Is cancer chemotherapy useful?

General scientific debates. Presentations of new technologies (not directly related to renewable energies or biofuels or other themes developed in other sub-sectors) forums).
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 14/02/14, 23:15

sen-no-sen wrote:
Cuicui wrote:Cancer cases are multiplying, word of mouth or computer is working more and more. If we found an effective anti-cancer cure (testimonials in support) it would be very quickly, official medicine or not.

Indeed, there is currently no miracle cure to fight cancer. Like a war, all alternatives, conventional or not, should be considered.
On the other hand some methods are apparently very effective for prevent the development of cancer (example of the method of fire Dr. Gernez), and strangely no big noise in the medical and political circles!

It is indeed to try, even if one criticized Dr Gernez for not citing the cases where his treatment failed.
I read on the Net the fascinating diary of a patient who followed the Breuss diet based on vegetable juice, in particular red beets. I was sorry to read the last message written by ... his widow. I know of the case of terminally ill patients who have been terminated by chemo. What doesn't work for one can work for others. Like you, I think we should try everything and not pillorize certain approaches on the pretext that they clash with our convictions or that they did not work for everyone. The main thing is that everyone can access as much information as possible and make informed decisions.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 15/02/14, 09:45

Cuicui hello
Cancer cases are increasing,

Hence the question: why? At the beginning of the last century, children were exceptionally affected by these cancers, now they are no longer excluded: why?
Our materialist society is more obsessed with the how than with the why when it is on this side that the real answer is found. This is the consequence of the pasteurization of medical thought (and not only).
Two currents were developing at the time of our national "hero" where he saw the microbes responsible for diseases (it was partly true! Today the obsession turned to the virus) and in the same time, hygienism, held the discourse of the priority of the ground (as in homeopathy) on the microbe. It is therefore pasteurism which currently prevails!
word of mouth or computer to computer is working more and more.

Word of mouth is not a science, at most the "Arab phone" with its own distortions and ignorance just as complete as on chemo. When the Internet is a big catch-all where everything and its opposite is there united and which cannot be a determining factor in "choosing" one therapy over another.
If you find an effective anti-cancer remedy (supporting evidence) it would be known very quickly, official medicine or not.

What touching naivety! It's amazing how many times this maxim has gone out to self-justify! We find, in parallel, the discourse allopathy / homeopathy: if homeopathy was effective it would be known And despite the wall established by the system at the orders of the labs, the use of homeopathy is increasingly demanded by patients who are fed up with direct and indirect damage from chemistry, but homeopathy still has over 200 years of age and opposition.
Maybe in 200 years it will be the same for the recognition and the practice of alternative methods! In the meantime, at the current rate, this will cause an additional 30 million deaths… a tinker!
Besides, not all doctors are closed to alternative approaches.

See my previous comment. There is a difference between prescribing an herbal tea, a few fruits, a little vegetable essences and using a complete and unique therapy prohibited by the current system.
However, all the anti-cancer remedies published on the Net and tried by my close circle have been very disappointing.
On what criteria always? Internet is not a benchmark complete and reliable on this subject, it is only a source of information limited to the systems in place and in a manner limited to what can claim to replace it. No doctor will write loud and clear that he did not apply the protocol only recognized in this pathology and therefore the internet is like the tip of the iceberg, the biggest does not appear there.
Then, and this is where the rub is due to lack of knowledge and because the system is thus made: The patients seek treatment as they have been used to it for decades, not a change of life system (except rare exceptions!)
It was not for pleasure that we had to fall back on chemo, a horse remedy but the only one that had a directly visible effectiveness, while waiting to find better.

According to the article quoted, chemo is almost never effective, it is affirmed by shoe sizes recognized in oncology, not by bricolos of district.
But to use a certain speech, it may be due to this placebo effect which works in 30% of cases !?

