This Doctor’s 25 Years of Research Showed: Cancer Patients Live 4X Longer by Refusing Chemotherapy

a reply to: Murgatroid

Some of your statistics are skewed.

You mention witch doctors and then link to this... ...

What the hell is this too?

It's not

75% of doctors

- It's "75% of doctors asked.
Your source

The 10% failure rate is due to bone cancers – they have been unable to come up with a way to get the baking soda inside the bone.

As for the above sentence?


I love this site sometimes.

I went through 6 months of a combination chemo/IL2 treatment at MD anderson that saved my life when I was given months to live.

It was pure hell, I swole up and turned red and all my skin peeled off like a sunburn. Nausea and headaches and neuropathy were constant companions and I went from 200 to 140 pounds when it was all said and done.

6 percent of patients that get this treatment have a positive response to the treatment, which means that basically your tumors stop growing. Out of that 6 percent, 3 percent of patients have the response that I did, which is your tumors shrink up and die. My doctors were ecstatic every time I got a status report from them because giving out good news like, "Hey your tumors are dying away!" was something they rarely got to do.The chemo killed two massive tumors that were growing inside my sinus cavity and lung as well as many smaller tumors throughout my body. The gamma knife killed a brain tumor that was growing in my head. I had another recurrence a few years ago with two metastases growing into my spinal cord. Surgury and radiation treatments were hell but I'm alive and can walk and feel my legs today because of it.

I think many doctors prescribe cancer treatments when people don't really need it. In the case of someone like me dealing with an aggressive cancer that kills 80 percent of people a year after diagnosis it saved my life.

I do know I had some really great doctors taking care of me with big hearts. To think that they are all on some sort of conspiracy to poison their patients and watch them suffer is asinine and the opposite of why most of them became doctors in the first place.

Hm, I call bullcrap. My grandmother first battled breast cancer & won with chemo. I don't know what she did for the colon cancer she died from, though. Not like she didn't get a long life out of the first round, that was in the 80's, and she lived to her 80's.

A friend of mine died this year from metastasized breast cancer, it was everywhere. She battled it metastasized for years. Diagnosed within a year after she gave birth, no less. She eschewed treatment in favor of the hippie crunchy healthful living horsecrap until she had her "oh f^&8" moment realizing the speed of progression & started chemo. I doubt she would have lived as long as she did without it, she was going downhill QUICKLY until chemo slowed it. It didn't give her a full life like my grandmother had, but it gave her 6 more years with her kids. Better than dropping dead years earlier, but I bet serious bucks on her having major regrets over abstaining for too long. I'd ask if she thought it was worth the risk, but, well, the dead can't talk.

Everyone reacts to treatment differently. My wife has been on chemo for a year. She's stage 4 colorectal, she has responded well to the meds. It's doubtful she'll ever be cured but the chemo doesn't bother her like it does other people.

Seems like the "eminent" Dr Jones was using data from 80 and more years ago for his "studies".
Oncology has improved dramatically since then.

www.users.on.net...

I had one successfully treated relative with chemo 15 year ago or more, although she was a teenager then and I don't know what kind of cancer she had. So at least one success story from my side is true about chemo medicine.

BUT

when looking the stats on the net, this picture of success, which I had, gets different. There are a few papers which I have read about how chemo is in general bad for people and supposedly many people even after they were threaded and the cancer is gone die a few years after. Due to too much strain on the body. But they don't mention that in general although it is known and this information can be found by google.

I think that each body and patent is a different case and it should be approached with that in mind. A few can take it and many will be destroyed by the chemo alone, let alone by cancer.

My opinion is, that chemo should be the last resort to cancer. There are many other cures available, some sadly are not recognized by the doctors but many people are coming foreword with their own success stories. I think they are increasing as the time goes by and I am certain that there is a better way of healing the disease. But all of different kinds of cancer are maybe not curable by alternative medicine alone and maybe only chemo can help in some cases?

Also if modern pharma or medical scientists were really interested in healing the cancer without chemo, there would be many more support for other kinds of treatments. Because there are obviously many people who gets healed on their own!
But chemo is good for business and unfortunately not very good medicine.

very good new documentary about cancer and its cures...
I recommend, but dunno if there are all episodes available on youtube:

Some of the greatest doctors to have lived on this planet are now branded "quacks" because they
attacked the very system they were once part of.

The cancer rates are increasing. The war on cancer is a failure.
People are living longer with the disease some are being cured.
Testicular cancer has an extremely good prognosis with platinum based drugs.

