alternative cancer remedies
peter
this site www.cancershield.net and give me your opinion
J
> any one intersted in alternative and holistic remedies for cancer view
> this site www.cancershield.net and give me your opinion
Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
- Gene "spaf" Spafford, 1992
Waterspider
"J" <xyewsnswex@nalid;"no> wrote in message
news:4BF763B7...@execulink.com...
peter
> peter wrote:
> > any one intersted in alternative and holistic remedies for cancer view
>
> Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
> difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
> mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
> - Gene "spaf" Spafford, 1992
Thanks for your constructive critism. I am a stage four lymphoma
cancer survivor,liver cirrhosis and infective hepatitis b with viral
loads above 200million copies. Today I am cancer free, my viral load
is undetectable and the progression of liver cirrhosis stopped only
with alternative remedies.My recovery memoir is at http://livershield.net/id13.html
. I give grace to God and I am a testament that conventional remedies
treat cancer as a disease while neglecting its cause- oxygen
deficiency. It is a bear on a spining wheel approach. Thanks for your
critique. This is the beauty of democracy, America and freedom of
expression. Upon My recovery I aquired Doctorates degrees in Natural
Health and a doctor of philosophy in Nutrition from the Clayton
College Of Natural Health. I am a Doctor Of Optometry by conventional
education. I just want my experience to help others who needless
suffer from the adberse reations of conventional medicine
Thanks for you critique.
Waterspider
"peter" <poya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d33cfd6-2e1e-40b8...@u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for you critique.
For someone with all that education, you seem to have a big problem with the
English language. Just sayin.
peter
> "peter" <poyakh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3d33cfd6-2e1e-40b8...@u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
> On May 22, 12:55 am, J <xyewsnswex@nalid;"no> wrote:
>
> > peter wrote:
> > > any one intersted in alternative and holistic remedies for cancer view
>
> > Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
> > difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
> > mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
> > - Gene "spaf" Spafford, 1992
>
> Thanks for your constructive critism. I am a stage four lymphoma
> cancer survivor,liver cirrhosis and infective hepatitis b with viral
> loads above 200million copies. Today I am cancer free, my viral load
> is undetectable and the progression of liver cirrhosis stopped only
> . I give grace to God and I am a testament that conventional remedies
> treat cancer as a disease while neglecting its cause- oxygen
> deficiency. It is a bear on a spining wheel approach. Thanks for your
> critique. This is the beauty of democracy, America and freedom of
> expression. Upon My recovery I aquired Doctorates degrees in Natural
> Health and a doctor of philosophy in Nutrition from the Clayton
> College Of Natural Health. I am a Doctor Of Optometry by conventional
> education. I just want my experience to help others who needless
> suffer from the adberse reations of conventional medicine
>
> Thanks for you critique.
>
> For someone with all that education, you seem to have a big problem with the
> English language. Just sayin.
Thank you once again for your constructive crititism
Napoleon
cancer? I don't get it. It's not like conventional cancer treatment is
doing oh so well.
Think about it. All research ongoing in cancer treatment is
alternative. Anything new is alternative. That's why it's called
research - to find something better, a better alternative, to the
current treatment. If the current treatment was so great, there
wouldn't be any more cancer research.
I just get so frustrated with people who won't keep their minds open
to other alternatives - even those outside the medical establishment
(the horrors!).
Read last week's Newsweek article about the search for medical cures
and why it's no longer working. Cancer research and treament has
everything to do with money and nothing to do with treating/or curing
anyone.
Let the flames begin.....
CSM
Things like angiogenesis inhibitors start as alternative, with extreme
resistance from the conventional community, only to become
conventional once they're proven effective. It would be much more
productive if the conventional community were more open to rational,
objective testing of new ideas. Unfortunately, that's also part of
the problem from the other end. The alternative medicine community
comes up with so many goofy ideas, it's prohibitively expensive to
attempt to test them all. Rather than provide objective testing, the
alt folks themselves go for anecdotal evidence, and all too often,
outright lies. This is a pretty solid sign that they're not being
rational or scientific. So essentially, what you have is a group of
irrational, often fraudulent snake oil salesmen and their cult
following on one side, and a group of closed-minded, entrenched big
pharma reps with their acolytes on the other. There are probably a
few honest people in there somewhere, trying to push viable
alternative treatments. Unfortunately, they're lost in the noise.