As well as by John Cairns, Professor of microbiology at Harvard University, who published in 1985, a review in the Scientific American: " Apart from a few rare cancers, it is impossible to detect any improvement by chemotherapy in the mortality of the most important cancers. It has never been established that any cancer can be cured by chemotherapy. "New confirmation from Dr. Albert Braverman, New York hematologist and oncologist, in the Lancet:" Many cancerologists recommend chemotherapy for almost all tumors, with optimism not discouraged by an almost inevitable failure [...] no disseminated neoplasm, incurable in 1975, is not curable today. "(Cf. Cancerology in the 1990s, vol. 337, 1991, p.901). As for Dr. Charles Moertal, cancer specialist at the Mayo Clinic, he admits that: “Our most effective protocols are full of risks and side effects; and after all the patients we have treated have paid this price, only a small fraction is rewarded by a transitional period of incomplete regression of the tumor »

No glop, no glop! : Cry:

Sen no sen hello
Indeed, there is currently no miracle cure to fight cancer.

You put your finger right where it hurts. Indeed, there is no MIRACLE remedy as we would like to believe for vaccines.
The miracle is an awareness of your lifestyle mistakes and the modification of them. Then, and only then, the cancer goes away on its own. So no miracle cure, nor of chemical or pseudo natural grigri coming from the labs which live generously of fear and this superstition. (It reminds of the Inquisition!)

On the other hand, certain methods are apparently very effective in preventing the development of cancer (example of the method of the late Doctor Gernez) and strangely not much noise in medical and political circles!

Effectively, the maximum efficiency is found in prevention (even if I do not share all of the means recommended by Gernez like Beljanski which remain in the system), but the entire population and the medical profession are not not prepared for a radical change in these lifestyles predisposing to cancer (review the experience of DSS for example!)

It is indeed to try, even if one criticized Dr Gernez for not citing the cases where his treatment failed.

Gernez, no more than others, was not a miracle worker, it is as if we reproached the current system for all its failures and there is what and in abundance.
I read on the Net the fascinating diary of a patient who followed the Breuss diet based on vegetable juice, in particular red beets.

It is the typical example of these partial methods which believe in the miracle. This is not enough in itself, it is a whole that needs to be revised in depth, point by point. And particularly all those which are factors favorable to the maintenance, even the aggravation of carcinogenic factors. This "diet" has its consistency in that it recommends products rich in antioxidants which are indeed "anticancer" elements, but which are not enough on their own! It's good to open the drain of the bathtub to empty it, but you also have to close the tap that fills it!
I was sorry to read the last message written by ... his widow.

France has 150.000 widowers, widows, orphans and others. It would be interesting to make a ratio between alternative methods like the one cited and the current system (If you have numbers, I'm a taker!) Otherwise, could you point me to this site to study it?
I know of the case of terminally ill patients who have been terminated by chemo. What doesn't work for one can work for others. Like you, I think we should try everything and not pillorize certain approaches on the pretext that they clash with our convictions or that they did not work for everyone.

This is the typical example of: you must spare the goat and the cabbage But putting them together ... the problem is that it doesn't work and never worked. I understand, however, that faced with this "disease", the individual wants to find a non-lethal solution considering that it is better to have a pierced buoy than no buoy at all, even if the purpose will be the same: drowning!
The main thing is that everyone can access as much information as possible and make informed decisions.

Tell that to the current medical profession and you will see if this knowledge is taken into account. It is a deep illusion to believe that it is enough that another therapeutic or preventive path exists for the system to adhere to it. So, as I said earlier: either you join the system by non-choice and there you take advantage of all the medical arsenal in place, in individuals as in equipment; or you walk outside the nails and there you find yourself alone without any support, neither professional (anyway they are ignorant of what to do!) nor human because more than the patient, it is the family who is afraid and clings to the system in place and is therefore extremely dissuasive and destabilizing for the patient. Hence the rarity, which I mentioned, of those who walk outside the nails and therefore this rarity is necessarily little incentive for the greatest number.
Elementary my dear Watson! :D
0 x
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 15/02/14, 09:50

Janic wrote:It all depends on the organs affected, some are inoperable and apart from radiotherapy, only chemo remains in the current therapeutic arsenal! In addition, this chemo completes surgery which cannot eliminate metastases, for example
Indeed, a few years ago, we systematically operated when possible and supplemented with chemo.
Fortunately, we are no longer there. I know a patient suffering from colon cancer with metastases to the liver and whose tumors have all disappeared after chemotherapy of the Folfox type, without any surgery. Even if this does not explain the appearance of tumors or how to avoid a recurrence, it is still a good result.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 15/02/14, 15:33

Indeed, a few years ago, we systematically operated when possible and supplemented with chemo.
Fortunately, we are no longer there.

