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).
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 17122
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2481

Is cancer chemotherapy useful?




by Janic » 14/02/14, 12:56

the site, because of the death of its author, being able to be closed, to disappear; I think the entire article may be of interest to those who ask questions about this topic
The Workshop of the memory of Sylvie Simon
SYLVIE SIMON - REVELATIONS
In memory of Sylvie Simon, journalist, writer and forerunner of the scandals of today and tomorrow. Official site.
All of his articles, videos and interviews as well as a list of all his books
Revelations about silences and media lies and the many health and vaccine scandals

My Books To Be Published Elsewhere Conferences Tributes Home Page
Friday July 5 2013
The very undesirable truth about chemotherapy



The very undesirable truth about chemo
It has been years since chemotherapy is denigrated by many oncologists, French and Americans and not least, have dared to express their doubts about the cures obtained by conventional means.
Hardin B Jones, then professor of Medical Physics and Physiology at Berkeley, had already communicated to the press in 1956 the alarming results of a study on cancer which he had just carried out for twenty-three years with cancer patients and which l 'had led to the conclusion that untreated patients did not die much faster than those who received chemotherapy, on the contrary. “Patients who refused all treatment lived an average of twelve and a half years. Those who underwent surgery and other traditional treatments lived an average of only three years [1]. And Dr Jones also raised the question of the fabulous sums generated by the "Cancer business". Dr Jones' unsettling conclusions have never been refuted. (Walter Last, The Ecologist, vol. 28, n ° 2, March-April 1998.)