---
CSM
Napoleon
wrote:
>So essentially, what you have is a group of
>irrational, often fraudulent snake oil salesmen and their cult
>following on one side, and a group of closed-minded, entrenched big
>pharma reps with their acolytes on the other. There are probably a
>few honest people in there somewhere, trying to push viable
>alternative treatments. Unfortunately, they're lost in the noise.
Exactly. So both sides want money, nothing more. In the end, medical
cures/treatments stagnate and patients lose. Therefore, as a cancer
patient go with what you feel is right for you - whether it is the
"alternative treatments of the medical establishment" or the
"alternative treatments of the snake oil salesmen (I hate that term)"
In the end, it's pretty much the same thing. Just depends on what side
effects you want and how much it costs you. And that's pretty sad in
this day and age.
CSM
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 07:11:33 -0700 (PDT), CSM <csm7...@hotmail.com>
I really want to argue with you, and maybe toss around some abuse in
the proper Usenet style, but you're not leaving a lot of room. OK,
two points of contention:
1: while the conventional treatment isn't all ponies and ice cream, it
*is* much more likely to kill off or at least slow down the spread of
cancer. The track record of the snake oil salesmen is abysmal.
2. I really *like* the term "snake oil salesmen", for its historical
reference. These guys selling wacky cancer treatments are so like the
frauds who used to tour the country selling mixes of alcohol and
random junk, claiming it was snake oil or other exotic ingredients
that would cure all ills. And it works (the sales technique, not the
oil)! P. T. Barnum would have to adjust his numbers for today, but
otherwise was right on the money.
---
CSM
Oh, and p.s. your father was a hamster and your mother smelled of
elderberries
Waterspider
"CSM" <csm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5b4c0d93-b783-483b...@e28g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
---
CSM
My big beef with snakeoil "alternative" treatments is the pitch that they
will cure cancer. So, in some cases, people die prematurely because they
dismiss conventional treatment that most likely would have cured them.
Alternative cancer treatment is NOT the same as conventional treatment.
Early stage NSC lung cancer is usually curable by surgery, but not having
the surgery in favour of drinking asparagus juice every morning is a
guaranteed dire prognosis. Early stage breast cancer is usually curable by
chemotherapy, but refusing chemo in favour of taking Essiac is a guaranteed
dire prognosis. And so on.
I agree that it "just depends on what side effects you want and how much it
costs you," but you must acknowledge that, with alternative treatment, your
cost and side effect is most likely premature death. Also remember that
death by cancer will be no more pleasant if you go the alternative treatment
route.
And, I agree that it is your choice, even if it's a stupid choice.
peter
> "CSM" <csm7...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
In 1874, Dr. Andrew Still in Missouri proposed that illness was caused
by stagnation of vital bodily functions. He believed that when we
stimulate the lymphatic and cardiovascular systems and eliminate
sluggishness, most illness will be eradicated. Just like stagnant
water will cause destructive sedimentation and corrosion to its
container, stagnation and a sedentary lifestyle will cause organ
degeneration. Proponent of orthodox medicine pounced on him and his
osteopathic colleagues and put them in jail for their convictions. How
wrong were they? Today doctors of osteopathic medicines have become
household names in the American medicine.
Waterspider
Oh, silly me. Guess if I'd spent more time jogging I wouldn't have cancer
today.
Other than that, what's your point?
J
>
> My big beef with snakeoil "alternative" treatments is the pitch that they
> will cure cancer. So, in some cases, people die prematurely because they
> dismiss conventional treatment that most likely would have cured them.
>
> Alternative cancer treatment is NOT the same as conventional treatment.
> Early stage NSC lung cancer is usually curable by surgery, but not having
> the surgery in favour of drinking asparagus juice every morning is a
> guaranteed dire prognosis. Early stage breast cancer is usually curable by
> chemotherapy, but refusing chemo in favour of taking Essiac is a guaranteed
> dire prognosis. And so on.
Early stage breast cancer is usually curable by surgery, not chemo.
J
Napoleon
wrote:
>Alternative cancer treatment is NOT the same as conventional treatment.
>Early stage NSC lung cancer is usually curable by surgery, but not having
>the surgery in favour of drinking asparagus juice every morning is a
>guaranteed dire prognosis. Early stage breast cancer is usually curable by
>chemotherapy, but refusing chemo in favour of taking Essiac is a guaranteed
>dire prognosis. And so on.