Our foods are still being poisoned, natural defence mechanisms that should be in place
are being circumvented due to the way our medical/agricultural/political models work.
If you google p450 salvestrols/salvestrol inhibitors you can see. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

Although I don't agree with the Laetrile/Nitriloside theory, the political model is explained by Ed Griffin in his book
World Without Cancer. James Cason had it right in his flash of insight about it's not so much what we are exposed
to but what we are not exposed to.
It's sad really.
Limbo
senate.universityofcalifornia.edu...

originally posted by: Pardon?
Seems like the "eminent" Dr Jones was using data from 80 and more years ago for his "studies".
Oncology has improved dramatically since then.

www.users.on.net...

Just curious, why did you parenthesize "studies" and "eminent"?
Wasn't Hardin Jones a well respected scientist?
As far as I can tell his work has not been refuted and was valid at the time of publish.

Is this the guy ?

"http://images.peabody.yale.edu/lepsoc/jls/1980s/1981/1981-35(3)249-Arnaud.pdf"

www.psiram.com...

In this paper (Written by Hardin Jones) he advocates the use of palliative chemotherapy.

If you listen to the conclusions of the nay sayers you come to the conclusion Hardin Jones was
anti chemotherapy, however as demonstrated in this paper he was not (Scroll down the conclusions.)
Limbo

He seems to make a claim that untreated breast cancer patients lived 4x longer than treated.
That can be easily tested and compared to modern stats?
Limbo

I have had 3 family members beat cancer and live long lives, but none of them would have survived without Chemotherapy unless the OP is suggesting cancer can be cured on it's own...

originally posted by: Limbo

The cancer rates are increasing. The war on cancer is a failure.

Yes, cancer rates are increasing but there is a very simple explanation for that: people are living longer. In 1900 the average life expectancy was 50 whilst in 2011 was 78. The majority of cancers occur in the elderly, the median age for cancer diagnosis is 65.

Here is the link for the data:seer.cancer.gov...

The war on cancer is not a failure: deaths have been falling an average of 1.5% per year (same link).

a reply to: Agartha

That's a common misconception and you are partially right, however if you look into the incidences of childhood cancers
you can see they indeed are too on the rise.
Limbo

originally posted by: Limbo
a reply to: Agartha

That's a common misconception and you are partially right, however if you look into the incidences of childhood cancers
you can see they indeed are too on the rise.
Limbo

Evidence please?

In the UK, according to Cancer Research, childhood cancer rates have decreased by 9% in the last decade.
I don't know where you are from but in the UK, where I live, rates are going down.
Only 1% of all cancer cases in the UK are children.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Wow, that was one massive string of quotes saying the same thing over and over again! I agree with it, just annoyed that i didn't stop reading with the third repetition.

Think it depends on what type of cancer. I've had family members & friends refuse treatment and they were dead less than 6 months. Have a friend whose mother refused radiation with her enclosed brain tumor and has lived for years. Same thing with a friend that had breast cancer and didn't do the chemo/radiation after her surgery with no recurrence. one of my friends that did have the chemo/radiation after breast cancer died 2 years later from a liver tumor believed to have been a result of radiation. If its enclosed tumor that hasn't spread and is contained, then refusing it may help but if its cancer that has spread to the lymph nodes or all over, refusing it won't help. Cancer is very complicated and no one thing is the best solution for everything. Some Docs are moving away from chemo & radiation as an absolute must ....but I know people that did chemo and are cancer free 20+ years.

a reply to: Phage

you should tweet #icanhazpdf. tweet the link (if possible) with email and delete when you receive it.

originally posted by: Limbo
a reply to: Agartha

That's a common misconception and you are partially right, however if you look into the incidences of childhood cancers
you can see they indeed are too on the rise.
Limbo

People want to say GMO, but I think it is more the crappy foods that way more children eat. I know kids that live on McD etc, and it is disgusting that their parents do that. I'm not saying you are leaning towards GMO but that is the typical direction we see today instead of chemicals and even with that we can control much with little effort. Just the fact that girls are hitting purity much quicker and we do pump chemicals and steroids into our meats is not good. I buy a 1/2 cow at a time from friends that pasture feed them as example of being aware and taking better steps.

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Limbo
a reply to: Agartha

That's a common misconception and you are partially right, however if you look into the incidences of childhood cancers
you can see they indeed are too on the rise.
Limbo

Evidence please?

In the UK, according to Cancer Research, childhood cancer rates have decreased by 9% in the last decade.
I don't know where you are from but in the UK, where I live, rates are going down.
Only 1% of all cancer cases in the UK are children.

I don't think 10 years would be a great sample to show the incidence rate is on the decrease.
More accurate would be long term studies. Here.
seer.cancer.gov...
Limbo

a reply to: purplemer

I had cancer in 2003. When I refused chemo, my doc said he would crawl across the floor and beg me to get it if it would do any good, and I told him not to bother. It's 12.5 years later, and I'm cancer-free.

I know there are some cancer patients who can benefit from chemo, but people should consider alternatives, IMO.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I was shocked by Hardin's claims about how the body could find a way to deal with the cancer itself.
Limbo