Alternative cancer therapy advice
john
Steph
"john" <wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9m3dg1$ks8$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> http://www.whale.to/cancer/advice.html
>
>
Where, John?
Oh, I see........................
You were suggesting that your web site has some kind of useful advice?
But it's all lies, fairy tales and childish misunderstanding.
You knew that, didn't you?
T D Laing
> >
> >
>
> Where, John?
>
> Oh, I see........................
> You were suggesting that your web site has some kind of useful advice?
> But it's all lies, fairy tales and childish misunderstanding.
> You knew that, didn't you?
Heh.
John must be tired of all the drubbing over his fantasies about
vaccines. His whole site is a pathetic joke, but he still doesn't get
it.
T.
john
"Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote in message news:Vybh7.1312
> Where, John?
>
> Oh, I see........................
> You were suggesting that your web site has some kind of useful advice?
> But it's all lies, fairy tales and childish misunderstanding.
> You knew that, didn't you?
>
>
Get back to radiating patients with your cancer causing "medicine"
john
Preventing Breast Cancer, The story of a Major, Proven, Preventable Cause of
This Disease by Dr Gofman, M.D., Ph.D.
http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PBC/
Hank Oredson
> http://www.whale.to/cancer/advice.html
John,
The site has not gotten any better.
It is still full of misinformation that would be harmful to anyone if followed.
Perhaps a disclaimer along the lines of "For amusement only"
could be placed on the site to help people understand.
--
... Hank
Steph
>
> "Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote in message news:Vybh7.1312
> > Where, John?
> >
> > Oh, I see........................
> > You were suggesting that your web site has some kind of useful advice?
> > But it's all lies, fairy tales and childish misunderstanding.
> > You knew that, didn't you?
> >
> >
>
>
> Get back to radiating patients with your cancer causing "medicine"
>
> john
You mis-spelled "curing" John
john
"Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote in message news:ANvh7.1334
> You mis-spelled "curing" John
No I didn't.
john http://www.whale.to/cancer/rage.html
john
"T D Laing" <RTL...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> Heh.
>
> John must be tired of all the drubbing over his fantasies about
> vaccines. His whole site is a pathetic joke, but he still doesn't get
> it.
>
> T.
I get what you HealthFrauds are up to. I am enjoying the kicking your
friend Barrett is getting.
john
"The War Against Quackery is a carefully orchestrated, heavily endowed
campaign sponsored by extremists holding positions of power in the orthodox
hierarchy.....The mutimillion-dollar campaign against quackery was never
meant to root out incompetent doctors; it was, and is, designed specifically
to destroy alternative medicine...The millions were raised and spent because
orthodox medicine sees alternative, drugless medicine as a real threat to
its economic power. And right they are...the majority of the drug houses
will not survive."--Dr Atkins, M.D. (The Healing of Cancer by Barry Lynes).
http://www.whale.to/p/quacks.html
Wyle E. Coyote
>
> "Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote in message news:Vybh7.1312
> > Where, John?
> >
> > Oh, I see........................
> > You were suggesting that your web site has some kind of useful advice?
> > But it's all lies, fairy tales and childish misunderstanding.
> > You knew that, didn't you?
> >
> >
>
>
> Get back to radiating patients with your cancer causing "medicine"
>
I am happy that we do not routinely radiate patients. Nor does modern
medicine cause many cases of cancer. Unlike many alternative medicien, it
does work.
All the best,
Wyle
watchman
> I get what you HealthFrauds are up to. I am enjoying the kicking your
> friend Barrett is getting.
> john
> "The War Against Quackery is a carefully orchestrated, heavily endowed
> campaign sponsored by extremists holding positions of power in the orthodox
> hierarchy.....The mutimillion-dollar campaign against quackery was never
> meant to root out incompetent doctors; it was, and is, designed specifically
> to destroy alternative medicine...The millions were raised and spent because
> orthodox medicine sees alternative, drugless medicine as a real threat to
> its economic power. And right they are...the majority of the drug houses
> will not survive."--Dr Atkins, M.D. (The Healing of Cancer by Barry Lynes).
> http://www.whale.to/p/quacks.html
Yeh .. like this one ..
Forty years ago Harvard was one of the big players in the persecution
of Dr. Shute and his vitamin E/tocopherol .. work/treatment ..
Then they come out with a study which finds 100 mg of vitamin e
does this ..
Must have really peeved them that THIS was/is the outcome
because with such a small dose one could/might think .. they
weren't really .. trying to make it work?
In the 1950s the Shute brothers in Ontario
did some amazing work with vitamin E. Their claims were simple. They
said vitamin E worked against heart disease and cerebrovascular
disease. They were greeted with laughter. The Harvard School of Public
Health [recently] published a huge study on vitamin E and showed that
just 100 units of vitamin E per day decreased the death rate by 40
percent. Suppose they had done that in 1960? So vitamin E was totally
destroyed by the establishment. Think of the cost of those
decisions."
American medicine was not able to destroy the Shutes careers
and their work with vitamins because they practiced in Canada.
Quoted from an interview with Peter Barry Chowka
in Nutrition Science News.
Who loves ya.
Tom
--
Jesus was a Vegetarian! http://www.nucleus.com/watchman
Moses was a Mystic! http://www.nucleus.com/watchman/light.html
john
"Wyle E. Coyote" <wyle_e_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> I am happy that we do not routinely radiate patients. Nor does modern
> medicine cause many cases of cancer. Unlike many alternative medicien, it
> does work.
Oh really, how come 600,000 people die from cancer every year in the USA?
All ears.
john
Bill Ross
john wrote:
>
> Oh really, how come 600,000 people die from cancer every year in the USA?
>
> All ears.
>
Partly because we have an aging and growing population. The more old people
you have, the more likely more will get cancer. We also have a population that
wants to live the easy life, in general. Cancer prevention is not high on
their list of priorities. And the main reason for 600,000 cancer deaths a year
may be....people live only so long. We are indeed living longer than ever
though, which most would call progress....but our bodies cannot live forever.
--Bill Ross
Lawrence Silverstein
and/or chemotherapy has not changed in 70 years: 7-9 %. A true measure
of effciacy and expertise is performance.
fred & michele
25 years knows that. Lung cancer used to be an automatic death sentence,
with very little time. Not so anymore. Breast cancer? Better diagnostics
& a variety of chemo choices & better surgical & followup techniques have
increased the life span for many people who choose it.
And if these people follow your plan of treatment -- which is ???? -- what
is their survival rate then?
Michele
Lawrence Silverstein <silverstei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f28e635.01082...@posting.google.com...
piet Jansen
operable due to asthma and consequent emphesema in the other lung. Thry
wamnted to take out the uppelobe with a piece if the windpipe and the
connect the bottom lobe with the stump. Nice piece of work, although
they weren't sure if the cut edge would be free of malignous cells.
OK, they did a mediostinoscopy and found after special colouring ONE
lousy cancercell in a 1/2 cm node. After the procedure the surgeon said
she was optimistic because my nodes were so small she could hardly find
them. Well, was she wrong!
Now, no operation, refinal pallative radiation coming up and that
pulmonary dr (not my regular sweety, who was on vacation) said I had a
20% chance of a 1(one) year survival!!!
The trials in Amsterdam with the enzyme inhibitors is my best bet, but
everybody and his dog has already applied after the very good resilts in
the first trial.
It is very bitter: found by accident when stage I, after 4 months of
testing in a normal and an academic hospital I am now in stage IIIA.