4 October 1985, Prof. G.eorges Mathé confirmed to L'Express: "There are more and more cancers because screening is much earlier, but we do not control them as well as it is said despite the chemotherapy that is especially advocated by chemotherapists and laboratories [what he called "cancer-connection], and for good reason: they live on it. If I had a tumor, I would not go to an anti-cancer center "(see Le Monde, 4 mai 1988). In turn, Dr. Martin Shapiro wrote in an article "Chemotherapy: Perlimpinin Oil? ":" Some oncologists inform their patients of the lack of evidence that this treatment is useful, others are probably misled by the optimism of scientific publications on chemotherapy. Still others respond to economic stimulation. Practitioners can earn more by practicing chemotherapy than by providing consolation and appeasement to dying patients and their families. (See Los Angeles Times, 1er September 1987).
This opinion is widely shared by doctors E. Pommateau and M. d'Argent who believe that chemotherapy "is a process of destruction of malignant cells such as surgery or radiotherapy. It does not solve the major problem of host reactions that should ultimately be the only ones to seek to stop the cancerous surge "(Lessons of practical oncology).
For his part, Professor Henri Joyeux, oncologist in Montpellier, said repeatedly that "it is huge financial interests that explain that the scientific truth is still too often overlooked today: 85% of chemotherapies are questionable , even useless.
For them, as for many other doctors, the only cases of cure with this therapy are cases that can heal spontaneously, that is to say in which the host can organize his own defenses. It's hard to be clearer: chemotherapy is useless! And for the progress of the cases of cures, Dr. Jean-Claude Salomon, director of research at the CNRS, oncologist, estimates that the percentage of survival at five years after the initial diagnosis has increased for the sole reason that we know make earlier diagnoses, but unless accompanied by a decrease in mortality, the increase in the five-year survival percentage is not an index of progress. "Early diagnosis often only lengthens the duration of the disease with its train of anxiety. This contradicts many claims about alleged therapeutic advances. »(Who decides on our health, the citizen facing the experts, Bernard Cassou and Michel Schiff, 1998) Dr Salomon states that it counts indiscriminately true cancers and tumors that would probably never have caused disease cancer, which contributes to artificially increasing the percentage of "cured" cancers. This also increases, of course, that of "declared" cancers. One more fact confirmed by Dr. Thomas Dao, who was director of the Department of Breast Surgery at Buffalo's Roswell Park Cancer Institute from 1957 to 1988: "Despite the widespread use of chemotherapy, the breast cancer mortality rate is has not changed these last 70 years. And by John Cairns, Professor of Microbiology at Harvard University, who published in 1985, a criticism in the Scientific American: "Apart from a few rare cancers, it is impossible to detect any improvement by chemotherapy in 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, hematologist and oncologist New Yorker, in the Lancet: "Many oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually all tumors, with undemonstrated optimism by a failure almost inevitable [...] no disseminated neoplasm, incurable in 1975, is not curable today. (See Cancerology in the 1990 years, 337, 1991, p.901). Dr. Charles Moertal, a Mayo Clinic oncologist, admits that: "Our most effective protocols are full of risks and side effects; and after all the patients we treated paid this price, only a small fraction is rewarded with a transitional period of incomplete regression of the tumor. "
Alan Nixon, former president of the American Chemical Society, is even more radical: "As a chemist, trained to interpret publications, it is difficult for me to understand how doctors can ignore the evidence that chemotherapy does a lot, much more harm than good. "
Ralph Moss is a non-medical scientist who has been studying cancer for ages. He has written articles on the subject in prestigious journals such as LeLancet, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the New Scientist, and published The Cancer Industry [2]: "Finally , there is no evidence that chemotherapy prolongs life in the majority of cases, and it is a big lie to assert that there is a correlation between a tumor decrease and the lengthening of the life of the tumor. patient. He confesses that he once believed in chemotherapy, but that experience has shown him to be wrong: "Conventional cancer treatment is so toxic and inhumane that I fear it more than die of cancer. We know this therapy does not work - if it worked you would not be afraid of cancer more than pneumonia. [...] However, most alternative treatments, regardless of the evidence of their effectiveness, are prohibited, forcing patients to go to failure because they have no alternative. Dr. Maurice Fox, professor emeritus of biology at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) [3] found, like many of his peers, that cancer patients who refused medical care had a lower mortality rate than those who accepted them.
The McGill University Cancer Center in Canada sent a questionnaire to 118 doctors specializing in lung cancer to determine how much confidence they had in the products that scientists at the university were evaluating . They were asked to imagine that they had cancer and to say which drug they would choose from six others during testing. There were 79 physician responses, of which 64, 81% would not be willing to participate in Cisplatin-based chemotherapy trials they were testing, and 58 other physicians in the same 79, 73% , considered that the tests in question were unacceptable, given the inefficiency of the products and their high degree of toxicity [4].
For his part, Dr. Ulrich Abel, a German epidemiologist at the Heidelberg-Mannheim Cancer Center, has reviewed all published chemotherapy documents by more than 350 medical centers around the world. After analyzing thousands of publications for several years, he found that the overall success rate of chemotherapy worldwide was "dismal", only 3%, and that there is simply no scientific evidence indicating that chemotherapy could "significantly prolong the life of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers". He describes chemotherapy as a "scientific loam" and says that at least 80% of chemotherapy administered worldwide is useless and is akin to "emperor's new clothes", while neither the doctor nor the patient do not want to give up chemotherapy. Dr. Abel concluded, "Many oncologists take for granted that chemotherapy prolongs patients' lives. This is an opinion based on an illusion that is not supported by any of the clinical studies [5] ". This study has never been commented by the mainstream media and has been completely buried. We understand why.
In summary, chemotherapy is very toxic and can not tell the difference between healthy cells and cancer cells. It is slowly destroying the immune system, which can no longer protect the human body from ordinary diseases. Some 67% of people who die during the treatment of their cancer owe it to opportunistic infections that have not been fought by the immune system.
The most recent and significant study was published by the journal Clinical Oncology [6] and conducted by three famous Australian oncologists, Prof Graeme Morgan of Sydney's Royal North Shore Hospital, Professor Robyn Ward [7] of the University from New South Wales-St. Vincent's Hospital and Dr. Michael Barton, a member of the Liverpool Health Service Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation in Sydney.
Their painstaking work is based on the analysis of the results of all double-blind controlled trials conducted in Australia and the United States, concerning the survival of 5 years credited to chemotherapy in adults during the period from January 1990 to January 2004, a total of 72 964 patients in Australia and 154 971 in the United States, all treated with chemotherapy. This vast study shows that we can no longer claim, as usual, that there are only a few patients, which allows the systems in place to sweep them with contempt out of hand. The authors deliberately opted for an optimistic estimate of benefits, but despite this precaution, their publication proves that chemotherapy contributes only a little more than 2% to patient survival after 5 years, or 2,3% in Australia, and 2,1% in the United States.