I don't believe cancer is "curable." Put in remission for long periods
of time before you die of it or something else, yes, but curable - no.
Until we find ways to stop cell mutation - cancer is not curable, just
treatable. Just like HIV or diabetes. I think the medical
establishment's search for a "cure" does a disservice to cancer
patients. The search should be for treating the disease well enough so
you don't die of it. Can cancer ever be eradicated like polio?
Probably not, at least with the current state of medical research.
>I agree that it "just depends on what side effects you want and how much it
>costs you," but you must acknowledge that, with alternative treatment, your
>cost and side effect is most likely premature death. Also remember that
>death by cancer will be no more pleasant if you go the alternative treatment
>route.
Who's to say? Some alternative treatments work for people, some don't.
Some conventional treatments work for people, some don't. Some people
live with cancer for decades with no treatment. It's all individual to
that person's immune system and genetic makeup. Who knows why one
person's immune system is boosted by a certain treatment to keep the
cancer in check and another person's isn't? One thing I do know is
that the immune system is the key component in fighting cancer, and
conventional treatments go out of their way in destroying the immune
system. Just my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.
CSM
> On Tue, 25 May 2010 19:16:49 GMT, "Waterspider" <nos...@all.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Alternative cancer treatment is NOT the same as conventional treatment.
> >Early stage NSC lung cancer is usually curable by surgery, but not having
> >the surgery in favour of drinking asparagus juice every morning is a
> >guaranteed dire prognosis. Early stage breast cancer is usually curable by
> >chemotherapy, but refusing chemo in favour of taking Essiac is a guaranteed
> >dire prognosis. And so on.
>
> I don't believe cancer is "curable." Put in remission for long periods
> of time before you die of it or something else, yes, but curable - no.
> Until we find ways to stop cell mutation - cancer is not curable, just
> treatable. Just like HIV or diabetes. I think the medical
> establishment's search for a "cure" does a disservice to cancer
> patients. The search should be for treating the disease well enough so
> you don't die of it. Can cancer ever be eradicated like polio?
> Probably not, at least with the current state of medical research.
I agree, up to a point. The medical establishment *is* working at
improving treatments. The drugs, surgery methods, and even radiation
just keep getting better. The protocol I was on had a 65% survival
rate at 5 years, vs. 50% for the previous protocol. That's a whopping
30% improvement! The surgery I had was *far* less invasive than
earlier approaches. Detection methods are also getting better, so
cancer is diagnosed before it's a lost cause. While part of the
conventional crowd searches for a cure for one or another cancer,
other parts are working on treatment.
> >I agree that it "just depends on what side effects you want and how much it
> >costs you," but you must acknowledge that, with alternative treatment, your
> >cost and side effect is most likely premature death. Also remember that
> >death by cancer will be no more pleasant if you go the alternative treatment
> >route.
>
> Who's to say? Some alternative treatments work for people, some don't.
Any alternative treatment that can be shown to work (actually tested
in a controlled, scientific study) becomes conventional medicine.
Dara O'Briain had a lot to say about this, and largely on target.
> Some conventional treatments work for people, some don't. Some people
> live with cancer for decades with no treatment. It's all individual to
> that person's immune system and genetic makeup. Who knows why one
> person's immune system is boosted by a certain treatment to keep the
> cancer in check and another person's isn't? One thing I do know is
> that the immune system is the key component in fighting cancer, and
> conventional treatments go out of their way in destroying the immune
> system. Just my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.
Conventional treatments damage the immune system as a side effect, not
as part of the plan. This is sort of like using a shotgun to kill a
fly, and having to put up with the holes in the wall. One way cancer
cells distinguish themselves is through fast growth, so many drugs
target any cells that grow fast, which includes blood cell
generation. My oncologist encouraged me to take supplements (and
prescribed a drug) to enhance my immune system. One treatment the
"convention" crowd developed as an alternative/adjunct involved giving
the body's immune system a boost to attack the cancer cells. I've
lost track, so I don't know how well that tested out, but it made a
lot of sense.