I have NO symptoms at all and in the 4 month the tumor has grown only
from 2.7 cm to 3.4 cm.
Aby suggestions and comments please????
(I started Voltaren already as I have an overactive immunesystem anyway)
--
Rian
I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe
fred & michele <heal...@concentric.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
9m984j$l...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Bob Franks Sr.
I always believed the theory about our population having more cancer
because they are living longer, until I visited the French West Indies and
the US Virgin Islands. At one of the medical schools there, I was informed
that the people who live on these islands usually live between 100 and 120
years and there is almost no cancer or other chronic diseases.
I'm sure there are many theories to explain this but I believe it is
mostly because of lifestyle and diet. Genetics has been ruled out since
many of these people migrated from elsewhere.
What are we doing wrong?
Bob
"Bill Ross" <ross...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3b88100f$0$1528$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
Lawrence Silverstein
same end point, you morons!......patients just happen to know sooner....try reading!
Bill Ross
"Bob Franks Sr." wrote:
> Bill
> I always believed the theory about our population having more cancer
> because they are living longer, until I visited the French West Indies and
> the US Virgin Islands. At one of the medical schools there, I was informed
> that the people who live on these islands usually live between 100 and 120
> years and there is almost no cancer or other chronic diseases.
Even if it is true, about people in the US Virgin Islands having less cancer and
living longer, that doesn't negate the aging population as a reason for more
cancer in the US. I also have doubts that it is true. Who "informed" you, and
how do you know what they say is true? Seems we would have heard of these
people "usually" living to "100 and 120 years" by now. Sounds like an urban, or
Caribbean myth, to me.
>
> I'm sure there are many theories to explain this but I believe it is
> mostly because of lifestyle and diet. Genetics has been ruled out since
> many of these people migrated from elsewhere.
> What are we doing wrong?
> Bob
Maybe many migrated, but isn't most of the population of the same racial
makeup? I don't believe that most live to 100-120. I guess I'll have to check
my life expectancy tables for the US Virgin Islands and French West Indies.
Bill Ross
Bill Ross
piet Jansen wrote:
>
> Aby suggestions and comments please????
> (I started Voltaren already as I have an overactive immunesystem anyway)
> --
> Rian
> I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe
Thank you for posting. I like your sense of humor. Please hang in there,
and don't lose hope. You are somebody we can learn from.
Best wishes,
Bill Ross
Hank Oredson
"Lawrence Silverstein" <silverstei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f28e635.01082...@posting.google.com...
> and/or chemotherapy has not changed in 70 years: 7-9 %. A true measure
> of effciacy and expertise is performance.
The lifetime survival rate from all causes of death is zero.
Everyone dies.
The age at death for cancer patients has increased.
Hank Oredson
"Lawrence Silverstein" <silverstei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f28e635.01082...@posting.google.com...
> "fred & michele" <heal...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:<9m984j$l...@dispatch.concentric.net>...
> > Nonsense. Anybody who's worked on a cancer wing at a hospital in the last
> > 25 years knows that. Lung cancer used to be an automatic death sentence,
> > with very little time. Not so anymore. Breast cancer? Better diagnostics
> > & a variety of chemo choices & better surgical & followup techniques have
> > increased the life span for many people who choose it.
> >
> > And if these people follow your plan of treatment -- which is ???? -- what
> > is their survival rate then?
> >
> > Michele
> >
> > Lawrence Silverstein <silverstei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2f28e635.01082...@posting.google.com...
> > > The lifetime survival rate for cancer treated by surgery, radiotherapy
> > > and/or chemotherapy has not changed in 70 years: 7-9 %. A true measure
> > > of effciacy and expertise is performance.
>
>
>
> same end point, you morons!......patients just happen to know sooner....try
reading!
Go read a book on population statistics.
Peter Bowditch
Mr O'Neill (who is now calling himself "Lawrence Silverstein" for some
reason) claimed at one stage to possess the world's best database of
cancer information. He does not like people who disagree with him, and
his use of the word "morons" in the first round of discussion is just
his way of being polite.
-------------------------------------
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
Mad - Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
Bad - The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Sad - Full Canvas Jacket http://www.ratbags.com/ranters
Five Cats
<ross...@erinet.com> writes
And people also continue to smoke and eat junk food.
>--Bill Ross
>
--
Five Cats
fred & michele
news:9m9m9...@enews4.newsguy.com...
<"At one of the medical schools there, I was informed that the people who
live on these islands usually live between 100 and 120 years and there is
almost no cancer or other chronic diseases.">
I would be extremely surprised to see many people almost anywhere in the
world regularly living to 100-120 years old, let alone in the West Indies.
Deos anyone have statistics for the average lifespan in these countries?
Michele
fred & michele
news:2f28e635.01082...@posting.google.com...
> "fred & michele" <heal...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:<9m984j$l...@dispatch.concentric.net>...
> > Nonsense. Anybody who's worked on a cancer wing at a hospital in the
last
> > 25 years knows that. Lung cancer used to be an automatic death
sentence,
> > with very little time. Not so anymore. Breast cancer? Better
diagnostics
> > & a variety of chemo choices & better surgical & followup techniques
have
> > increased the life span for many people who choose it.
> >
> > And if these people follow your plan of treatment -- which is ???? --
what
> > is their survival rate then?
> >
> > Michele
> >
> > Lawrence Silverstein <silverstei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2f28e635.01082...@posting.google.com...
> > > The lifetime survival rate for cancer treated by surgery, radiotherapy
> > > and/or chemotherapy has not changed in 70 years: 7-9 %. A true measure
> > > of effciacy and expertise is performance.
>
>
>
> same end point, you morons!......patients just happen to know
sooner....try reading!
So in other words, you'd do nothing, & *all* of them would die. Good move,
idiot. You're dumber than it would first appear. Thank God for kill file.
Michele
john
"fred & michele" <heal...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> So in other words, you'd do nothing, & *all* of them would die. Good
move,
> idiot. You're dumber than it would first appear. Thank God for kill
file.
>
1. Around 30 years ago Dr Hardin B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics &
Physiology at Berkeley, announced the results of sifting and collating a
large number of unpublished hospital records, announced at the 1969 Science
Writers Conference of the ACS. He disclosed that analysis of the mass of
case histories indicated that, statistically, the life expectancy of
untreated cancer cases appears to be FOUR TIMES LONGER than that of treated
individuals.
"My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up
to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to
do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes
radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, other than when used in immediate
life-threatening situations."---Prof Jones.
According to Prof Jones--"With every patient that...boosts his health to
build up his natural resistance, there's a high chance that the body will
find its own defence against cancer." He warned against "...being made into
a hopeless invalid through radical medical intervention which has zero
chance of extending life."
2. Suppressed &/or ignored therapies
http://www.whale.to/cancer/therapies.html
john
RolfLindy
<< I was informed
that the people who live on these islands usually live between 100 and 120
years >>
Nonsense. Average life span in Virgin Islands and West Indies is about 78
years. Highest life span area on earth is Andorra at 83. Japan is longest among
major nations at 81.
Rolf
Hubert Mak
more sex, that why they live longer. 8-)
D. C. Sessions
Because four million are born.
--
| I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
+----------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
D. C. Sessions
> The lifetime survival rate for cancer treated by surgery, radiotherapy
> and/or chemotherapy has not changed in 70 years: 7-9 %. A true measure
> of effciacy and expertise is performance.
The lifetime survival rate for ANYTHING is zero.