"However, some practitioners remain optimistic and hope that cytotoxic chemotherapy [8] will prolong the lives of cancer patients," said the authors in their introduction. They rightly ask, how is it that a therapy that has contributed so little to patient survival over the past 20 years, continues to be so successful in sales statistics. It is true that we can answer them that patients who are not very curious or simply distraught have no choice: they are not offered anything else.
Massoud Mirshahi, researcher at Pierre and Marie Curie University and his team discovered in 2009 that new cells in the tumor microenvironment would be involved in cancer cell resistance to chemotherapy and recurrence with the appearance of metastases. These cells have been called "Hospicells" because they serve as niches which have the property of fixing a large number of cancer cells and protecting them from the action of chemotherapy. The “Hospicells” come from the differentiation of bone marrow stem cells, and are present in effusions in patients with cancer (ascites fluid, pleural effusions). Cancer cells, clustered around a "Hospicell", form real small cancerous nodules.
In these nodules were also identified immunoinflammatory cells. Electron microscopy showed that there were areas of fusion between the membranes of "Hospicells" and those of cancer cells, allowing material to pass from one cell to another. In addition, the researchers observed the transfer of membrane material from "Hospicell" to cancer cells, a phenomenon called trogocytosis. Several other mechanisms, such as the recruitment of immune suppressor cells or the secretion of soluble factors by "Hospicells" also help cancer cells to resist chemotherapy. In view of this importance, it is suggested that cancer cells "nested" on a "Hospicell" could be considered responsible for the residual disease. For research, it is therefore important to find drugs capable of destroying both cancer cells and “Hospicells” [9].

The most significant study was published by the journal Clinical Oncology [10] and conducted by three famous Australian oncologists, Prof. Graeme Morgan of Sydney's Royal North Shore Hospital, Professor Robyn Ward [11] of New University. South Wales-St. Vincent's Hospital and Dr. Michael Barton, a member of the Liverpool Health Service Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation in Sydney.
Other studies have recently appeared: The first, published in the journal Nature, indicates that a large majority of cancer studies are inaccurate and potentially fraudulent. Researchers rarely succeed in replicating the results of large "reference" studies. Among 53's important cancer studies, though published in high-profile scientific journals, 47 have never been replicated with similar results. This is not new, since in 2009, researchers at the University of Michigan's Comprehensive Cancer Center had also published findings of famous cancer studies, all biased in favor of the pharmaceutical industry. And it is well known that some cancer drugs cause metastases.
This long list of publications, all negative and not exhaustive about the "benefits" of chemotherapy, could be explained by the work of some researchers at Harvard Medical School in Boston (USA), who found that two drugs used in chemotherapy cause the development of new tumors, not the opposite! These are new drugs that block the blood vessels that "feed" the tumor. The specialists call them "anti-angiogenesis" treatments. These drugs, Glivec and Sutent (active ingredients, imatinib and sunitinib), have a proven effect in reducing the size of the tumor. However, they are destroying small cells that have been poorly studied until now, the pericytes, which keep the growth of the tumor under control. Freed from pericytes, the tumor is much easier to spread and to "metastasize" in other organs. Harvard researchers now consider that, although the main tumor is shrinking in volume with these drugs, cancer is also becoming much more dangerous for patients! (Cancer Cell, 10 June 2012). Professor Raghu Kalluri, who published these results in the journal Cancer Cell, said: "If you only take into account the growth of the tumor, the results were good. But if you take a step back and look at it together, inhibiting the tumor's blood vessels does not help contain the progression of the cancer. In fact, cancer is spreading. "
An even more surprising but less recent study was published by the journal Clinical Oncology [12] and led by three famous Australian oncologists, Prof Graeme Morgan of the Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney, Professor Robyn Ward [13] of the University from New South Wales-St. Vincent's Hospital and Dr. Michael Barton, a member of the Liverpool Health Service Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation in Sydney.
Their painstaking work is based on the analysis of the results of all double-blind controlled trials conducted in Australia and the United States, concerning the survival of 5 years credited to chemotherapy in adults during the period from January 1990 to January 2004, a total of 72 964 patients in Australia and 154 971 in the United States, all treated with chemotherapy. This vast study shows that we can no longer claim, as usual, that there are only a few patients, which allows the systems in place to sweep them with contempt out of hand. The authors deliberately opted for an optimistic estimate of benefits, but despite this precaution, their publication proves that chemotherapy contributes only a little more than 2% to patient survival after 5 years, or 2,3% in Australia, and 2,1% in the United States.
Finally, a study published in the journal Nature Medicine in 2012, could change the idea of ​​chemotherapy. Researchers at the Seattle-based Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center have found that it triggers healthy cells to produce a protein that supplies tumors.
While researchers were working on resistance to chemotherapy in cases of metastatic breast, prostate, lung and colon cancers, they discovered by chance that chemotherapy not only does not cure cancer, but rather activates growth and extent of cancer cells. Chemotherapy, a standard method of cancer treatment today, forces healthy cells to release a protein that actually fuels and thrives on cancer cells.
According to the study, chemotherapy induces the release into healthy cells of a protein, WNT16B, that helps promote the survival and growth of cancer cells. Chemotherapy also permanently damages the DNA of healthy cells, long-term damage that persists long after the end of chemo treatment.
“When the WNT16B protein is secreted, it would interact with nearby cancer cells and cause them to grow larger, spread and most importantly, resist further therapy,” explained study co-author Peter Nelson of the Research Center. Fred Hutchinson on cancer in Seattle, regarding this totally unexpected discovery. “Our results indicate that in benign cells the feedback responses may directly contribute to tumor growth dynamics,” the team added according to what they observed.

