Is cancer chemotherapy useful?

[Janic]

cuicui hello

Sorry to contradict you. Have you ever tried something without knowing in advance if it will work or not? Many scientific discoveries are due to chance and to the observation capacities of researchers who, however, did not expect it.

Having spent my entire career in a design office, I can certify the opposite! What some believe, again, to be due to chance (with a few rare exceptions) is only a cumulative unconscious knowledge considered by the majority of people to be inapplicable to a particular subject and which we then designate under the term of intuition. (Genus Pantone and other similar cases.)

It takes a lot more courage to try chemo than a less painful alternative method (unless you are maso).

It is not a question of courage, but of the impossibility of being able to envisage another alternative. It is like going to the dentist to have a decayed tooth pulled out, while decay is the result of a long process of degradation including the consumption of industrial sweets elsewhere. As the majority of people are convinced that there are no other solutions, it therefore passes by necessity and obligation on the table ... and continues its consumption of cariogenic sugars .

As far as I am concerned, I was very disappointed with the lack of effectiveness of the alternative treatments tried.

But which ones?
If I had to take stock of what people call alternative treatments, I would also be disappointed.
However, and this is where all the difference is, it is not in terms of treatment (reference to the current system of medicine which only reasons in terms of opposition, combat, destruction) that we must reason, but in terms of lifestyle, respect for life, which allows to restore deficient biological functions.

Going back to chemo is difficult, but what if you haven't found better?

Here I join you because as the saying goes: " For lack of blackbird, we eat thrushes "You do underline the crucial point of this subject" we did not find better "Which could also be expressed thus" we didn't look in the right place »

I have already cited the case of a lady from my locality who suffered from colon cancer with metastases to the liver, who found herself, after chemo, cleaned of any tumor. I call this a nice result. We would also like this lady to change her lifestyle enough to avoid any recurrence. But the first step (ending the tumor invasion) has been largely won. It is true that colon cancer is the least difficult to eradicate by chemo, this will not necessarily be the case for other cancers.

You rightly point out the difference in methodology between two "medicines". On the one hand proceed in an emergency with muscular methods (and of which you underline the "efficiency") and after, but after only, try to make up for the damage caused by less aggressive means (like DSS which has moreover, but did not prevent recurrences or death). On the other, proceed by non-aggressive methods, which the general public and even less the medical profession know and therefore very, very little used, hence this " for lack of thrushes we eat blackbirds »

It would be interesting to pool the work of all the researchers to see if there emerges something more effective than current chemos.

This is where you show your naivety! Chemo and other alternatives like the rest of the protocols, it's a huge business in which an army of therapists live and who, unless they are suicidal, will not cut the branch on which they are sitting. (I am talking about the system that trapped all these professionals, who can be sincere in their approach as are professionals in the nuclear industry or manufacturers of bombs and mines… very effective too or researchers on cancer or AIDS)

If I do not want to die, I claim the right to use everything for which I have seen the effectiveness, even if it is, horror! of chemo.

So this is a question of faith, of belief that this system will work (and it can work when you believe it). So there is no question of saying what horror (this is what I constantly hear about the VG), it is a solution even questioned by some whistleblowers, but did the individuals really the choice, since it's here or nothing ?!

Unlike you, I believe that what is written in this forum can bring info to those looking for it. If only one person finds a lead there, it's already worth it.

You see it's a matter of faith! You said earlier that gentle methods could not… .That's a way of saying, "do not explore this path there, I tried and it does not work, "it is closing a door which could be the only one which is the good solution.
But then again, I understand that kind of reaction. Everyone believes that this pathology will affect others and not themselves and therefore does not seek, needlessly, to know this pathology and the means as much to avoid it as to face it without violence. And when it falls like a blanket of lead on the individual, it creates a understandable panic with a (possible) research in hue and dia on what could avoid a fatal outcome.
However, it is not by consulting a few testimonials, a few all-purpose recipes taken from the Internet that only touch on what requires years of study, comparison of work little or not recognized by the health authorities in place and which, we can always dream, will perhaps be recognized in a few decades (as for Gernez previously cited)

Emotional and physical are one and the same reality. Psycho-bodily therapies often use physical sensations to make repressed emotions aware.
I'm not trying to be believed. I just describe what I found. The reader will do what he wants with it.

Here too we agree, this is only an exchange of points of view and everyone will sort according to their hopes and fears.