After all, the one sure thing about life is that nobody
gets out alive.
David Wright
Bob Franks Sr. <bfr...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
>Bill
> I always believed the theory about our population having more cancer
>because they are living longer, until I visited the French West Indies and
>the US Virgin Islands. At one of the medical schools there, I was informed
>that the people who live on these islands usually live between 100 and 120
>years and there is almost no cancer or other chronic diseases.
> I'm sure there are many theories to explain this but I believe it is
>mostly because of lifestyle and diet. Genetics has been ruled out since
>many of these people migrated from elsewhere.
> What are we doing wrong?
I don't know about "we," but what you are doing wrong is believing
stories like that. There is no population in the world that
consistently lives to be over 100 years old.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders."
David Wright
john <wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"fred & michele" <heal...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>
>> So in other words, you'd do nothing, & *all* of them would die. Good
>move,
>> idiot. You're dumber than it would first appear. Thank God for kill
>file.
>>
>
>1. Around 30 years ago Dr Hardin B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics &
>Physiology at Berkeley, announced the results of sifting and collating a
>large number of unpublished hospital records, announced at the 1969 Science
>Writers Conference of the ACS. He disclosed that analysis of the mass of
>case histories indicated that, statistically, the life expectancy of
>untreated cancer cases appears to be FOUR TIMES LONGER than that of treated
>individuals.
This information might be of some value if you are a cancer patient
who owns a time machine and is planning a visit to 1969.
Lawrence Silverstein
Mr. Bowditch:
Apparently you have an obsession with Mr. O'Neill or perhaps he with
you. None the less, from what I've read on your site and in your
usenet posts, should anyone develop as obsession with you, it's likely
in response to the obvious lies and deceptions you propagate. You
represent the new breed of pseudo-skeptic cowardice so prevalent on
the internet. If you had an engram for every lie and deception you
peddle, you might be worth listening to.
By the way, continue to attribute any and eveything you want to your
various victims, and continue to spread and elciting hate and lies on
the internet. You really quite incapable of anything else. It also
serves to simply sweeten the pot for those who in fact have filed
statement of claims.
Lawrence Silverstein.
DRCEEPHD
>From: D. C. Sessions d...@lumbercartel.com
>Date: 8/26/01 10:41 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <be5bm9...@news.lumbercartel.com>
>
>The lifetime survival rate for ANYTHING is zero.
>After all, the one sure thing about life is that nobody
>gets out alive.
Wrong on two counts.
One is the possibility of a spiritual afterlife.
The second is the scientifically proven existence of the immortality of certain
small bodies in our physical makeup that exist after the physical remains have
been reduced to dust. Bechamp and his "microzymas" prove that there is some
type of physical life after death.
Cee.
Steph
"john" <wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9m68pt$a13$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "T D Laing" <RTL...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> > Heh.
> >
> > John must be tired of all the drubbing over his fantasies about
> > vaccines. His whole site is a pathetic joke, but he still doesn't get
> > it.
> >
> > T.
>
> I get what you HealthFrauds are up to. I am enjoying the kicking your
> friend Barrett is getting.
>
> john
Hey John, when you eat tonight, be careful with that "fire-causing" frying
pan, your glass of "drowning-causing" water, and don't slip with your
"cut-causing-bleeding to death" knife will you?
Steph
"Lawrence Silverstein" <silverstei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f28e635.01082...@posting.google.com...
> and/or chemotherapy has not changed in 70 years: 7-9 %. A true measure
> of effciacy and expertise is performance.
Just plain wrong. About 50% of cancers are cured.
Steph
"Lawrence Silverstein" <silverstei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f28e635.01082...@posting.google.com...
> "fred & michele" <heal...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:<9m984j$l...@dispatch.concentric.net>...
> > Nonsense. Anybody who's worked on a cancer wing at a hospital in the
last
> > 25 years knows that. Lung cancer used to be an automatic death
sentence,
> > with very little time. Not so anymore. Breast cancer? Better
diagnostics
> > & a variety of chemo choices & better surgical & followup techniques
have
> > increased the life span for many people who choose it.
> >
> > And if these people follow your plan of treatment -- which is ???? --
what
> > is their survival rate then?
> >
> > Michele
> >
> > Lawrence Silverstein <silverstei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2f28e635.01082...@posting.google.com...
> > > The lifetime survival rate for cancer treated by surgery, radiotherapy
> > > and/or chemotherapy has not changed in 70 years: 7-9 %. A true measure
> > > of effciacy and expertise is performance.
>
>
>
> same end point, you morons!......patients just happen to know
sooner....try reading!
Lawrence, you're the moron. The lifetime survival rate for people is 0%.
Steph
>
>
> 1. Around 30 years ago Dr Hardin B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics &
> Physiology at Berkeley, announced the results of sifting and collating a
> large number of unpublished hospital records, announced at the 1969
Science
> Writers Conference of the ACS. He disclosed that analysis of the mass of
> case histories indicated that, statistically, the life expectancy of
> untreated cancer cases appears to be FOUR TIMES LONGER than that of
treated
> individuals.
>
> "My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up
> to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts
to
> do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he
undergoes
> radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, other than when used in immediate
> life-threatening situations."---Prof Jones.
>
Must be true then.
> According to Prof Jones--"With every patient that...boosts his health to
> build up his natural resistance, there's a high chance that the body will
> find its own defence against cancer." He warned against "...being made
into
> a hopeless invalid through radical medical intervention which has zero
> chance of extending life."
>
Gosh
> 2. Suppressed &/or ignored therapies
> http://www.whale.to/cancer/therapies.html
>
Because they are useless and often dangerous.
> john
>
>
Steph
"DRCEEPHD" <drce...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010826165909...@mb-co.aol.com...
>
> The second is the scientifically proven existence of the immortality of
certain
> small bodies in our physical makeup that exist after the physical remains
have
> been reduced to dust. Bechamp and his "microzymas" prove that there is
some
> type of physical life after death.
>
> Cee.
>
Can I hear the X-Files music................?
Rich Andrews
news:2f28e635.01082...@posting.google.com:
Hey Larry,
Please provide the URL for 1 web page that is a "hate" page on Peter's web
site. Also please provide one web page that is a "lie".
Thanks in Advance
rich
--
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism
by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw
D. C. Sessions
> "fred & michele" <heal...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>
>> So in other words, you'd do nothing, & *all* of them would die. Good move,
>> idiot. You're dumber than it would first appear. Thank God for kill file.
>
> 1. Around 30 years ago Dr Hardin B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics &
> Physiology at Berkeley, announced the results of sifting and collating a
> large number of unpublished hospital records, announced at the 1969 Science
> Writers Conference of the ACS. He disclosed that analysis of the mass of
> case histories indicated that, statistically, the life expectancy of
> untreated cancer cases appears to be FOUR TIMES LONGER than that of treated
> individuals.
What a surprise. If one has a benign cancer, "doing nothing" can
be quite a viable treatment option. Basal- and squamous-cell
carcinomas, for instance, are almost never dangerous and the
treatment (excision) although extremely safe does leave visible
scars.
Of course, this isn't much help when one has melanoma.
Hank Oredson
"Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
news:VRei7.71620$7h.14...@news2.rdc1.bc.home.com...
And under NO circumstances drive one of those "multi-tens-of-thousands-
of-deaths-per-year" vehicles when you find you have run out of milk.
This whole thread has nothing to do with cancer as far as I can tell.