That is to say: Avoiding chemotherapy increases the chances of recovering health.
How is it that a therapy that has contributed so little to patient survival over the past 20 years continues to be so successful in sales statistics? It is true that patients who are not very curious or simply distraught have no choice: they are offered nothing more than "the protocol". What pressure is the current oncologist assigned to choose the patient's treatment? Formerly, the good doctor chose in his soul and conscience, according to the oath of Hippocrates, the best treatment for his patient. He thus committed his personal responsibility after a prolonged interview with his patient.
"Since the 1990 years - and in a more and more authoritarian way since the cancer plan of 2004 - the freedom to treat the oncologist has disappeared in France and some Western countries. On the false pretense of quality of care, all patient records are "discussed" in a multidisciplinary meeting where, in fact, the current therapeutic trial testing new drugs is imposed by the "community". The practitioner who wishes to derogate from this system must explain and incur any possible trouble, especially that of seeing the service in which he participates to lose his authorization to practice oncology. Dr. Nicole Delépine summarizes what can happen when one moves away from strict protocols to adapt to the personal situation of patients.
Only 3 doctors on 4 dare to refuse chemo for themselves, in case of cancer, because of its ineffectiveness on the disease and its devastating effects on the entire human body. But this detail is well hidden to the sick.
Dr. Jacques Lacaze, a cancer graduate and a strong advocate of Dr. Gernez's work on the subject, believes that the only real solution is prevention. "Indeed, a cancer has a hidden life of 8 years on average. During this long period, the embryo of cancer is very vulnerable, a nothing can make it roll over. ALL specialists admit this reality, but very few advocate a prevention policy. Yet, it is easy to implement. We know that the cancer incidence curve starts towards 40 years, so that a future cancer settles to 32 years. The SUVIMAX study showed that a simple vitamin and mineral supplementation was enough to reduce this cancer incidence by about 30%. This study lasted 8 years. No consequences in public health policy have been drawn. Of course, the pharmaceutical industry does not want to hear about it: we do not saw the branch on which we are sitting. The medical profession is under the thumb of the "big bosses" who make the rain and the good weather and who are well paid by this industry (look on the internet, you will see that most of these big bosses emargent in a way or of another to a laboratory). And the majority of basic doctors follow without flinching! And woe to those who think otherwise and who challenge chemotherapy or vaccines or antibiotics. [...] I must add, because this corresponds to my practice and to real studies done by some specialized services, many products qualified as complementary or alternative are effective, but prohibited and pursued by the authorities at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry. "

To find out more about cancer prevention, you can visit the website gernez.asso.fr

We must not forget in this case that only the pressure of the people concerned, that is to say all of us, will make this system bend.


