It's easy: just try them. If they are ineffective, is seen here quickly.Janic wrote:There he would prove it by demonstrating the inefficiency of other methods and it is not a foregone conclusion!Nobody says otherwise. The problem is precisely the case where only the aggressive treatments are effective.
Soursop, Graviola fruit, powerful anti cancer?
0 x
cuicui hello
If only it were that simple: "you have cancer? then you try snake oil and hop it will disappear ! "How many would believe it, then how many would try it when the Grim Reaper waves his instrument?
Only some convinced or desperate dare to go in the opposite direction of the train. Do you know about it yourself? I, among the cases that I know or have known: NO!
It's been nearly half a century I hear (we hear) the same speech: " natural methods, homeopathy and others, it's just good for minor injuries, but in serious cases such as cancer, you have to be serious; it can not walk and can not play, for these grandmothers tinkering with the lives of people with"And that's understandable," why so many years of study, pointed scientific work, if the first came funny claims to be better than all our medical " Well ! you seem to react according to this postulate… neo-Pasteurian! I rather react in neo-Bernardian: "the microbe, virus etc ... is nothing, the terrain is everything"
It's easy: just try them. If they are ineffective, is seen here quickly.
If only it were that simple: "you have cancer? then you try snake oil and hop it will disappear ! "How many would believe it, then how many would try it when the Grim Reaper waves his instrument?
Only some convinced or desperate dare to go in the opposite direction of the train. Do you know about it yourself? I, among the cases that I know or have known: NO!
It's been nearly half a century I hear (we hear) the same speech: " natural methods, homeopathy and others, it's just good for minor injuries, but in serious cases such as cancer, you have to be serious; it can not walk and can not play, for these grandmothers tinkering with the lives of people with"And that's understandable," why so many years of study, pointed scientific work, if the first came funny claims to be better than all our medical " Well ! you seem to react according to this postulate… neo-Pasteurian! I rather react in neo-Bernardian: "the microbe, virus etc ... is nothing, the terrain is everything"
0 x
I'm glad you're with me. As for alternatives, nothing prevents use them in conjunction with chemo. If there is a more rapid improvement than with chemo alone is that they are effective. No need to ask doctor's permission for that. One can even later try without chemo, not too long not to put his life in danger if here would not work, but still enough to give time to act to treatment.Janic wrote:the microbe, virus etc ... is nothing, the terrain is everything
0 x
I'm glad you're with me.
With some nuances that differentiate us since you are supporter of chemo, I (we) I consider this as not only unnecessary, but also dangerous, the proof is: 150.000 deaths per year!
As for alternatives, nothing prevents use them in conjunction with chemo
That's where all the illusion. Indeed the human machine is like a mechanical machine. The body of the maximum capacity (except over-exploit mechanisms as is done with doping and stimulants) and thus we can not do with 110 100%%. So where all the forces of the body will be used for the fight against the abnormal cells; or they will have to be shared between repair and fight against the toxic chemo and everything else. Clearly, one can not be in the field and at the fair at the same time.
If there is a more rapid improvement than with chemo alone is that they are effective.
Always illusory because the individual concerned may try one after the other the most specific complementary means to be used (see ever experienced Schreiber) who himself was REALLY doctor. By cons, in fact, the use of additional resources such as products rich in antioxidants, fasting, etc ... will improve the general condition and facilitate faster recovery of the patient.
No need to ask the doctor's permission for that.
Not necessarily ! some means could have adverse effects to those sought if there are other conditions the patient as diabetes, for example. Then each "soft" technique must be specific to the case that presents the therapist and always according to this feedback.
One can even later try without chemo, not too long not to put his life in danger if here would not work, but still enough to give time to act to treatment.
Your caution is understandable when it is for a person not willing to change lifestyle. But if the chemo stage is past, there is no particular precaution since the first phase is (in naturopathy, not in allopathy) to eliminate poisons chemo accumulated in the body, so a deep drainage. Then there are the main rules (for those who do not want to relapse sooner or later) sanitarianism that will keep the body out of the favorable conditions for the emergence of any cancer.
Here is a concrete example that I lived as cited in my book:
I had a colleague, a bit gruff, whose motto was retired and it was not far beyond. He thought only of what he might do when at last there would be. Then one day absence from work and the new grave: advanced cancer; So hospitalization and treatment. I abhor hospitals and give me that duress, so I did spot went but I had regularly (via my colleagues) new, grim course of his state was getting worse. Then one day I announced them "It will pull "Amazement, indignation, anger" We do not play with that, it's disgusting to say this, etc ... "" You'll see »
Indeed some time later, our man out of the hospital to the surprise, with dazzling form, full of new projects for this retreat which he can finally enjoy after what just happened to him.