@hawaii.rr.com Rich
<d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>In <9map77$p4u$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> john scudamore posted:
>> "fred & michele" <heal...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> So in other words, you'd do nothing, & *all* of them would die. Good move,
>>> idiot. You're dumber than it would first appear. Thank God for kill file.
>>
>> 1. Around 30 years ago Dr Hardin B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics &
>> Physiology at Berkeley, announced the results of sifting and collating a
>> large number of unpublished hospital records, announced at the 1969 Science
>> Writers Conference of the ACS. He disclosed that analysis of the mass of
>> case histories indicated that, statistically, the life expectancy of
>> untreated cancer cases appears to be FOUR TIMES LONGER than that of treated
>> individuals.
>
>What a surprise. If one has a benign cancer, "doing nothing" can
>be quite a viable treatment option. Basal- and squamous-cell
>carcinomas, for instance, are almost never dangerous and the
>treatment (excision) although extremely safe does leave visible
>scars.
It is true that basal cell carcinoma of the skin is benign and if not
treated will just grow locally but not metastasize. If not treated it
may kill you after many years simply from encroaching on vital
structures. But this might take more than a few decades to happen.
And by that time would be so huge that it would be hard to imagine
someone not taking care of it.
Squamous cell carcinoma also has a good prognosis if treated early. It
not treated early it can metastasize (spread to other organs) and can
be fatal.
>
>Of course, this isn't much help when one has melanoma.
Quite true.
Aloha,
Rich
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
If you don't lie then you never have to remember
anything.
Hank Oredson
"Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
Sounds more like Twilight Zone music over here.
Wyle E. Coyote
"piet Jansen" <pi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9m99b2$u7fh$1...@ID-75494.news.dfncis.de...
> But still: my adenocarcinoma in a lung (primary) in the hilus was hardly
> operable due to asthma and consequent emphesema in the other lung. Thry
> wamnted to take out the uppelobe with a piece if the windpipe and the
> connect the bottom lobe with the stump. Nice piece of work, although
> they weren't sure if the cut edge would be free of malignous cells.
> OK, they did a mediostinoscopy and found after special colouring ONE
> lousy cancercell in a 1/2 cm node. After the procedure the surgeon said
> she was optimistic because my nodes were so small she could hardly find
> them. Well, was she wrong!
> Now, no operation, refinal pallative radiation coming up and that
> pulmonary dr (not my regular sweety, who was on vacation) said I had a
> 20% chance of a 1(one) year survival!!!
> The trials in Amsterdam with the enzyme inhibitors is my best bet, but
> everybody and his dog has already applied after the very good resilts in
> the first trial.
> It is very bitter: found by accident when stage I, after 4 months of
> testing in a normal and an academic hospital I am now in stage IIIA.
> I have NO symptoms at all and in the 4 month the tumor has grown only
> from 2.7 cm to 3.4 cm.
>
One story, out of literally millions. It is called ancedote. The plural of
anecdote is not data.
All the best,
Wyle
> Aby suggestions and comments please????
> (I started Voltaren already as I have an overactive immunesystem anyway)
> --
> Rian
> I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe
>
> fred & michele <heal...@concentric.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 9m984j$l...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Wyle E. Coyote
>
> "fred & michele" <heal...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>
> > So in other words, you'd do nothing, & *all* of them would die. Good
> move,
> > idiot. You're dumber than it would first appear. Thank God for kill
> file.
> >
>
> 1. Around 30 years ago Dr Hardin B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics &
> Physiology at Berkeley, announced the results of sifting and collating a
> large number of unpublished hospital records, announced at the 1969
Science
> Writers Conference of the ACS. He disclosed that analysis of the mass of
> case histories indicated that, statistically, the life expectancy of
> untreated cancer cases appears to be FOUR TIMES LONGER than that of
treated
> individuals.
>
And this is puclished in what journal? ANd this applies now how? In the last
30 years, we have learned a lot about cancer and medicine.
> "My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up
> to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts
to
> do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he
undergoes
> radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, other than when used in immediate
> life-threatening situations."---Prof Jones.
>
And this is published where?
> According to Prof Jones--"With every patient that...boosts his health to
> build up his natural resistance, there's a high chance that the body will
> find its own defence against cancer." He warned against "...being made
into
> a hopeless invalid through radical medical intervention which has zero
> chance of extending life."
>
I would agree with his suggestion. However, his hypothesis about natural
resistence is published where?
> 2. Suppressed &/or ignored therapies
> http://www.whale.to/cancer/therapies.html
>
The only reason why these thearpies are not used is that they do not work.
Sort of like electic cars on cross country trips.
All the best,
Wyle
> john
>
>
Wyle E. Coyote
>
> "Wyle E. Coyote" <wyle_e_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > I am happy that we do not routinely radiate patients. Nor does modern
> > medicine cause many cases of cancer. Unlike many alternative medicien,
it
> > does work.
>
> Oh really, how come 600,000 people die from cancer every year in the USA?
>
Because of 1,200,000 people get cancer. Without allopathic treatment, about
0 will live. With allopathic treatment the figure is around 50%.
All the best,
Wyle
> All ears.
>
> john
>
>
Wyle E. Coyote
"Bob Franks Sr." <bfr...@accesstoledo.com> wrote in message
news:9m9m9...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Bill
> I always believed the theory about our population having more cancer
> because they are living longer, until I visited the French West Indies and
> the US Virgin Islands. At one of the medical schools there, I was
informed
> that the people who live on these islands usually live between 100 and 120
> years and there is almost no cancer or other chronic diseases.
I doubt that figure.
I doubt that they do not have cancer either.
However, people in the US are more likely to get cancer because they eat
poorly, do stupid things like smoke, and don't get enough excercise.
All the best,
Wyle
> I'm sure there are many theories to explain this but I believe it is
> mostly because of lifestyle and diet. Genetics has been ruled out since
> many of these people migrated from elsewhere.
> What are we doing wrong?
> Bob
>
> "Bill Ross" <ross...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:3b88100f$0$1528$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> >
> >
> > john wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Oh really, how come 600,000 people die from cancer every year in the
> USA?
> > >
> > > All ears.
> > >
> >
> > Partly because we have an aging and growing population. The more old
> people
> > you have, the more likely more will get cancer. We also have a
population
> that
> > wants to live the easy life, in general. Cancer prevention is not high
on
> > their list of priorities. And the main reason for 600,000 cancer deaths
a
> year
> > may be....people live only so long. We are indeed living longer than
ever
> > though, which most would call progress....but our bodies cannot live
> forever.
> > --Bill Ross
> >
>
>
Wyle E. Coyote
>
>
> "Bob Franks Sr." wrote:
>
> > Bill
> > I always believed the theory about our population having more cancer
> > because they are living longer, until I visited the French West Indies
and
> > the US Virgin Islands. At one of the medical schools there, I was
informed
> > that the people who live on these islands usually live between 100 and
120
> > years and there is almost no cancer or other chronic diseases.
>
cancer and
> living longer, that doesn't negate the aging population as a reason for
more
> cancer in the US. I also have doubts that it is true. Who "informed"
you, and
> how do you know what they say is true? Seems we would have heard of these
> people "usually" living to "100 and 120 years" by now. Sounds like an
urban, or
> Caribbean myth, to me.
Actually, it does. Most people who get cancer and in their 60, 70 and 80s.
Cancer is largely a disease of genetic breakdown. As people get older, their
genes slowly mutate. Some of these mutations cause cancer. In addition,
people have a greater cummulative exposer exposure to cancer-causing stuff
as they get older.
