Woman's Death Linked to Alternative Cancer Treatment

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

Not exactly an objective source, but medical decision making should be an individual decision with risks, benefits, and lifestyles taken into consideration.

To the writer of the piece quoted: anecdote =/= data. Sadly much of the experience with alternative medicine is subjective and anecdotal rather than objective data.

I have a friend who is now in ICU after taking chemo therapy after a removal of colon cancer. The chemo therapy was just a safe guard, even though they removed all the cancer and my friend has only one kidney. MY FRIEND WAS FINE. In six weeks, my friend who was feeling better than in the last 6 months is now in a coma because of the chemo therapy. My friend is dying and there isn't a damn thing I can do about it.

reply to post by StoutBroux


Really sorry to hear that.
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

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.

I hope you never have to make that decision pal ..... i wasted 7 months of my life in hospital having chemo getting ill when i could of been at home spending it wilth my son ...

When my brother was diagnosed with leukemia we had a group consultation with 6 different oncologist specialists. They said that if he had no treatment at all (his leukemia was advanced by the time it was diagnosed) that he had maybe a 50% chance of surviving another year. We listened to all the treatment options, took notes, explored alternatives and by the end of the consultation the doctors said something surprising. They said that if he underwent their recommended bone marrow transplant and chemo that he had about a 40% chance of surviving another year! With chemo his chances for a one year survival actually dropped 10%! He went with the bone marrow transplant and chemo and was dead within 9 months. He was 21 years old. His widow was left with a 1 million dollar hospital bill.

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'm in favor of whatever works, allopathic or naturopathic; why limit our choices? The state MAY have a case against the husband for injecting her and then not seeking advice/assistance/alternatives when the wife was obviously worsened by the injection. I doubt it would fall under murder any more than the 6 oncologists that poisoned my brother but he could be charged with neglect or for not following the standards of care. Honestly, I don't know if administering cesium by injection to a breast cancer patient IS the standard of care for a nutritionist. Since our access to alternative treatments are consistently being reduced, I'd not like to see a precedent set with this case.

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.

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.

Here they are deary.
And unlike the lies you put forward as fact they're verifiable and in context.
anaximperator.wordpress.com...
If you want to know about chEmo, go to an oncologist and speak with them instead of propagating nonsense from a dodgy website like Whale.
They're the ones who deal with it every day.
They're the ones who treat it. And treat it with proper reproducible protocols and methods unlike some who just say drink some magic tea and you'll be fine.
These are people's lives you know.
And by putting up nonsense like that you might just prevent someone getting early treatment.
Have you ever thought of that?


So I'll never refrain from "preaching" how bad dying from cancer is.
Too many people forget and ridiculous websites like Whale only make things harder for people. They offer no help whatsoever, just misinformation and hindrance.
As you yourself are doing by implying that drinking some magic tea will rid you of cancer.
Guess what?
It won't. It's never been shown to cure cancer at all (unless you believe fictional stories and confirmation bias).
www.cancer.org...
And whilst I wouldn't berate anyone going for alternative "therapy" I can't respect anyone promoting it.
I think they're the lowest of the low.
It doesn't work.
It's completely pointless.
It just gives false hope and wastes time.
I value people's lives too much to send them on a wild goose chase.

And apologies for my spelling of chemo, I'm old school.

reply to post by Pardon?

Here they are deary.

Patronising much?

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.

Wrong. Alternative medicines are exempt from requiring FDA oversight because BigAltMed spent a lot of money lobbying in the early 90's to specifically to relax the laws so they can pretty much sell what they damn please. Alternative medicine is near enough a completely unregulated industry. In contrast, "mainstream" medicine has to jump through many hoops before their products can hit the shelves.

reply to post by angelchemuel

....I've detected cancer in MANY people BEFORE the medical establishment have as their tests came back negative.

That sounds like something the world could benefit from.

Would you care to share your method with the rest of us?

Well here is something many people do not know. The big push for holistic medicine in this country came from a man who didn't believe in it nor would he use the treatments. Have you ever become a pin cushion for thinking acupuncture was an ancient chinese secret? There is no mention of it in ancient texts. There was a propaganda push that utilized modern media of the times to dupe us westerners. When you think of ancient Chinese medicine do you remember the emperor that was eating Mercury thinking it would bring him immortality.

I am sure there is an ancient chinese proverb that is equivalent to- There is a sucker borne every minute.

Anyway here is a pic of the guy who helped usher in an age of holistic medicine in the West.


And a nice article detailing some of it.

Chairman Mao Invented Traditional Chinese Medicine

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.”

Now beore anyone rants about theirs isnt chinese medicne which I never claimed you should take the time to read the article because the arguments for such medicine is an echo of 60 year old justifications from chairman Mao and at least you can learn a little history on how these things gained a foothold in the US.

Be that as it may, herbal medicines/treatments have been around before China was ever a unified entity. There are plenty of scientific studies having tested the claims by herbalists.
While I'm thankful that there was lobbying done to keep the FDA out of traditional medicine (allopathic is the alternative), I do think that there needs to be some accountability in the field. People who look at the ingredients in a loaf of white bread and complain that they can't pronounce half the ingredients, think nothing at all of going into a healthfood store and buying something that doesn't even tell you what the ingredients are.
The FDA has not shown the greatest integrity even in the way it's set up. Those wanting FDA approval hire their own scientists to prove that the new drug performs as advertised. That's a huge conflict of interest. An independent group that is in no way affiliated with the manufacturers of the new drug should be the ones to test it. Less chance for bribery, methinks. Even so, the FDA has still managed to pull some bone-head drugs out of it's hat: Thalidamide, Fen-fen, etc.
Even doctors will tell you to educate yourself on matters regarding your health and that goes for choosing naturopathic or allopathic. I like having both. I like having choices. Plenty of people around making stupid choices on all sorts of things, not just their health. We've got enough government regulation and interference now without asking/demanding any more.

angelchemuel
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Here they are deary.

Patronising much?

Unfortunately the T&C's of ATS prevent me from posting exactly what I think of people like you so you'll have to make do with my patronisation.
Hopefully you got my point.

Anyone can set themselves up as an alternative "therapist".
You don't need registration, qualifications nor experience.
There are few (if any) regulations in place to check what you're doing.
As long as you state your little disclaimer, there is no end to the claims you can make.

All you need is the ability to lie convincingly and to be able to fleece vulnerable people of their money.
Oh the ability to keep a straight face whilst you#re inwardly laughing at the gullibles is a bonus too.

Attention!!!!

Please post to the topic and be respectful of members:
Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

Members who fail to abide by the rules may face post removals.

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.

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?

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?

I'm not sure if you're aware of this but believe it or not there isn't actually a cure for cancer (nope, the Bob Beck "protocol" is as useless as the one the woman had).

The woman had an 80% chance of survival had she had the appropriate treatment early enough.
She didn't and she died as a direct result of it.

That's what this is all about.

Chemotherapy is treatment of cancer with chemicals.
Radiation is a separate therapy altogether (as is surgery).
Different cancers respond to different therapies and some have better outcomes than others.

No-one says that there is 100% chance of a cure with standard therapies but the sooner it's diagnosed and treated the better it will be.

That's why there are 560,000 deaths per year of cancer even though 1,600,000 (that's over one and a half million just in case you thought it was 160000) get cancer every year.
That means over one million DON'T die of cancer every year.

Numbers are only useful when you put them into proper context.

Scam treatments like this are designed to prey on people when they're at their lowest point in life.
They offer at best only false hope and at worst an early death.