injection). Although I am sure he didn't think it would kill her is he still liable under law for murder?
If you read the rest of the link you will see she felt sick immediately after the injection but they didn't even seek medical treatment and the next day she died. While I do feel bad for the family ignorance of the law is not an excuse. In this case it was also ignorance of a toxic substance.
The whole thing is sad and completely preventable if they had just taken the time to actually educate themselves.
beckybecky
what nonsense.
re-write the headline:-
Woman's Death Linked to Receiving Chemotherapy
A women was found to have died after being given high doses of cancer causing radiation and toxic chemicals which caused her to die a slow and painful death.Chemotherapy.
How does it sound now.I mean 560000 people die from cancer every year in America.
A huge fraction of that die after getting chemotherapy.Right?
Think about it.... if chemo was so successful you would not get 560000 dead.would you?
560000 is more than 1/2 a million in case you think it is 56000.
How many 9/11 is that?