All the best,
Wyle
>
> >
> > I'm sure there are many theories to explain this but I believe it is
> > mostly because of lifestyle and diet. Genetics has been ruled out since
> > many of these people migrated from elsewhere.
> > What are we doing wrong?
> > Bob
>
> Maybe many migrated, but isn't most of the population of the same racial
> makeup? I don't believe that most live to 100-120. I guess I'll have to
check
> my life expectancy tables for the US Virgin Islands and French West
Indies.
>
> Bill Ross
Wyle E. Coyote
"Lawrence Silverstein" <silverstei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f28e635.01082...@posting.google.com...
> The lifetime survival rate for cancer treated by surgery, radiotherapy
> and/or chemotherapy has not changed in 70 years: 7-9 %. A true measure
> of effciacy and expertise is performance.
Try looking at the stats at www.cancer.org. It is close to 50%. About 70%
for kids.
All the best,
Wyle
DRCEEPHD
>Message-id: <jbvbm9...@news.lumbercartel.com>
>
>
>What a surprise. If one has a benign cancer, "doing nothing" can
>be quite a viable treatment option. Basal- and squamous-cell
>carcinomas, for instance, are almost never dangerous and the
>treatment (excision) although extremely safe does leave visible
>scars.
>
>Of course, this isn't much help when one has melanoma.
>
>--
>| I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
>+----------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
>
Care to explain why cancer is not cancer?
Care to explain why when it comes to melanoma you are so totally incompetent?
Cee.
Peter Bowditch
Mr William P O'Neill's usual ISP at 64.229.139.13) wrote:
>Mr. Bowditch:
>
>Apparently you have an obsession with Mr. O'Neill or perhaps he with
>you. None the less, from what I've read on your site and in your
>usenet posts, should anyone develop as obsession with you, it's likely
>in response to the obvious lies and deceptions you propagate.
Mr O'Neill has yet to actually list these "obvious lies and
deceptions"
>You
>represent the new breed of pseudo-skeptic cowardice so prevalent on
>the internet.
Cowardice would be using lots of false names and email addresses. I
don't do that.
>If you had an engram for every lie and deception you
>peddle, you might be worth listening to.
Mr O'Neill has been informed previously that I have no engrams. I am a
clear. Perhaps the reason that Mr O'Neill keeps adopting new but
relatively transparent identities is that his body thetans are being
unruly. I know someone who can fix that.
>By the way, continue to attribute any and eveything you want to your
>various victims, and continue to spread and elciting hate and lies on
>the internet. You really quite incapable of anything else. It also
>serves to simply sweeten the pot for those who in fact have filed
>statement of claims.
It is now 61 days, 19 hours and 4 minutes since Mr O'Neill himself
filed such a claim. Or so he said. Nothing has turned up at my very
public address or fax machine yet.
>Lawrence Silverstein.
The letters in "Lawrence Silverstein" add up to 233. If you add that
to the sum of the CCRG's suite number (22) and street number (99),
then add the middle two digits of the CCRG telephone number (90) and
the last three digits of the CCRG's fax number (222), you get
666
I would have chosen a better nom de harasse if I was picking one.
fred & michele
> The letters in "Lawrence Silverstein" add up to 233. If you add that
> to the sum of the CCRG's suite number (22) and street number (99),
> then add the middle two digits of the CCRG telephone number (90) and
> the last three digits of the CCRG's fax number (222), you get
>
> 666
Yes, yes, I see it now!! How could we have missed it before?! It explains
ever so much & now I can rest easy. LOL
Michele
Steph
"D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:jbvbm9...@news.lumbercartel.com...
>
> What a surprise. If one has a benign cancer, "doing nothing" can
> be quite a viable treatment option. Basal- and squamous-cell
> carcinomas, for instance, are almost never dangerous and the
> treatment (excision) although extremely safe does leave visible
> scars.
>
Well, I'm not so sure about that. I Occasionally see patients die of
neglected basal cell cancers, and every oncologists has some patients with
metastatic skin squamous cell cancer, and some of them die.
Steph
>
>
> Care to explain why cancer is not cancer?
Care to explain why infections aren't infections? Do you think that soemone
with a common cold has the same prognosis and needs the same treatment as
someone with meningococcal meningitis?
> Care to explain why when it comes to melanoma you are so totally
incompetent?
>
I didn't see him proposing any treatment.
john
"Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote in message news:VRei7.71620
> Hey John, when you eat tonight, be careful with that "fire-causing" frying
> pan, your glass of "drowning-causing" water, and don't slip with your
> "cut-causing-bleeding to death" knife will you?
Talking of frying http://www.whale.to/cancer/rage.html
john
john
Nor is the John Wayne clinic high dose chemo for melanoma
Now that does shorten things considerably, including your bank balance
john
Steph
AH, that paragon of accuracy, the Daily Mail.
Must be true then.
Skipper_Tom
"Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
Skipper_Tom
Cancer an Oxymoron? Or at the very least just Moronic?
"D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:jbvbm9...@news.lumbercartel.com...
Steph
"Skipper_Tom" <skip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qIyi7.33$_l1.1...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
> Nothing like 6 year old Information?? to help spread FUD!!
It was the worst sort of inaccurate scaremongering Daily Mail drivel when it
was written, and it hasn't aged well.
The RAGE group was set up to support women who had suffered brachial plexus
injuries following surgery, radiotherapy and often chemotherapy for breast
cancer. It has performed a very valuable service for these people, and
prompted the Royal College of Radiologists to produce guidelines for the
management of radiation plexopathy. It has had significant support from
oncologists and radiobiological scientists, which it recognises.
The proportion of patients suffering significant side effects is very small,
but a small proportion of a large number is still a significant number, and
breast cancer is common. Measured against the side-effects is the fact that
locoregional radiotherapy has been shown to significantly improve the
likelihood of survival in some stages of breast cancer, and to reduce the
likelihood of local recurrence on the chest wall and in the axilla. Axillary
recurrence is a devastating problem and often leads to the same nerve
problems which RAGE publicised.
Like many other things (including sharp knives and airliners), radiotherapy
is dangerous stuff if not used properly by someone who understands it. Most
people accept that, but people like John the Whale, whose maturity
development was arrested long ago, cannot. No treatment should be given
unless there is a clear rationale, the patient understands the potential
benefits and the potential risks, and everyone agrees.
I guess if radiation oncologists had refused to give radiotherapy after
surgery for stage 2 and 3 breast cancer because of the low risks of brachial
plexus damage, there would now be an action group denouncing the fact that
patronising doctors had prevented patients having access to a treatment
which is known to prevent recurrence and prolong survival! But that's the
way of the world.
Steph
> Please excuse me for interrupting this stimulating thread, isn't Benign
> Cancer an Oxymoron? Or at the very least just Moronic?
>
>
Yes it is, but some cancers are more "benign" in their behaviour than
others.
Lawrence Silverstein
Mr. Bowditch:
I becomes increasingly more apparent that you have a rather unhealthy
obsession with this character. Why don't you explain the pathology.
And remember, be honest?
Lawrence Silverstein
Hey wyle....I'll type slowly 'cause I know you can't read
quickly....the % you quoted is the one year survival rate...for the
rest of you 7-9% of cancer patients don't die of their
cancer...period....murray & lopez....harvard...2000.....and bowditch
when you're diagnosed, have chemo and radio...you deserve it!
JX Brown
Lawrence Silverstein wrote in message
<2f28e635.01082...@posting.google.com>...