During a visit, that he comes to work, I exchange some words with him, some questions about the way of life that he intends to adopt, and in the knowledge of his answers I announce to my colleagues: " He will die soon". Again outcries of protest, indignation, anger "We do not play with that, it's disgusting to say this, etc. "And actually, some time later, relapse and subsequent death.
I did not know what kind of cancer he had, I did not know what treatment was his (even if I knew it would not have been important, I already said I'm not a doctor), I knew also the little hope the doctors had of his fate. How did I know he would get away with it and how would he relapse? Announce a relapse is not rocket science; all doctors know that after a remission (this is what we call an illusory cure) a relapse is often frequent and sometimes fatal, but how can we know that there would be a remission when everything indicated the opposite? It was more difficult. In the same way I could have announced a total remission if it had had for project to modify his way of life, which we will see by approaching this disease just now. (It's not about magic or divination, but it's the result of observation, listening, common sense, some reading and experiences, unfortunately, unofficial.)
0 x
I am in favor of all effective treatments. I in no departs for ideological reasons.Janic wrote: you're a fan of chemo
If you see a patient leave the hosto at the end of his day chemo (quilting and perf) reeling, nausea, blurred vision, head buzzing unwell, ready to do anything to escape this disgusting state, you understand that we accept this treatment in desperation because so far nothing else is working and that the ACE markers (colon cancer) climbed inexorably.
If the body had to fight both against the chemo and against cancer, all patients under chemo die instead of healing. Why not mention the number of cancer deaths after refusing chemo?
Everyone is free to choose the appropriate treatment to his beliefs. Regular exams to check which way is changing the health status to measure the effectiveness of treatment. Obviously I call my wishes alternative treatments less painful and as effective as chemo.
0 x
Janic wrote:
you're a fan of chemo
I support what works. For this it is essential to try the most possible treatment.
An atomic bomb as it works and is effective, it stopped the war with Japan was that the best and only solution?
If you saw a patient out of his day to the hospital after the tapping session and perf, staggering nausea, blurred vision, head buzzing unwell, ready to do anything to escape this disgusting state, you understand that we accept this treatment in desperation because so far nothing else is working and that the ACE markers (colon cancer) climbed inexorably.
Unfortunately, even with the chemo, you have the same kind of case (I heard a nurse of the cancer pavilion without drugs, administered daily, people with certain cancers howl of pain). But again you speak of persons subject to the system which led to the development of cancer and therefore "care" that is in the system too and rarely has the audacity (or madness) to break with it.
But I spoke of parallel systems whose effectiveness has been demonstrated by those who used it. It goes without saying that for the rest of the population, it has little choice as I have repeatedly said before, so it's like comparing goats and cabbages.
according to my observations, the chemo is effective if the immune system is still functional enough and works. But if the chemo gun the immune system, it greatly loses its effectiveness and the patient is likely to suffer for nothing.
It's obvious !
The idea that the body is forced to fight both against the chemo is against the cancer seems to be more a matter of belief than fact,
And yet this is the case, verified by the experience; again this is simply common sense. The immune system starts when a foreign body enters a body. So unless it is offset by immunocompromission (and to my knowledge this is the case for chemo) this foreign product will be neutralized by the immune system and therefore little or no chemo.
otherwise patients on chemo die systematically instead of healing.
Absolutely not ! If taking dangerous products should systematically lead to death there would hardly live on this earth. Life has incredible resources and humans are "hard skin". And see those which were irradiated and survive for years in spite of the damage caused. The media treat people who have consumed toxic products like Pick and yet, despite the high number of people having taken, deaths are minimal.
Then yes ! taking one or more toxic it is not necessarily fatal, but they do not pass without doing damage sometimes irreversible.
You do not cites the number of cancer patients died after refusing chemo.
You would be hard, too, to quote any figures because they must be rare, thus they certainly do not reach the prodigious number of 150.000 per year ! (what would it look like if there were 150.000 killed on the roads? We would treat the authorities as incompetent)
Everyone is free to choose the appropriate treatment to his beliefs. It seems to me prudent to have regular tests to check which direction changing health status.
Here we agree! This is actually a question of faith in this as in so many others. However I do not question the fact of getting to regular reviews as others do for diabetes, vascular or other problems. It is not useful diagnostic that is involved, but the aggressive care facilities used instead of softer means and as or more effective.
0 x
Janic wrote: the next I should do if I see it, is as old as the world: God, aliens, black holes, etc ...
Sorry, I do not see the connection.
My conclusion from all this is that any verifiable information is welcome. As regards my health, I think I can experiment on my own.
With that, I leave the last word Janic.
A+
0 x
Back to "Health and Prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental risks "
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 254 guests