I would like others to bring their lived testimonies rather than pour into philosophical or theoretical considerations.

This is where the shoe pinches, because: or a person practices an "anticancer" lifestyle and there will be never testimonies on what will never have happened (as expressed by this LV leader, having never found cancer in those practicing VG in his own way); or it will have followed the official protocols and therefore will have caused damage that the person hopes, therefore believes, that gentle techniques will repair what was broken, and therefore this testimony would have value only like that of the osteopath cited. (It reminds me of these people making clay poultices to calm the fire that burns them in remain after radiation therapy) There are those who have never heard of other alternatives and their testimony will go in the direction of chemo and the rest.
The Internet is teeming with these testimonies after official practice; but I have so far found no evidence of therapy on this one in place of the official system.
Even Monique Couderc (interesting testimony elsewhere) in her work " I conquered my cancer: The story of a cure by natural medicine "Has previously gone through chemo and the rest, without curing it, hence his approach and its success through another channel. Has this changed anything in the medical community: no! But there it is an obscure unknown. But when PR Delbet shows the relationship between cancer and magnesium: is it believed and verified? No! His communications were blocked. When, with veterinarian Dr. Neveu, he shows that this same magnesium prevents and cures polio as its form in animals (testimonies lived in support) it is the same wall of opposition of the vaccine manufacturers and its scientists, etc ... and the list is long, I mentioned a few earlier!
NB: Dextreit cited above cites the case of a person who after cancer of both breasts and all the accompanying protocol says to have changed for a "hygienist" lifestyle and Vg and saw his scars reopen and ooze pus, then to close naturally and definitively with the regret of not having started there.

[Cuicui]

It would be interesting to pool the work of all the researchers to see if there emerges something more effective than current chemos.

This is where you show your naivety! Chemo and other alternatives like the rest of the protocols, it's a huge business in which an army of therapists live and who, unless they are suicidal, will not cut the branch on which they are sitting.

I was thinking of researchers who have developed alternative treatments. Sorry for not being clear enough.
Your theory that you heal if you believe in treatment doesn't hold water. I know of patients who have enthusiastically embarked on alternative methods that they believed in, and who found themselves groggy in disappointment when the analyzes showed that there was no improvement.
May those who, for lack of effective alternative treatments, have been forced to go through the "chemo" box, do not despair: I know many people who have thus won the first step: the eradication of tumors.
Again, I invite those who have experienced conventional or alternative cancer treatments to share their experience on this forum.

[Janic]

I was thinking of researchers who have developed alternative treatments. Sorry for not being clear enough.

Could you name a few?

Your theory that you heal if you believe in treatment doesn't hold water.

It is however a fact widely established, but which, I grant you, is not the fact of all the patients.

I know of patients who have enthusiastically embarked on alternative methods that they believed in, and who found themselves groggy in disappointment when the analyzes showed that there was no improvement.

This is not surprising! When I read some testimonials on the internet, I understand better why these alternative treatments do not work. Indeed, and I have already mentioned it previously, it is precisely the term treatment that does not stick.
I will take another example: suppose a person is in a very hot area, a sauna, and who would suffocate from heat while making a hyperthermia! What seems logical and elementary (in terms of treatment) is to throw cold water on the person to reduce the temperature at the risk of a thermal shock, even if it was in a very cold area where it would be hot water thrown on this person with the same risk. This is an alternative treatment (not chemical)
Healthy living is like getting out of the sauna or the refrigerator to find a softer temperature that is more in line with physiology…. Without any "treatment" whatsoever! This famous notion of terrain!

May those who, for lack of effective alternative treatments, have been forced to go through the "chemo" box, do not despair: I know many people who have thus won the first step: the eradication of tumors.

This is completely in contrast to what most cancer specialists say about remission (rarely healing even after 5 years, too short a period to establish a certainty (as Séralini points out!)) More no doctor will be able to affirm that the TOTALITY of malignant cells will have been eradicated (chemo or not) and therefore that the process will not restart elsewhere (redixit oncologists!) and therefore later!
For all the cancers of which I know (it is not exhaustive of course) this is what happened, even when the remissions reached 20 years.
as a reminder, there is one death from cancer out of 4/5 deaths so in a group of 12 people (it is quick) two or three will die (statistically of course) of this pathology after having gone through the usual protocols.