There is no abstract available for the letter from Christopher Murray and
Alan Lopez that was published in "Health Economics". However, the reference
you cite seems to be about mathematical modeling of GLOBAL disease burden
according to the title of the paper. Even if the letter had some relevance
to your claim, I would doubt that two apparently well trained
epidemiologists would make such an extraordinary claim as you do. The
survival rates quoted by Wyle are 5 years or more (most cancers that are
going to reoccur are going to do so in that time). However, even if chemo
and radiation were only going to buy me a year or two, I'd still go for it.
Peter Bowditch
fred & michele
Michele
Wyle E. Coyote
"Lawrence Silverstein" <silverstei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f28e635.01082...@posting.google.com...
> "Wyle E. Coyote" <wyle_e_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<21AC7A4835F69AED.92C7EFA9...@lp.airnews.net>...
> > "Lawrence Silverstein" <silverstei...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
> > news:2f28e635.01082...@posting.google.com...
> > > The lifetime survival rate for cancer treated by surgery, radiotherapy
> > > and/or chemotherapy has not changed in 70 years: 7-9 %. A true measure
> > > of effciacy and expertise is performance.
> >
> > Try looking at the stats at www.cancer.org. It is close to 50%. About
70%
> > for kids.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Wyle
>
>
>
> Hey wyle....I'll type slowly 'cause I know you can't read
> quickly....the % you quoted is the one year survival rate...for the
> rest of you 7-9% of cancer patients don't die of their
> cancer...period....murray & lopez....harvard...2000.....and bowditch
> when you're diagnosed, have chemo and radio...you deserve it!
Try 5 or 10-year disease-free survival rates, or longer.
all the best,
Wyle
justin mason
YEAR VS MORTALITY RATE PER YEAR PER 100K POPULATION.
TAKE A NOTE OF EACH TYPE OF CANCER, THEN GO BACK AND
OBSERVE SAME STATS 15 YEARS AGO. NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN
RATIO OF MORATLITY RATE/ INCIDENCE RATE PER 100K POP EXCEPT FOR TESTICULAR
AND SOME CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIAS.
JX Brown <jxb...@xyz.xyz> wrote in message
news:rREi7.974$_a6.1...@news.pacbell.net...
Steph
"justin mason" <jam...@csufresno.edu> wrote in message
news:3I%i7.237$sm4....@nntp.csufresno.edu...
> GO TO ACS WEB SITE AND OBSERVE STATS OF INCIDENCE PER
> YEAR VS MORTALITY RATE PER YEAR PER 100K POPULATION.
> TAKE A NOTE OF EACH TYPE OF CANCER, THEN GO BACK AND
> OBSERVE SAME STATS 15 YEARS AGO. NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN
> RATIO OF MORATLITY RATE/ INCIDENCE RATE PER 100K POP EXCEPT FOR TESTICULAR
> AND SOME CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIAS.
>
Quite true. About 50% of cancers were cured 15 years ago, too.
john
"Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
> AH, that paragon of accuracy, the Daily Mail.
>
> Must be true then.
>
>
How would you know, you don't live in the UK. At least I hope not.
This is a cancer cure med
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/SecondOpinion/secondopinion010423.html
john
Steph
John, you're pathetic.
I'm British and worked in the NHS until 1989.
Your scare article is about cardiologists, not radiation oncologists, and
about the US, not anywhere else.
Do you read any credible sources?
Whoops, silly me, of course not!
Five Cats
serve.co.uk> writes
>
>"Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
>news:VCvi7.1357$3x....@news.bc.tac.net...
>
>> AH, that paragon of accuracy, the Daily Mail.
>>
>> Must be true then.
>>
>>
>
>How would you know, you don't live in the UK. At least I hope not.
Those of us who live in the UK do know Steph is spot-on in her (his?)
summary of the Daily Mail.
>
>This is a cancer cure med
>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/SecondOpinion/secondopinion010423.html
One cure for many different diseases? Sounds like snake-oil to me.
>
>john
>
>
--
Five Cats
Kelly
Unfortunately, many of alternative or holistic medicine websites are
bogus...in my opinion.
They don't have any scientific data to prove its effectiveness.
Howevere, some of them are actually effective to help cancer treatment.
I would like to hear if anyone would like to share the knowledge about REAL
"Alternative Medicine or Treatment" here.
Kelly
Peter Corona
unfortunately, the scientific evidence doesn't have much to offer for
many of them. While the argument over what works and doesn't or
rather, what is substantiated and isn't, goes on, people are dying and
they don't feel good about it.
No one wants to go down without a fight, unless they've lived good and
long lives. For them, any alternative is better than no alternative
and the fact is that for many of them, there is not time to wait for
science. They're dying too soon and they're not that kind of
'patient'. They're looking everywhere and at everything, unless they
have been defeated into thinking that there is workability in the
conventional/legalized arena.
So, for those who have cancer that are looking at alternatives,
whether scientifically proven or not, my best wishes to you and may
you find success.
Pete
Kristofer D. Dale
> Howevere, some of them are actually effective to help cancer treatment.
> I would like to hear if anyone would like to share the knowledge about REAL
> "Alternative Medicine or Treatment" here.
Well, Galen Knight's website has a lot of pertinent information for
scientists and general readers alike. It is in need of refinement, but
legal difficulties with corrupt individuals and institutions have slowed
progress on this front. If you don't mind ing a bit of delving, there is
a wealth of cross-referenced information at your disposal. Here's a good
starting point:
http://www.vitaletherapeutics.org/vtlwhatr.htm
--
_o Kristofer Dale,
_ \<,_ ragged individualist,
_____( )/ ( )_____ statistic at large...
p.s. Learn and live, http://www.vitaletherapeutics.org
sheila.yvon
>
> "Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
> news:VCvi7.1357$3x....@news.bc.tac.net...
>
> > AH, that paragon of accuracy, the Daily Mail.
> >
> > Must be true then.
> >
> >
>
> How would you know, you don't live in the UK. At least I hope not.
I live in the UK, john, and the Daily Mail is CRAP. The only good thing
about it is that the pages are just the right size for lining the cat litter
tray.
Alarca
CBI
"Peter Corona" <diame...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1ad78182.01083...@posting.google.com...
>
> No one wants to go down without a fight, unless they've lived good and
> long lives. For them, any alternative is better than no alternative
> and the fact is that for many of them, there is not time to wait for
> science.
This is true if the alternative is to nothing. Taking the alternative to
proven therapy is not wise.
--
CBI, MD
Owen Nieuwenhuyse
The biochemistry is fine by itself, but is does not support any conclusions
about anti-cancer effects.
------
"Kristofer D. Dale" <bare...@plato.nmia.com> wrote in message
news:e1Qj7.9087$Wg1.1...@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com...
SPHINX Technologies
Wyle E. Coyote <wyle_e_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I am happy that we do not routinely radiate patients. Nor does modern
>medicine cause many cases of cancer.
Not immediately, anyway. Usually only some years down the road.
SPHINX Technologies
Bob Franks Sr. <bfr...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
>Bill
> I always believed the theory about our population having more cancer
>because they are living longer, until I visited the French West Indies and
>the US Virgin Islands. At one of the medical schools there, I was informed
>that the people who live on these islands usually live between 100 and 120
>years and there is almost no cancer or other chronic diseases.
> I'm sure there are many theories to explain this but I believe it is
>mostly because of lifestyle and diet. Genetics has been ruled out since
>many of these people migrated from elsewhere.
