You and I will never see eye to eye as we are on opposite sides. You believe in vaccines and I am totally against them. Same goes for chemo, radiation, mammography, bypass, and the whole system of treating symptoms rather than repairing the cause.
You believe in prescription drugs because that is what you were taught, while I think that makes you a drug pusher.
According to Dr. Joel Wallach, the average American doctor lives to the ripe old age of 56. Why should we take advice from someone who lives to age 56?
Yes doctor, if you really are a doctor, you're in the wrong forum.
No hard feelings.
__________________
Let Food Be Your Medicine And Medicine Be Your Food.(Hippocrates)
You and I will never see eye to eye as we are on opposite sides. You believe in vaccines and I am totally against them. Same goes for chemo, radiation, mammography, bypass, and the whole system of treating symptoms rather than repairing the cause.
You believe in prescription drugs because that is what you were taught, while I think that makes you a drug pusher.
According to Dr. Joel Wallach, the average American doctor lives to the ripe old age of 56. Why should we take advice from someone who lives to age 56?
Yes doctor, if you really are a doctor, you're in the wrong forum.
No hard feelings.
Drack, you are more than welcome on our forum and it is very nice to have you. As for the negative feelings towards MDs on this forum, please to understand:
1) For every article you can pull up on chemo, we can pull one up against it.
2) Many alternative medicines that have been shown to work and which are natural are pulled from the market. We had something available in the US until 8-10 months ago called Kombucha *(a specific brand called GT) which was great and helped many people. If you drank 1/2 bottle you noticed a normalizing effect, but the govt forced it off the market (they said there was alcohol in it, but it was like 1 percent). They brought it back on the market, but it is basically a dead vs an alive product.
3) MY PERSONAL VIEW: I have had 2 aunts dies of cancer. One was a chain smoker and died at 71. She was having some problems and they wanted to giver her chemo. She was not thrilled with the idea, she gets a first dose, gets worse the next day and dies a couple days later. The other aunt was on prednisone for asthma and came down with cancer (prednisone knocks out the immune system). They said it spread and gace her radistion. After 3 days of radiation she quit it and was dead in 3 weeks.
4) Statins: nasty, side effects, and a huge money maker for the drug companies.
Please keep in mind, the US is not Norway and many many people here are on multitudes of different pills for everything. The drug companies are happy.
Also, there is book you must read: Spontaneous Healing by Dr. Andrew Weil. He is a harvard MD who decised to pursue alternative medicine and he says in his practice he uses prescription drugs in less than 10% of cases and advocates lifestyle changes, herbs, vitamins etc.
Cancer is caused by mutated DNA in your own cells. Mutations may happen every time cells replicate, when they have to copy their DNA and an error happens. This error can happen simply because our DNA replication system is not perfect, or because of DNA damage by agents that are known to cause cancer. Usually a muation won't do much, if anything it will render the cell useless. But once in a while a mutation happens that causes the cell to divide rapidly. In normally conditions the cells will divide orderly and in a controlled fashion, but these cancerous cells will divide wildly, eventually forming a lump.
The idea that microcancers happen all the time is as far as I know a theory, but it does make some sense as immunocompromised patients tend to have a higher risk to some cancers. In any case, cancer cells aren't as easy for the immune system to target, since they are essentially the cells of the host, which the immune system is programmed to NOT kill.
There's a lot of more details to it than this, but I hope this gives a good general idea. Please ask if something is unclear.
Then there's chemo. Chemo DOES kill cancer cells effectively, but as I mentioned, it doesn't cure you if it only kills 99,99% of cancer cells, because it only takes one surviving cell for it to return. And that one cell would logically be one of the most resistant ones. So when it keeps growing and the tumor returns, there's a good chance the second round of chemo will have less effect, since the new cells are grown from the resistant one. And so the cycle continues, until chemo no longer has an effect.
Now I want to be clear on one thing: Chemo is hard on the body. Really hard, to the point where it kills people. All doctors know this. That's why we always have to try and determine if the patient will be able to handle it, and whether the good effects will outweigh the bad. And in the end, it will be all up to the patient if he or she will want to go through it. It can offer complete cure in some cases, but most often it is used to prolong life.
Also, in the US at least they use to load menopausal and post menopausal ladies up with estrogen. Many issues occurred with that.
The drug companies come up with new drugs when their older ones go ex-patent and then they also suddenly after 17 yrs, have found side effects so they can pull their older drugs off the market.
Ok, some more about chemo and radiation: Yeah, they increase risk of getting cancer. But when they are used, the patient already has cancer, and will die from it if nothing is done. So the increased risk of developing some other cancer in the future is not a major concern in those circumstances. It's not like chemo/radiation creates lots of cancer cells every time it's used.
Ok, some more about chemo and radiation: Yeah, they increase risk of getting cancer. But when they are used, the patient already has cancer, and will die from it if nothing is done. So the increased risk of developing some other cancer in the future is not a major concern in those circumstances. It's not like chemo/radiation creates lots of cancer cells every time it's used.
Why do most patients not respond to chemo in a positive way.