[Janic]

To complete this comparison with hyper or hypothermia linked to specific external conditions.
It is as if, to fight against sunstroke, scientists are looking for viruses, bacteria or microbes that would be the cause while a simple protection covering the sun would prove sufficient. Only all (or almost) the research was directed, with great blows of billions, towards a person in charge who must be fought with violence and therefore by attacking the effects and not the causes (by tearing off the skin burnt by the sun, for example) since it is this which manifests its effects. We would find that stupid, but it is nevertheless the reasoning currently adopted.
Unfortunately it is written in our "genes" this warlike, destructive (and apparently effective) behavior where we have to shoot down, kill, destroy the supposed adversary. This is what characterizes, unfortunately, our societies CANCER because for an informed observer, the mechanisms are the same between the internal society of a living being (our billions of cells) and our external society: humanity as a whole and particularly accentuated in those who believe themselves and claim to be civilized.
Selfishness, exclusion, racism, aggression, violence, etc.… how can we be surprised that this external behavior is replicated by the same internal behavior? and to violence respond violence!
It is this aspect that is poorly understood in the fight against cancer. The body forgets neither this poorly integrated internal society, nor the violence inflicted on “sick” cells as on healthy cells and which will never fade, (just like an abused child will not forget what happened to it either. ) no more than Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Chernobyl or Fukujima will be erased from external memories like all the violence that societies inflict on each other.
Indeed, the cancer cell becomes anarchic (that is to say, recognizing no other authority than itself) and therefore no longer fulfilling its predetermined role within its society: of liver, heart, muscles, lung. She therefore lives on the fringes of this orderly society and builds her own world isolated from the rest, but developing ON THE WEAKNESSES OF THIS ORDERED SOCIETY. This is the case of gangs excluded from society (and therefore profiting from the consumer society) with its parallel networks of drugs, prostitution, rape, murders, etc ... and that our police society (the immune system) believes to be able to eradicate by the very means which allowed its development. It is like trying to evacuate the air in a container with a ladle, believing that it will empty this container. It doesn't work and can't work either. Cancer is the same thing: poor understanding of how it works, poor means used = repeated failures (150.000 deaths per year in France, that is to say, with another strong image, a member ( every year) out of 4 or 5 in a family: a brother, a sister, a parent, a child, yourself.)
It is therefore urgent to rethink this pathology so that individuals change the conditions favorable to it, rather than exhaust their strengths and their means to fight against effects that will only disappear temporarily (as with any disease of 'elsewhere) to reappear elsewhere and in another often more serious form.
And if this change does not take place, this form of pathology will take even more complex, less manageable forms, with its share of additional suffering and therefore death.
finally and even if it disturbs some: our societies have fulfilled to the letter these biblical prophecies that few understand but it is the parallelism that counts here: " The eternal will strike you with consumption, fever, jaundice, gangrene ... hemorrhoids, scabies, ringworm ... and even all wounds that are not written in this book of the law"All Deuteronomy 28, which admonitions are addressed to the people of Israel and only to them as other religions want to believe.
Anyone will be able to say that all these "diseases" exist independently of a religious text and that is correct, but what is interesting to verify is that when these laws in question are put into practice, the famous wounds, these curses in religious language, fade and then disappear (as if by a miracle) and this is where it becomes interesting if we get out of the bigotry and holy water font side. Biology, human or not, obeys fundamental rules which cannot be transgressed with impunity and each transgression corresponds to a particular pathology. Hence all these complicated names that many do not understand and which have only one name: functional dysregulation. So to seek and find if possible what are these rules (these "eternal" laws in question) will reduce and make disappear these pathologies. You still have to want it, but that's another story!

[Cuicui]

The researchers I was thinking of and whose work it would be useful to resume and synthesize are the ones that you yourself cited: Solomides, Beljanski (I leave the list complete, adding the recent work of Dr. Schwartz).
Rather than blindly believing what others are saying, it's better to check it out for yourself. This is how I deduced that the placebo effect did not come from the fact that the patient "believes" (poor naive!) In the effectiveness of a treatment, but rather because he has the feeling that we take care of it (role of affects on the immune system).
If you believe that a healthy lifestyle is enough to stop a sudden invasion of tumors, I leave you to your beliefs. A healthy lifestyle is essential in the long term, but it is not enough to treat acute cases when the time is pressing.
So much the better for the cancer patient who heals permanently after finding the cause of his illness. In the meantime, if we can assure her a 20-year remission, I already find that great.