---
CSM
Old Bill
On May 26, 7:12 am, Napoleon <ana...@666yes.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2010 19:16:49 GMT, "Waterspider" <nos...@all.com>
> wrote:
> [Edited for brevity]
Conventional treatments damage the immune system as a side effect, not
as part of the plan. This is sort of like using a shotgun to kill a
fly, and having to put up with the holes in the wall. One way cancer
cells distinguish themselves is through fast growth, so many drugs
target any cells that grow fast, which includes blood cell
generation. My oncologist encouraged me to take supplements (and
prescribed a drug) to enhance my immune system. One treatment the
"convention" crowd developed as an alternative/adjunct involved giving
the body's immune system a boost to attack the cancer cells. I've
lost track, so I don't know how well that tested out, but it made a
lot of sense.
---
CSM
I like the sound of your oncoloist,CSM, I really do.
Here is an amusing anecdote which might interest you/
In February last year I developed a chest cough which
would not go away.I believe I know the cause, raw garlic
which is a cleansing herb and which I had been taking
every night.
I was due to see my doctor for an annual review,and
promised my wife I would tell him about the cough.
"Have you ever smoked" "Yes but I gave it up 40
years ago"
. "How long have you had this cough?" "Two or three
weeks".
"I want you to go straight to the hospital for an X-Ray,
and take this prescription for anti-biotics."
" I don't want anti-biotics,thank you" "Why not?"
"They will impair my immune system"
He gave a dismissive wave. Ah the dismissice wave!
Beware the Dissmissive Wave .
What does it mean? It means "I am the Great Panjandrum"
"This will not impair your immune system."
Anyhow I came back at him."Doctor I've got this gammopathy
which the haematologist is monitoring .So far I've held the line
but if I my immune system fails I'm for it".
He was silent for a while and then. "I've got to cover myself".
So I took my anti biotics. Shortly afterwaeds my GP retired.
Later I had to give blood for haematology.My paraprotein
M-spike marker had risen by an alarming 72%.
All I wanted was some cough drops/
Your oncologist seems to be an open minded positive thinker
who evidently would not pull a stunt like that
.I would be interested to know the supplememnts you are taking
If you would be so kind.
Old Bill
J
> Here is an amusing anecdote which might interest you/
> In February last year I developed a chest cough which
> would not go away.I believe I know the cause, raw garlic
> which is a cleansing herb and which I had been taking
> every night.
> I was due to see my doctor for an annual review,and
> promised my wife I would tell him about the cough.
> [..] Anyhow I came back at him."Doctor I've got this
> gammopathy
> which the haematologist is monitoring .So far I've held the line
> but if I my immune system fails I'm for it".
>
> He was silent for a while and then. "I've got to cover myself".
> So I took my anti biotics. Shortly afterwaeds my GP retired.
>
> Later I had to give blood for haematology.My paraprotein
> M-spike marker had risen by an alarming 72%.
>
> All I wanted was some cough drops/
Garlic affects the blood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garlic
Thanks for confirming it is still MGUS (gammopathy), not myeloma.
Cough drops are available at drug stores, if that is what is needed.
GPs rely too much on X-rays to assess such problems and antibiotivs -"job done,
next patient please"
Asking the right questions takes up too much of their time.
J
Napoleon
>GPs rely too much on X-rays to assess such problems and antibiotivs -"job done,
>next patient please"
>Asking the right questions takes up too much of their time.
I find that with all doctors, especially "specialists." You have to do
your own research, unfortunately, doctors are not going to do it for
you (real life is not like the TV show "House"). I usually bring in a
pad of paper with questions written on it and then write down
everything they say. I even ask them to spell certain terms (which
pisses them off). Then I go look up the research myself.
Anyways, I've heard of more research into cancer, including a virus
possibly causing inflammatory breast cancer, and looking into boosting
the immune system to fight cancer. It's always been obvious to me that
cancers are caused by primary three ways: virus, trauma, genetics.
It's also always been obvious to me that the immune system is the way
to fight cancer. Lymph nodes spread cancer, lymph nodes are part of
your immune system.
When will cancer research look at what causes the cells to mutate
instead of how to kill the mutated cells (which won't stop new cells
from mutating later on)? Maybe in my lifetime? Probably not.
Old Bill
"J" <xyewsnswex@nalid;"no> wrote in message
| Old Bill wrote:
|
| | >
| > Later I had to give blood for haematology.My paraprotein
| > M-spike marker had risen by an alarming 72%.
| >
| > All I wanted was some cough drops/
|
| Garlic affects the blood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garlic
| Thanks for confirming it is still MGUS (gammopathy), not myeloma.
| J
|
I did not say I still have gammopathy,
Old Bill
J
Oh, good (I think).