________________________________________
[1] Transactions of the NY Academy of Medical Sciences, flight 6, 1956.

[2] Equinox Press, 1996.

[3] Member of the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

[4] Quoted by Dr. Allen Levin, in his book The Healing of Cancer.

[5] Abel U. "Chemotherapy of advanced epithelial cancer, a critical review." Biomed Pharmacother. 1992; 46 (10): (439-52)

[6] "The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies," Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2005 Jun; 17 (4): 294.

[7] Dr. Ward is also part of the Department of Health's department that advises the Australian government on the effect of licensed drugs, similar to the US Food and Drug Administration.

[8] The property of a chemical or biological agent to alter and possibly destroy cells.

[9] Oncologic trogocytosis of an original stromal cells induces chemoresistance of ovarian tumors. Rafii A, Mirshahi P, Poupot M, Faussat AM, Simon A, Ducros E, Mery E, Couderc B, Lis R, Capdet J, Bergalet J, Querleu D, Dagonnet F, Provided JJ, Marie JP, Pujade-Lauraine E, Favre G, Soria J, Mirshahi M.

[10] "The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies," Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2005 Jun; 17 (4): 294.

[11] Dr. Ward is also part of the Department of Health's department that advises the Australian government on the effect of licensed drugs, similar to the US Food and Drug Administration.

[12] "The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies," Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2005 Jun; 17 (4): 294.

[13] Dr. Ward is also part of the Department of Health's department that advises the Australian government on the effect of licensed drugs, similar to the US Food and Drug Administration.
1 x

User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 5

Re: Is cancer chemotherapy useful?




by Cuicui » 14/02/14, 13:09

There is only one way to find out: try to see the results.
0 x
User avatar
elephant
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6646
Registration: 28/07/06, 21:25
Location: Charleroi, center of the world ....
x 6




by elephant » 14/02/14, 15:45

That's the problem: the gun on his temple, would you dare to try something other than what a patent oncologist offers you?

A Frenchwoman did it, apparently with success:

http://journalmetro.com/plus/sante/4412 ... gumes-bio/

the echo on rabid sheep (same news, but with comments):

http://lesmoutonsenrages.fr/2014/02/06/ ... gumes-bio/

Big disadvantage of this diet: it brings nothing to the laboratories ... embarrassing!
0 x
elephant Supreme Honorary éconologue PCQ ..... I'm too cautious, not rich enough and too lazy to really save the CO2! http://www.caroloo.be
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6834
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 720




by sen-no-sen » 14/02/14, 16:36

Chance of survival after a chemo?
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 72663
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 8087




by Christophe » 14/02/14, 16:38

Another subject that will quickly become controversial ... see deviate on medical ethics ...

So bof ... :|
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum - Support the forum doing Useful shopping

Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 17122
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2481




by Janic » 14/02/14, 16:40

Elephant hello
That's the problem: the gun on his temple, would you dare to try something other than what a patent oncologist offers you?

That's what I said earlier: you have to have cuckolds as big as footballs, to get into this unknown for the majority of people.
A Frenchwoman did it, apparently with success:

http://journalmetro.com/plus/sante/4412 ... gumes-bio/

This is not the only one, fortunately, and is part of this very small minority mentioned on the other subject. A particularity all the same, it is an osteopath therefore not ultra conformist.
Big disadvantage of this diet: it brings nothing to the laboratories ... embarrassing!

The question is not only there! These products are very toxic apart from their obvious uselessness according to these doctors. So the patient must overcome the shock of an operation for example (with its own chemicals) plus the toxicity of other chemo to which can be added radio therapy with significant side effects either. One can understand, therefore, the many failures (about 1 on 2) current.
Finally, just a clarification! It is not a diet in the usual sense in which people understand this term, but a healthy lifestyle. As much as when you go to your bathroom you do not do a cleanliness "diet", but a daily act of personal hygiene that you practice automatically without even thinking about it.

Cuicui hello
There is only one way to find out: try to see the results.