Apparently not! I think that if the person (s) concerned had known of another possibility, they might have chosen the other option. (which are not offered to them, we must not lose sight of it) Besides, the near cancers that I mentioned went on the pool table ... like what!
So to see! Attention too sensitive people to abstain!
http://sante.doctissimo.fr/blog/18870-E ... ncer-.html
I know a patient suffering from colon cancer with metastases to the liver and whose tumors have all disappeared after chemotherapy of the Folfox type, without any surgery.
So much the better it could have been so in ... 2% of cancer patients according to the article cited! There are still side effects which are not negligible.

of which: Alopecia
• Anemia
• Canker sores (stomatitis / mucositis)
• Diarrhea
hepatotoxicity
• Hypersensitivity
• Nausea / vomiting
• Bornurotoxicity / neuropathy
• Neutropenia
• Reaction to infusions
• Skin reaction (rash, acne, itching, nail changes and reaction to infusions)
thrombocytopenia
The foot what!
Even if this does not explain the appearance of tumors
It's like the overflow of the bathtub mentioned before! It is fine to mop up the damage caused, if the tap flow is higher than that of the drain, the flood will continue as long as water can flow. Hence the importance of knowing the reasons initiating cancers to end it and that, timidly and very partially, the health authorities begin to put in place after having closed their eyes for decades so as not to overshadow the Business cancer lobbies. (For the record, almost all of the ardent defenders of chemo and the rest were (and still are?) paid by these same labs. We can therefore doubt the professional neutrality of some.)
nor how to avoid a recurrence, it's still a nice result.
It is indeed a beautiful result, it remains only to wait for the almost inevitable recurrence.
0 x
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 15/02/14, 19:22

No one has ever said that chemo is fun! The priority given to chemo rather than surgery is a recent option (which I suspect surgeons may not like too much). The case that I cited dates from last year, and the person concerned was fortunate to have endured his chemo well, which is also always preceded by a pre-medication reducing the side effects. As for recidivism, it is fortunately not systematic, the experience of cancer can lead to an emotional earthquake helping to change many harmful habits and to be more open to positive experiences, to which contributes the concern and understanding of the staff. specially trained caregiver. The emotional causes of cancer are becoming more and more taken into account.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 16/02/14, 08:45

cuicui hello
No one has ever said that chemo is fun!

It would only be missing! It is like the poisons of vaccines that are injected into small children despite their fear and their crying. But there too, the choice is not offered to parents who are kept in a deep ignorance and an illusion on the magic side of this pathological ritual!
The priority given to chemo rather than surgery is a recent option (which I suspect surgeons may not like too much).

The opposite is also true, everyone defends their business.
The case that I cited dates from last year, and the person concerned was fortunate to have endured his chemo well, which is also always preceded by a pre-medication reducing the side effects.

That is to say, it is administered a product that mitigates side effects while providing others (all chemicals have known or unknown side effects). But it's the system, well oiled, that wants that.
Still by comparison, it's like that, to avoid the effects of overflow, you put lots of mops and buckets around the tub. Really effective! : Cheesy: : Cry:
As for recidivism, it is fortunately not systematic, the experience of cancer can lead to an emotional earthquake helping to change many harmful habits and to be more open to positive experiences, to which contributes the concern and understanding of the staff. specially trained caregiver. The emotional causes of cancer are becoming more and more taken into account.

This is partly correct! But we must make a ratio between those who will change certain lifestyle habits (such as quitting smoking among smokers and advising 5 fruits and vegetables per day with each an undeniable potential for effectiveness) and those who will change nothing or very insufficiently , and which are the majority, hence the very high number of fatal recurrences.
Hence this comparison, without significant value nationally and even globally, between my 7 cited cases and yours with return home without changing the tail of one (except tobacco in one case). When the medical profession and nurses are not trained (or very little, it is only to see their courses on dietetics: a few hours!) On the conditions of development of cancers, apart from a few odds and ends.
But then again it is the system that wants this and that is not about to change and chemo (like the rest) still has a bright future ahead of them.