"The level of the spike is important, because older people may show low
levels of a spike without having myeloma"
http://www.fmh.org/oncology.cfm?id=59
Immunoglobulins: Immunoglobulins are antibodies, which are blood proteins
normally made by immune system cells to help fight germs. There are several
types of immunoglobulins, including IgA, IgG, IgD, and IgM. Bone marrow
cancers such as multiple myeloma and Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia often
result in too many immunoglobulins in the blood (as well as in the urine).
A high level of immunoglobulins may indicate the presence of one of these
diseases.
There are normally many different immunoglobulins in the blood, with each
one differing very slightly from the others. A classic sign in patients
with myeloma or macroglobulinemia is that all the globulins are alike (that
is, they are monoclonal). This can be seen on a test called protein
electrophoresis, which separates the globulins by electrical current. With
myeloma or macroglobulinemia, the globulins (also called monoclonal proteins
or M proteins) stick together and form a monoclonal "spike" (M spike) on the
readout of the test. The level of the spike is important, because older
people may show low levels of a spike without having myeloma or
macroglobulinemia. The diagnosis, however, must be confirmed by a biopsy of
the bone marrow.
Immunoglobulin levels can also be followed over time to help determine how
well treatment is working.
It's also useful in heart diagnostics ?
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/classic/articlerender.cgi?artid=1091452
Cardiomyopathic disorders are associated with predominantly systolic or
diastolic dysfunction, or with both. In hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, which
is initially associated with predominant diastolic dysfunction,26 we
recently reported increased concentrations of cTnT in 50% of patients during
the non-dilated phase of the disease, when systolic function was preserved,
and in the absence of ischaemia.27 Some patients had increased cTnT
concentrations persisting over several years of follow up, during which
fractional shortening and intraventricular septum thickness decreased
significantly. These observations indicate that cTnT is a marker of myocyte
injury in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. In a univariate
analysis, Dispenzieri and colleagues found cTnT, cTnI, septal thickness,
left ventricular ejection fraction, urine M spike, age, and symptoms of
congestive heart failure to be significant predictors of overall survival in
patients with cardiac amyloidosis, while in multivariate analysis, the
detection of cTnT was the most reliable predictor.28"
So when was the cough happening? Lying down?
Still a problem?
J
CSM
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 03:06:04 -0400, J <xyewsnswex@nalid;"no> wrote:
> >GPs rely too much on X-rays to assess such problems and antibiotivs -"job done,
> >next patient please"
> >Asking the right questions takes up too much of their time.
>
> I find that with all doctors, especially "specialists." You have to do
> your own research, unfortunately, doctors are not going to do it for
> you (real life is not like the TV show "House"). I usually bring in a
> pad of paper with questions written on it and then write down
> everything they say. I even ask them to spell certain terms (which
> pisses them off). Then I go look up the research myself.
Wow, I *really* lucked out. Not only my onc, but my gp, and some
specialists as well, seem very happy to have me know as much as I can
about my body, and any problems with it. I also write things down,
though more to remember what questions to ask, and I don't ask
spellings. When something seems counter-intuitive, I ask for
clarification.
> Anyways, I've heard of more research into cancer, including a virus
> possibly causing inflammatory breast cancer, and looking into boosting
> the immune system to fight cancer. It's always been obvious to me that
> cancers are caused by primary three ways: virus, trauma, genetics.
By "trauma", do you mean things like chemical and radiological damage
to the cells?
> It's also always been obvious to me that the immune system is the way
> to fight cancer. Lymph nodes spread cancer, lymph nodes are part of
> your immune system.
>
> When will cancer research look at what causes the cells to mutate
> instead of how to kill the mutated cells (which won't stop new cells
> from mutating later on)? Maybe in my lifetime? Probably not.
I think they're looking at both sides of the problem, but treatments
are focused on the latter. You may notice that the medical
establishment has come up with a lot of lifestyle recommendations
(avoid excessive sun exposure, don't smoke, reduce consumption of
certain foods) to encourage people to reduce risks. Also, there's
been progress on testing for some genetic predispositions, so we'll
know who needs more active monitoring to catch cancer earlier. And
don't forget the big campaign on the viral front. Once you have
cancer, the main goal is to kill it; then you can get back to reducing
risks.
---
CSM
CSM
<snip>
>
> I like the sound of your oncoloist,CSM, I really do.