You and I will never see eye to eye as we are on opposite sides. You believe in vaccines and I am totally against them. Same goes for chemo, radiation, mammography, bypass, and the whole system of treating symptoms rather than repairing the cause.
You believe in prescription drugs because that is what you were taught, while I think that makes you a drug pusher.
According to Dr. Joel Wallach, the average American doctor lives to the ripe old age of 56. Why should we take advice from someone who lives to age 56?
Yes doctor, if you really are a doctor, you're in the wrong forum.
No hard feelings.
I was hoping for some communication rather than being called names. But if you've already decided from the start that you won't believe anything I say, why do you even bother reading this?
I want to address a few things:
-Could you expand on the "whole system of treating symptoms rather than repairing the cause"? You mention vaccines, chemo, radiation, bypass and mammography, and not one of them is about treating symptoms, other than chemo and radiation when used palliatively.
Why do most patients not respond to chemo in a positive way.
Do you mean why most people get such horrible side effects? It's because chemo is a toxin that hurts the whole body, but it hurts the cancer cells more. Not very nice, but the problem is that cancer cells are very similar to the normal cells of the body - hell, they are created from normal cells! Because of this similarity it's extra hard to make a drug that targets only cancer cells and not normal cells.
To compare with antibiotics: In the case of a bacteria, for example, they have their own metabolic system that differs from ours, so you can make a drug that blocks an enzyme found in the bacteria, but not in the human body. This will kill the bacteria, but leave the human cells unhurt.
Drack, the debunk of alternative medical claims is highly financed by the drug companies and AMA. Please read Andrew Weil, he is an MD that will use meds but preferes alternative.
As an MD you are great at sewing up people hurt in an accident.
Treating many bacterial infections.
Diagnosing
Keeping diabetes under control (to an extent)
Immunizing against certain diseases.
Controlling hypertension and regulating heart rhythm
Modern medicine fails at
Prevention
AutoImmune diseases
Cancer
Depression
Degenerative diseases
Another thing: I'm not going to debate every individual drug you find side effects of, because that will take forever. All drugs have side effects, that's why they're not over-the-counter. Our guidelines are always changing, and based on the studies that are continually made. These guidelines are there to ensure that drugs are given to patients where the positive effects would outweigh the bad. And once you get a drug, there's a little paper in the box that will inform you of the potential side effects.
I'm aware calcium channel blockers are bad for patients with heart failure, that's we're supposed to avoid it with those patients. But they're very good against hypertension, which is what we most often use them for.
I'm also aware that statins have a bunch of side effects. That's why you should be followed up when using them, and if you experience side effects, one can try a different type, or cut it out completely. And also, they should not be prescribed to just anyone, just the ones that may have benefit, like those with cardivascular disease.
Do you mean why most people get such horrible side effects? It's because chemo is a toxin that hurts the whole body, but it hurts the cancer cells more. Not very nice, but the problem is that cancer cells are very similar to the normal cells of the body - hell, they are created from normal cells! Because of this similarity it's extra hard to make a drug that targets only cancer cells and not normal cells.
To compare with antibiotics: In the case of a bacteria, for example, they have their own metabolic system that differs from ours, so you can make a drug that blocks an enzyme found in the bacteria, but not in the human body. This will kill the bacteria, but leave the human cells unhurt.
Cancer cells do have differences there is no reason why they cannot come up with drugs to target those differences. Except that treating cancer is a huge multibillion dollar industry.
And I do not mean just the side effects of the chemo drugs but there effectiveness. What percent of patients actually respond in a positive manner (and I mean how many get better for an extended period of time, please ignore childhood leukemia and testicular cancer from this). (And yes, they have done better with breast cancer recently.)
Drack, the debunk of alternative medical claims is highly financed by the drug companies and AMA. Please read Andrew Weil, he is an MD that will use meds but preferes alternative.
As an MD you are great at sewing up people hurt in an accident.
Treating many bacterial infections.
Diagnosing
Keeping diabetes under control (to an extent)
Immunizing against certain diseases.
Controlling hypertension and regulating heart rhythm
Modern medicine fails at
Prevention
AutoImmune diseases
Cancer
Depression
Degenerative diseases
As for the debunk, fair enough, but in that case I'd have to hear some source from Wallach, since he's making an absurd claim. After all, he himself has financial interests in sowing doubts about conventional medicine.
That list you provide seems reasonable enough. It's no secret that there is a lot left to discover. Not so sure about prevention though, as vaccination does that pretty well. And I'm hesitant to say medicine fails completely at the other areas, but it's certainly not perfect.
Everyone on the board has something to contribute and that includes you. People may not be happy with what everyone says (I personally do not believe in the MMS or in some things, other people do not buy my viewpoints on everything) but the purpose of this board is to post info and let the reader decide what is best for him or her. Or at least to put the info out there. I picked up a z-pack for my dad today, do I think he needs it, I do not know, but I know he has emphysema and I am not taking chances. 10 yrs ago a doc gave him a script for lipitor, I said no way and put him on a soluble fibre supplement (called profibe) and in 6 weeks his cholesterol went down 100 points.
The point being, everyone has different views on this board of the med profession (mine are quite negative, not against you, but against the system and greed in general)
Linear Mode