> What are we doing wrong?
> Bob
We are refining the Hell out of foods to make them last longer on
the store shelves, oblivious to the fact that this processing does
not make those who eat the food last longer.
We are adding preservatives that make the food so unpalatable to
microbes that they run the other way, evidently being smarter than
humans.
We are allowing most farming to be taken over by big agri-businesses,
who don't want to hear about the depletion of soil minerals nor the
expense of using organic farming methods. After all, real PhD scientists
assure them that replacing only the K, Na, and P molecules after the
plants use up a list of maybe 20 or 30 minerals or more, "is sufficient"
and that there is no difference between organically-grown and "scientifically"
fertilized foods. (Meanwhile you can see the symptoms of trace mineral
deficiency right out of the plant pathology textbooks, on produce
throughout your supermarket's produce department.)
We are encouraging the population to make use of a growing list of
drugs and over the counter products that don't kill them outright,
but collectively do stress the body's detoxification capacity and
immune system.
And we are exposing people to a growing power density of electromagnetic
radiation of various sorts whose long-term effects are not really as
well known as the power and cellular phone industry captains would like
you to believe.
There are probably other things we are doing that speed the process
along, but the above are a good start on the list.
-John S.,
Wellesley Hills, MA USA
watchman
One of the MAJOR problems is in refining our grains we remove
the inositol hexaphosphate.. Ip6/phytic acid and this substance
is found in every cell of the body .. but is sorely lacking in
most of us ..
Who loves ya.
Tom
--
Jesus was a Vegetarian! http://www.nucleus.com/watchman
Moses was a Mystic! http://www.nucleus.com/watchman/light.html
Riitta
> > http://www.whale.to/cancer/advice.html
> >
> >
>
> Where, John?
>
> Oh, I see........................
> You were suggesting that your web site has some kind of useful advice?
> But it's all lies, fairy tales and childish misunderstanding.
> You knew that, didn't you?
If you need help in researching alternative therapies for cancer or
other illnesses, try visiting: www.vision4health.com
Tsu Dho Nimh
>Bill
> I always believed the theory about our population having more cancer
>because they are living longer, until I visited the French West Indies and
>the US Virgin Islands. At one of the medical schools there, I was informed
>that the people who live on these islands usually live between 100 and 120
>years and there is almost no cancer or other chronic diseases.
Care to cite your source a little better, like naming the medical
school?
http://www.carec.org/overview_health.htm says this:
"Overall, chronic non-communicable diseases are the leading cause
of death, with heart disease, strokes, diabetes, cancer, and
injuries being among the top causes of death."
And the statement "usually liver" implies an incredible life
expectancy, which is not backed up by any official stats I could
find.
"Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 77.8 years
male: 74.78 years
female: 80.97 years (1998 est.)
Tsu Dho Nimh
When faced with choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
John Kenneth Galbraith
D. C. Sessions
It's true. Take away modern medicine, and most people wouldn't live
long enough to die of cancer.
Michael Sierchio
> It's true. Take away modern medicine, and most people wouldn't live
> long enough to die of cancer.
Not quite. Take away indoor plumbing and modern sanitation, and
most people wouldn't live long enough to die of cancer. They're
responsible for the decrease in adult mortality from infectious
disease in the last 100 years, not modern medicine. Increasing
peoples' lives on average by five years with bypass surgery is
a third-order effect.
Hank Oredson
"Michael Sierchio" <ku...@tenebras.com> wrote in message
news:3B92CB3E...@tenebras.com...
Antibiotics vs. septicimia.
Vaccination (remember measles, polio, et al?)
--
... Hank
Kristofer D. Dale
> I have read some of that. (vitalteraputics)
> The biochemistry is fine by itself, but is does not support any conclusions
> about anti-cancer effects.
Heh, you admit reading "some" of the website. Admittedly, it is a large
and detailed body of information, and could stand some more
organization, especially cross-referencing, but there is sufficient
information presented to indicate a significant breakthrough. What you
choose to do with the information is your business, but making blanket
statements based on your own broadcast ignorance does not indicate an
informed opinion. Your knee-jerk response does not impress me. Care to
elaborate? Constructive criticism is to be lauded and encouraged, when
it is encountered, and I look forward to yours, should you decide to
provide it...
Owen Nieuwenhuyse
It looks feasible, though I am not a microbiologist/biochemist.
I withdraw my earlier comment, though that site could do with a major
tidy-up!
What is vitaltheraputics doing with that information?
Is it possible to synthesise these compounds?
Possibly genetic methods would be appropriate?
You would get knocked down pretty smartly if you proposed injecting
pig extracts into people!
------------
"Kristofer D. Dale" <bare...@plato.nmia.com> wrote in message
news:_YPk7.54293$ub.17...@sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com...
Kristofer D. Dale
> It looks feasible, though I am not a microbiologist/biochemist.
The technology is well defined and carefully studied by inventors Knight
and Scallen, and was awarded dozens of patents world wide:
http://www.vitaletherapeutics.org/vtlgkrsm.htm
> I withdraw my earlier comment, though that site could do with a major
> tidy-up!
> What is vitaltheraputics doing with that information?
Protecting, preserving, and disseminating the work, developing effective
health strategies based on the ramificatons, educating those who are
interested in health, immunity, and environmental quality...
> Is it possible to synthesise these compounds?
Absolutely. The patents are for the synthesis and use, since the
compounds are naturally ocurring, and thus unpatentable...
> Possibly genetic methods would be appropriate?
I am guessing it would be far more costly. The synthetic compound is
quite potent, a single gram can treat millions of patients as I
recall...
> You would get knocked down pretty smartly if you proposed injecting
> pig extracts into people!
It is my understanding that organ extracts come from cattle and hogs,
perhaps sheep. I think anti-venins and vaccine production involve
animals as well, but it took Galen Knight months to extract and purify
even enough compound to characterize it chemically. Researching
therapeutic use was not feasible until the synthesis was developed...
http://www.vitaletherapeutics.org/vtlsyntp.htm
T D Laing
>
> In article <> Wyle E. Coyote <wyle_e_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >I am happy that we do not routinely radiate patients. Nor does modern
> >medicine cause many cases of cancer.
>
> Not immediately, anyway. Usually only some years down the road.
Hmmm...even with a 10% chance of a radiation-induced cancer 10 or 20
years
down the road (and it's not even *that* high--more like 3% or less),
that's
still a 90% chance of not getting a radiation-induced cancer...and still
better than a 100% chance of dying from your original cancer within a
few
years without the treatment. Not that you actually understand that
point, John.
T.
T D Laing
>
> For those suffering from cancer, this is all too serious and
> unfortunately, the scientific evidence doesn't have much to offer for
> many of them. While the argument over what works and doesn't or
> rather, what is substantiated and isn't, goes on, people are dying and
> they don't feel good about it.
Unfortunately Pete, we all die, and it's not too common that we get to
choose
how or when. I've heard hospice workers say that all things considered,
there
are worse ways to die than from cancer, and I would agree with that.
> No one wants to go down without a fight, unless they've lived good and
> long lives. For them, any alternative is better than no alternative
That is precisely the mindset on which the quacks prey, Pete. The quacks
know
this. Throwing hope, money and precious time at anything is not usually
the
best course for any patient. Of course, since most patients who chose
to do
this are dead, we don't have their input.
> and the fact is that for many of them, there is not time to wait for
> science.
What patients need to realize, is that today's scientific/medical
breakthroughs usually benefit tomorrow's patients, not today's. When
they do
benefit today's patients, it's great.