[delnoram]

You may have already seen it, but this interview with Thierry Ardisson is interesting.

http://www.charentelibre.fr/2014/02/16/ ... 880532.php

(start a little long due to ads)

[Janic]

Cuicui hello

The researchers I was thinking of and whose work it would be useful to resume and synthesize are the ones that you yourself cited: Solomides, Beljanski (I leave the list complete, adding the recent work of Dr. Schwartz).

With this difference near, and of importance, it is that they are not naturopaths, but scientists all that there is classic, but whose approach denotes with the politically correct in matters of oncology (this which does not detract from the interest of their work elsewhere)

Rather than blindly believing what others are saying, it is better to check for yourself.

You are right except that you deny the verification by a different channel than that of your personal or environmental experience.

This is how I deduced that the placebo effect did not come from the fact that the patient "believes" (poor naive!) In the effectiveness of a treatment, but rather because he has the feeling that we take care of it (role of affects on the immune system).

It is to build a barrier between two overlapping mechanisms. The placebo effect, like the nocebo effect, is well known and quantified (approx. 30% of cases regardless of the techniques adopted). There is an abundant literature on the subject.
So it is not a question of naivety but of complex mechanisms of human thought and the physiological effects which accompany them.

If you believe that a healthy lifestyle is enough to stop a sudden invasion of tumors, I leave you to your beliefs.

Again there is confusion. Have you heard of the Collins curve? What is called a brutal invasion, is only the manifestation (which can be brutal, actually) of a cancer which will have slowly (a manner of speaking!) Evolved during 8 years already. Now what you call belief of others calls it lived experience that it is all about point of view. Take the examples of the osteopath or Monique Couderc cited. (Among some unknowns)

A healthy lifestyle is essential in the long term, but it is not enough to treat acute cases when the time is pressing.

Well, you're right and right at the same time. Indeed, for many people concerned, they find themselves faced with a painful and agonizing reality: the detection of cancer at an already advanced stage and possible death at the end. What to do ? Still for the majority of these people, they have no other solution than "official" protocols. So, they probably think like you: for the hygiene of life, it is too late to get started (assuming that they might have had the desire to get started). And this is what they believe without verification or intention to do so. This is what I expressed previously, it concerns 99,99999… ..% of the population? If only, as I also said, because contrary cases are extremely rare and unknown to the general public.
Now if these cases exist, and they do exist, a wider dissemination would be necessary, but still as I said before: “Scalded cat fears cold water” the system is not close to the 'hear, but is especially conducive to challenge it and therefore it is radio silence (apart from possibly word of mouth that will remain confidential) So there you are right, to know that rather than staying idle the person concerned will prefer try anything rather than wait for death, it's human. This is comparable in this to AZT, ineffective and even dangerous for pseudo AIDS, but whose virtues were declaimed everywhere despite the carnage and the suffering generated (as shown in this article indicated earlier). But the fear of death is stronger than anything, that is why during a fire people throw themselves out of the windows, jostle and crash into performance halls, etc ... but fear obscures the reason and some sometimes, throwing themselves out of the window, only one leg breaks while on the emergency ladder they would have done themselves no harm.
So much the better for the cancer patient who heals permanently after finding the cause of his illness. In the meantime, if we can assure her a 20-year remission, I already find that great.
This is also my opinion, except that, again as DSS, these people live in permanent anxiety of a brutal recurrence (what happened without warning to the person to whom I was referring, similarly for DSS) . For my part, I am rather to understand the mechanisms of this pathology and therefore not to put myself in the conditions favorable to its proliferation. So hygiene of life as much in preventive as in curative or rather in curative and then in preventive.

[Ahmed]

The development of oncology results from the same causes as the spread of cancers, not immemorial violence as you seem to assert, oh Janic, but the thermodynamic unleashing in the service of value abstraction.
Except for this detail, which is far from separating us, I appreciate your argument.
Few things separate ideas from Cuicui yours, except that the observation point chosen is different; you do not resign yourself to consider cancer as a fatality which would require the use to fight it of the same weapons which defeat the living and are at the origin of this evil (or at least of its generalization).

[Cuicui]

you do not resign yourself to consider cancer as a fatality which would require the use to fight it of the same weapons which defeat the living and are at the origin of this evil (or at least of its generalization).