For the record, which can be used as a point of comparison. I just saw a documentary on Africa "the roads of the impossible" on France 5, which shows the deplorable sanitary state which exists there outside the big "rich" cities. What struck me is that for a small nothing at all, a small injury for example or a stomach ache, people travel dozens of km to seek treatment with prescription drugs, coming from rich countries, and that they cannot generally pay (although they cost much less than with us). No more recourse to the "good woman's remedies" of their elders who have proven their effectiveness over dozens of generations (and which, in quotes, the labs come to unearth their oblivion and exploit (and therefore despoil the natives) on the industrial plan for the rich of our countries. The world upside down!
At the same time, despite their very real poverty (given the rags they wear), they have smartphones, manufactured cigarettes on their beaks (developing countries are the new Eldorados of all businesses), in boxes, where the subsistence minimum is not even there, they have television, etc… and vaccinate children often malnourished for pathologies that do not exist in Africa.
This conditioning of these populations only follows the conditioning of our own, where everyone defends with tooth and nail the system which has made their social promotion. It is this psychological conditioning that is the most difficult to question. It's like saying to these Africans " go back to the remedies of yesteryear "While they are convinced that white medicine is the ultimate, that there is nothing above and who" prefer "sepsis, probable death rather than backtrack, despite the launchers who speak in a vacuum.
Remember (depending on your age) the surplus concentrated or powdered milk sent to these countries by dissuading mothers from breastfeeding their children and the health disaster (perhaps wanted and orchestrated by the way!) followed, as it has been and still is for our young women here. The same goes for the countries of the Orient, moreover, where Asia, or South America, is an ocean of business opportunities with high returns! Money, still money, always money !!! : Evil:
0 x
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 16/02/14, 11:33

What seems essential to me is that patients are informed to choose their treatments, whatever they are, knowingly, and not the treatments that others choose for them.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 16/02/14, 17:39

What seems essential to me is that patients are informed to choose their treatments, whatever they are, knowingly, and not the treatments that others choose for them.
I fully agree with that. The problem is that there is no other proposition than that of current medicine which does not come out of its surgery, radiation, chemo. It is therefore not real information, but targeted information. It is like proposing to a death row inmate whether he prefers the electric chair, the hanging, the guillotine or being shot, emphasizing the different advantages of these methods or life imprisonment. With a few exceptions, everyone will choose the slow death that is prison, but that is not freedom. Current methods resemble it by shattering bodies and minds, letting hope of early release emerge.
No glop, no glop! :frown:
So others offer something, a treatment, an operation, etc ... to people who know nothing about it (rarely it is oncologists who are affected) and who have no choice but to say lead to the proposals made by these professionals ... who therefore choose for them. It is a non-choice or an approval by default. Do garage customers have the choice in mechanical interventions on their vehicle when they barely know where the oil dipstick is? At most they say yes or no and if not, risk an accident or final breakdown. In terms of informed choice, we can dream better: no? :?
0 x
User avatar
delnoram
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 1322
Registration: 27/08/05, 22:14
Location: Mâcon-Tournus
x 2




by delnoram » 16/02/14, 18:09

Janic wrote:
No glop, no glop! :frown:


You are not "janic", I unmasked you, you are Pifou.
: Mrgreen:

Image
0 x
"Thinking should not it be taught in school rather than to make learning by heart the facts that are not all proven?"
"It's not because they are likely to be wrong they are right!" (Coluche)
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 6




by Cuicui » 16/02/14, 21:27

Janic wrote:
What seems essential to me is that patients are informed to choose their treatments, whatever they are, knowingly, and not the treatments that others choose for them.
I fully agree with that. The problem is that there is no other proposition than that of current medicine which does not come out of its surgery, radiation, chemo. At most they say yes or no and if not, risk an accident or final breakdown. In terms of informed choice, we can dream better: no? :?
It's amazing: you criticize each proposal because it seems insufficient, but you rarely propose solutions to improve it.
Question: in the event of a sudden invasion of metastases from colon cancer, is criticizing chemo enough to solve the problem?
0 x

Back to "Science and Technology"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 104 guests