> They're dying too soon and they're not that kind of
> 'patient'. They're looking everywhere and at everything, unless they
> have been defeated into thinking that there is workability in the
> conventional/legalized arena.
Let's inject some realism here: the "conventional" treatments are
"legal"
because they have been shown to work more often than not. The altmeds
so far
haven't bothered to put much effort into demonstrating that their pet
theories
work as well or better--and the testimonial from "Mr. X from Chicago"
doesn't
cut it.
> So, for those who have cancer that are looking at alternatives,
> whether scientifically proven or not, my best wishes to you and may
> you find success.
While I agree with your wishes, keep in mind that "success" rarely comes
from altmed if at all.
T.
Lawrence Silverstein
> "Lawrence Silverstein" <silverstei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2f28e635.01082...@posting.google.com...
> news:<9m984j$l...@dispatch.concentric.net>...
> > > Nonsense. Anybody who's worked on a cancer wing at a hospital in the
> last
> > > 25 years knows that. Lung cancer used to be an automatic death
> sentence,
> > > with very little time. Not so anymore. Breast cancer? Better
> diagnostics
> > > & a variety of chemo choices & better surgical & followup techniques
> have
> > > increased the life span for many people who choose it.
> > >
> > > And if these people follow your plan of treatment -- which is ???? --
> what
> > > is their survival rate then?
> > >
> > > Michele
> > >
> > > Lawrence Silverstein <silverstei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2f28e635.01082...@posting.google.com...
> > > > The lifetime survival rate for cancer treated by surgery, radiotherapy
> > > > and/or chemotherapy has not changed in 70 years: 7-9 %. A true measure
> > > > of effciacy and expertise is performance.
> >
> >
> >
> sooner....try reading!
>
> Lawrence, you're the moron. The lifetime survival rate for people is 0%.
duh...? lifetime implies beginning and end.....91-93% of cancer
patients treated by surgery, radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy die from
their cancers.....
7-9% of cancer patients don't die of cancer...............
murray and lopez.....do the meta-analysis...1,2,3.....
Max
(journal of the AMA) doctor error as one of the main causes of premature
death rating in the first 6 as the primary cause.
Doctors life expectancy - same source, is under 58 years.
Of course we have to die some time, but so many by doctors error.
Scientifically proven medication? A UK leading doctor and head of medical
ethics says Eventually more than 50% of all currently used medications will
prove ineffective and in many cases harmful to the patients.
One of the biggest research programs was tamoxifen. 1983-1995. The
professors heading the research sere dismissed and forbidden from doing
further research, 3 university hospitals similarly discredited and
individual doctors in the trial. that is the biggest and brightest example
of medical research. Figures were massaged to prove effectiveness that was
not there, and reporting and data collection was criticized.
Oncologist Steph tells us Chemo has a 5% success rate, yet we still have
people providing it.
Doctors are giving patient chemo that they know will not work rather than
being honest about the survival chances of patients.(JAMA)
I have lived in 3 countries where deformed people were born (withered arms
etc) following the use of a medically proven drug for pregnant women that
has since had to be withdrawn.
Though we should just get a balance on research.
"T D Laing" <RTL...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3B96DAAE...@telusplanet.net...
Steph
>
> duh...? lifetime implies beginning and end.....91-93% of cancer
> patients treated by surgery, radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy die from
> their cancers.....
> 7-9% of cancer patients don't die of cancer...............
>
> murray and lopez.....do the meta-analysis...1,2,3.....
It's just not true.
About 50% of cancer patients die from their disease.
piet Jansen
People do a lot for that and thalidomide is OK as long as you donot get
pregnant.
--
Rian
I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe
Max <M...@natheal.demon.co.uk> schreef in berichtnieuws
999830435.10488.1...@news.demon.co.uk...
Hank Oredson
"Max" <M...@natheal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:999830435.10488.1...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Just to put your one eyed statements in context according to the JAMA
> (journal of the AMA) doctor error as one of the main causes of premature
> death rating in the first 6 as the primary cause.
> Doctors life expectancy - same source, is under 58 years.
> Of course we have to die some time, but so many by doctors error.
How many?
> Scientifically proven medication? A UK leading doctor and head of medical
> ethics says Eventually more than 50% of all currently used medications will
> prove ineffective and in many cases harmful to the patients.
Which means that roughly 50% will do the job without side effects.
> One of the biggest research programs was tamoxifen. 1983-1995. The
> professors heading the research sere dismissed and forbidden from doing
> further research, 3 university hospitals similarly discredited and
> individual doctors in the trial. that is the biggest and brightest example
> of medical research. Figures were massaged to prove effectiveness that was
> not there, and reporting and data collection was criticized.
Citations please.
> Oncologist Steph tells us Chemo has a 5% success rate, yet we still have
> people providing it.
5% success is better than 0% success.
Just ask some cancer patients.
> Doctors are giving patient chemo that they know will not work rather than
> being honest about the survival chances of patients.(JAMA)
Cite.
> I have lived in 3 countries where deformed people were born (withered arms
> etc) following the use of a medically proven drug for pregnant women that
> has since had to be withdrawn.
You point?
> Though we should just get a balance on research.
And what would that be?
Wyle E. Coyote
> (journal of the AMA) doctor error as one of the main causes of premature
> death rating in the first 6 as the primary cause.
> Doctors life expectancy - same source, is under 58 years.
> Of course we have to die some time, but so many by doctors error.
> Scientifically proven medication? A UK leading doctor and head of medical
> ethics says Eventually more than 50% of all currently used medications
will
> prove ineffective and in many cases harmful to the patients.
Actually, more effective medications will be developed. However, most of the
meds are effective.
> One of the biggest research programs was tamoxifen. 1983-1995. The
> professors heading the research sere dismissed and forbidden from doing
> further research, 3 university hospitals similarly discredited and
> individual doctors in the trial. that is the biggest and brightest example
> of medical research. Figures were massaged to prove effectiveness that was
> not there, and reporting and data collection was criticized.
So what if data were criticized. That is the way science works. For the rest
of the claims, how about real evidence that this is true?
> Oncologist Steph tells us Chemo has a 5% success rate, yet we still have
> people providing it.
We have about a 50% cancer cure (70% for kids). I would say that chemo
works.
> Doctors are giving patient chemo that they know will not work rather than
> being honest about the survival chances of patients.(JAMA)
Citation please (vol and page number(s)).
> I have lived in 3 countries where deformed people were born (withered
arms
> etc) following the use of a medically proven drug for pregnant women that
> has since had to be withdrawn.
That is how science works. Doctors and scientists continue to do studies
the drugs after they are approved. The alternative is to test a drug in
millions of people. Even then, unexpected side effects would appear.
> Though we should just get a balance on research.
>
We should.
All the best,
Wyle
Steph
"Wyle E. Coyote" <wyle_e_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BE55484EB3BC56D8.FCBCFC6D...@lp.airnews.net...
Though it is true that the vast majority of those cures are by surgery and
radiotherapy.
Chemo certainly works for the correct indications.
Lawrence Silverstein
Sorry, all data clearly demonstrate a 1 year survival rate of
52%...not cure....survival......there is no data/evidence supporting a
50% cure rate.... a meta-analysis by richard plotkin, etiologist and
epidemiologist of murray and lopez' work show a "lifetime survival
rate of 7-9%" for cancer....that means 91-93% of patients having
cancer who receive surgery, radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy will die
from cancer......