Nor am I resigned to considering cancer as inevitable. But if he is there, why look elsewhere and deprive the patient, for ideological reasons, of access to information and the free choice of therapies available.
During a hemorrhage, the primary concern of the caregiver is not to lecture or explain how to stop cutting, but to stop the blood flow. Prevention, a subject I have not yet touched on, is only useful for the living.
We often hear people say "instead of giving people fish it is better to teach them how to fish". Certainly, but if we forget to feed them, our apprentice fishermen will starve to death before having caught fish and the lessons will have been of no use.

[Janic]

Hamed hello

, oh Janic,

Stop! I have the impression to see a vassal prostrating himself before his lord!

Except for this detail, which is far from separating us, I appreciate your argument.

Thank you, but that of Cuicui is not without value either, these are, as you say below, only different points of observation. The main thing that differs us is that he considers, a priori, as impossible what others consider to be achievable and achieved.
In a way, it reminds me of the comments of some, on this site and others, on non-standard achievements (which are only worth what the current means of control are also worth) that they consider (wrongly or rightly so) equally impossible.
Who signs his intervention with: " he didn't know it was impossible, that's why he realized it "? At one time, despite dreams like Da Vinci, flying heavier than air was impossible and we are at the A380 and others. Impossible yesterday, possible today and tomorrow!

Little separates Cuicui's ideas from yours, except that the point of observation chosen is different; you do not resign yourself to consider cancer as a fatality which would require the use to fight it of the same weapons which defeat the living and are at the origin of this evil (or at least of its generalization).

Absolutely, but contrary to Cuicui's discourse which considers that these are only points of view, beliefs, they are in fact lived, experienced cases but which, given their rarity, are unknown to the general public and even more to the body. medical (hence the understandable and in a certain logical way reaction of Cuicui). It is like the confrontation between those who believe in ET and claim to have met them, without being able to provide the slightest proof (in the context of evidence recognized as such) and those who do not want not believe it. Always a matter of faith!

Cuicui hello

Nor am I resigned to considering cancer as inevitable.

We agree, it would be like considering that plane, railway or automobile accidents are fatalities. But here too, most of these are linked to the disrespect of safety, maintenance, negligence, etc. laws.

But if he is there, why look elsewhere and deprive the patient, for ideological reasons, of access to information and the free choice of therapies available.

Again this is my opinion, with the difference that we do not place this ideology on the same side and the information on the other side is nonexistent and therefore no choice possible ! Could you give me ONE SINGLE CASE of cancer therapy by OUR approach, in the usual medical setting, proposed to replace the triptych, surgery, radio, chemo? I don't know any! ! However you will not be able on the one hand because no current system would tolerate a process not conforming to the official protocol, and on the other hand and by far the most important, you don't believe it possible, which automatically settles the question.
However, all those who have succeeded have gone through systems outside the current system, precisely!

During a hemorrhage, the primary concern of the caregiver is not to lecture or explain how to stop cutting, but to stop the blood flow.

Again it is not a question of making the moral, (where did you go to seek such thing? Not in my words in any case) but to be able to present another far superior alternative by its non-aggressiveness, but which cannot be done without the active participation of the patient contrary to the current system which is passive, the patient undergoes point that's all!
Concerning a hemorrhage (I do not consider here, pathological hemorrhages, that would take us too far). Homeopathy is very effective in these cases, up to internal hemorrhages like that of the stomach, its effectiveness is almost instantaneous without doing any damage. And there too I speak from experience!

Prevention, a subject I have not yet touched on, is only useful for the living.

Again, do not mix everything. Prevention (at least the one I'm thinking of) helpsavoid cancers therefore does not concern its use to treat cancer which would not exist, just like you do not have a healthy tooth removed which remains only because the cariogenic factors are eliminated from the diet.
As the other means which are proposed are addressed to living who wish to remain it, that does not propose a euthanasia (I hope that the chemo is practiced in the same spirit!)

We often hear people say "instead of giving people fish it is better to teach them how to fish". Certainly, but if we forget to feed them, our apprentice fishermen will starve to death before having caught fish and the lessons will have been of no use.

Again we agree, and again the osteopath like Monique Couderc cited, (and partially DSS) did not get lost in speeches, theories, but successfully applied a different process. We must stop theorizing also on a domain that so few know. It is therefore the practice which confirms a theory and not a theory which can replace the practice and when to me (representing in a certain way those who follow this approach) therefore we stand for proof by practice.