> Here is an amusing anecdote which might interest you/
> In February last year I developed a chest cough which
> would not go away.I believe I know the cause, raw garlic
> which is a cleansing herb and which I had been taking
> every night.
> I was due to see my doctor for an annual review,and
> promised my wife I would tell him about the cough.
> "Have you ever smoked" "Yes but I gave it up 40
> years ago"
> . "How long have you had this cough?" "Two or three
> weeks".
> "I want you to go straight to the hospital for an X-Ray,
> and take this prescription for anti-biotics."
> " I don't want anti-biotics,thank you" "Why not?"
> "They will impair my immune system"
This sent alarm bells off for me. Prescribing antibiotics as a sort
of cure-all is dangerous and antiquated practice. Even assuming that
it does you no direct harm, it increases the risk of additional
antibiotic-resistant diseases. I'm glad your doctor retired, even if
it was a decade or two late.
> He gave a dismissive wave. Ah the dismissice wave!
> Beware the Dissmissive Wave .
> What does it mean? It means "I am the Great Panjandrum"
> "This will not impair your immune system."
>
> Anyhow I came back at him."Doctor I've got this gammopathy
> which the haematologist is monitoring .So far I've held the line
> but if I my immune system fails I'm for it".
>
> He was silent for a while and then. "I've got to cover myself".
> So I took my anti biotics. Shortly afterwaeds my GP retired.
I wouldn't have taken the antibiotics at that point. In fact, I think
I'd have changed doctors.
> Later I had to give blood for haematology.My paraprotein
> M-spike marker had risen by an alarming 72%.
>
> All I wanted was some cough drops/
>
> Your oncologist seems to be an open minded positive thinker
> who evidently would not pull a stunt like that
> .I would be interested to know the supplememnts you are taking
> If you would be so kind.
My surgeon recommended the supplements, Visalus, and my onc said "no
problem". This is sold through a MLM setup (beware attempts to suck
you into the business), but I had no problems just ordering it to be
delivered. I'm not sure how much difference it would have made to
have just followed a regimen like in one of those books like _Shed Ten
Years in Ten Weeks__ or Atkins (the supplement part, not the whole
deal) or similar. The advantage was that it came all prepackaged. It
may have made no difference in my progress, but I did a lot better
than my onc expected, whether due to being in great shape, taking
supplements, keeping as active as possible through treatment, or some
combination of these and/or other factors.
---
CSM
Napoleon
wrote:
>By "trauma", do you mean things like chemical and radiological damage
>to the cells?
Yes. But also just plain "trauma" as in you fall down and incur
injury. My father's lymphoma started in his shoulder after he fell
down ice skating and broke it. Then 15 years later after he took an
airplane flight, where his ears popped, his lymphoma returned in that
area. Trauma to the cells. Which is why the current treatments of
radiation and chemotherapy may cause as much cancer as they treat. It
is also why surgeons, when excising cancerous tumors, are careful
about the surrounding tissue, in order not to cause more trauma and
spread the cancer cells. Just my opinion, for what it's worth.
CSM
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 07:46:27 -0700 (PDT), CSM <csm7...@hotmail.com>
Thanks for the explanation. I think however that two reasons surgeons
are careful about excision are that they want to be sure to get clear
margins, and they don't want to let additional cancer cells into the
area. I have a friend who had very early breast cancer, that should
have needed simple surgery. Unfortunately, her surgeon wasn't as
careful as he should have been, and dropped part of the tumor while
removing it. She then had to have chemo, in case some had escaped.
In my case, the surgeon put a bag in my abdomen, and sealed the tumor
(with good margins) in the bag before attempting to remove it.
As for the treatments causing as much cancer as they treat, I think
that's a slight exaggeration, but close to the unfortunate reality.
In any case, the cancer they cause is in the future, and I think part
of the success of treatment is due to the fact that people will die of
something else before the ill effects of the treatment kick in,
especially with older patients. I suspect that any treatment that
didn't require lead aprons, toxic spill kits, etc., but was actually
effective, would be jumped on enthusiastically by the medical
community. Unfortunately, all we have that works is cut, burn, and
poison.
---
CSM
md60...@gmail.com
Blue Mystic strain
Also known as “Fruity-licious” in some circles this indica has an 18% THC content and is a 20% Sativa 80% indica cross breed of Blueberry and Northern Lights. A stony, sweet, fruity, top choice indica hard to match for its flavor.
Buy Blue Mystic strain