It's a formula that wants everything and nothing to say! :| Because the person with cancer uses chemo and she will know nothing about the possible effectiveness of a non-chemo, or she does not do chemo and will not know if it has had any efficiency.
But when you have a little pimple on your nose, you have plenty of time to try one now or another, but in case of advanced cancer, time is double and there is hardly time to to make a comparison: according to what criteria besides there too?
But if there is a huge arsenal of resources on one side, on the other you have to play alone with generally a very disapproving entourage.
But if you have an effective and nontoxic method corresponding to your formulation, make it enjoy the readers!
0 x
User avatar
elephant
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6646
Registration: 28/07/06, 21:25
Location: Charleroi, center of the world ....
x 6




by elephant » 14/02/14, 16:52

The bottom of the problem:

No chemo, no other: 90 chances / 100 to burst!

chemo: 50 / 100 to survive

and there are no batches of patients that could be treated double-blind

lot 1: sick patients with the organic diet

lot 2: sick patients with chemo (here we already know)

lot 3: healthy patients, but not too strong to test the lethality of chemo (whatever ... it could be done in India or Africa, in all discretion)
0 x
elephant Supreme Honorary éconologue PCQ ..... I'm too cautious, not rich enough and too lazy to really save the CO2! http://www.caroloo.be
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 17122
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2481




by Janic » 14/02/14, 17:33

message reported from
https://www.econologie.com/forums/post269929.html#269929
You are confusing chemo and surgery.
The goal of chemo and all other approaches is precisely to avoid mutilating surgeries.
I do not think I'm confusing, on the contrary. Everything depends on the affected organs, some are inoperable and apart from radiotherapy, only chemo remains in the current therapeutic arsenal! Moreover this chemo comes to complete a surgery which can not eliminate metastases for example.
As for the tendency to go through conventional medicine rather than alternative treatments, it is a question of information but also of experimentation.
In theory, it should be possible, but the reality is very different because the information is extremely rare and the experimentation even less and therefore concerns only a few people, all the others are obliged (as the article points out) to go through the system in place. It is a non choice by not precisely informing both doctors and patients (which does not change anything because no doctor, in France in any case, will take the risk of going through another system, even if he would be convinced for himself because it would be taking the risk of being banned from practice by the order of doctors as some who dared)
The best way to know if it works is to try.

See previous answer!
There are more patients than you think who are trying alternative treatments,
I have been in this environment for over 40 years and I know what many call alternative treatments. However, many nonconformist therapists are ignorant of the great rules of hygienism and are only taking "drugs" more or less natural thinking that this is enough ... and this is the first step towards failure.
some successfully,
Like the person mentioned by elephant?
others who end up having no choice but between chemo (very unpleasant) and death.
According to which criteria always? An abundant literature exists on the subject and it can be seen that the failures are either related to a treatment too late and therefore inevitably fatal (by chemo or not: 150.000 deaths per year), or the therapist ignores the major laws that govern the conditions of appearance or disappearance of tumors and failures are then understandable. But again, I never said yes, nor met people passing by first by alternative methods under medical supervision.
Remain what some call the charlatans and therefore various naturopaths, not graduated from the medical school, taking the rics to find themselves indicted for failure to assist a person in danger and illegal practice of medicine in case of failure. We understand that few of them dare to venture there!
In my opinion, it is necessary to try everything and to reject nothing, without being influenced by Believes.
I issued a notice previously. It's a formula that wants everything and nothing at the same time.
Then your wording suggests that chemo is not a matter of belief !? If the people concerned did not believe that one or the other therapy could heal them: do you think they would venture there?
Now, to use the example cited by elephant (but others have experienced the same thing): is it the result of a belief or facts?
PS: as I have already reported, I have a family environment with 4 safe cancers, 2 perhaps, plus 2 leukemias; all treated in classical medicine and until now 7 deaths and everyone was entitled to the total! The percentage is far from 50% proposed by elephant.
0 x
User avatar
Cuicui
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3547
Registration: 26/04/05, 10:14
x 5




by Cuicui » 14/02/14, 21:55

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. Moreover, not all doctors are closed to alternative approaches. But all the anti-cancer remedies published on the Net and tried by my close entourage have proved very disappointing. It was not for fun that we had to fall back on the chemo, a horse remedy but the only one that had an efficiency directly visible, while waiting to find better.
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6834
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 720




by sen-no-sen » 14/02/14, 23:01

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 for cancer.
Like a war, all the alternatives, conventional or not, are to 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!
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.


Back to "Science and Technology"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 78 guests