Chemo or Schemo

Quoted message said:

Subject: Chemo or Schemo
From: [email hidden] (Dave)
Date: 11/12/2003 10:10 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Subject: Chemo or Schemo

Thought you might find this interesting

Thanks for sharing, Dave.

Shows one more side of organized medicine that is evil.

If you are personally attacked for posting this, please ignore the debunkers
gang.

Jan

Quoted message said:

Chemo or Schemo

The following information is the opinion of a highly respected
Oncologist.

"Plodzien, Leonard" wrote:

Over $1 TRILLION a year is spent on medical treatment in America.

Over $100 BILLION of this was spent on cancer treatment.

The average cost of cancer treatment is well over $100,000 per person.

This year well over 1.5 million Americans will develop cancer, and
over 600, 000 of them will die from it, which means that in the last 5
years...

Medical treatment is America's biggest business, representing over 15%
of the entire nation's Gross National Product.

The GAO (General Accounting Office of the United States Government)
has stated in numerous reports that in spite of increased usage of
chemotherapy by medical doctors and hospitals in the treatment of
cancer that they cannot find any statistical data that suggests it has
any effectiveness in prolonging life.

The New England Journal of Medicine reports--War on cancer is a
failure:
despite $30 billion spent on research since 1970, cancer remains
"undefeated", with a death rate not lower but actually higher than
when they started. The failure of chemotherapy to control cancer has
become apparent even to the oncology establishment.

According to the PDR (Physicians Desk Reference), the top 10
chemotherapy drugs used in the USA all list CANCER AS A SIDE EFFECT to
using them. In fact, statiscally, more cancer patients die from
chemotherapy treatment than of the cancer.

Alan C. Nixon, PhD, past president of the American Chemical Society,
wrote, "As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible
to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy
does much, much more harm than good."

The Los Angeles Times reported that over 75% of the oncologists polled
said that if they had cancer they would never use the same
chemotherapy they prescribe for their patients on themselves because
of the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of
toxicity.

In 1990 $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy and by 1994 that
figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion. Why the growth in
chemotherapy in the face of such failure? Even the Federal Government
has launched studies into this suggesting possible corruption.

A look at the financial interrelationships between large cancer
centers, for instance Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
(MSKCC)(considered the finest cancer research center in the world) and
the companies that make billions manufacturing and selling
chemotherapy drugs is revealing.

James Robinson III, Chairman of the MSKCC Board of Overseers and
Managers, is also a director of Bristol-Myers Squibb, THE WORLD'S
LARGEST PRODUCER OF CHEMOTHERAPY DRUGS. Richard Gelb, Vice-Chairman of
the MSKCC board, is Bristol-Myers Chairman of the Board. Richard
Furlaud, another MSKCC board member, recently retired as
Bristol-Myers' president. Paul Marks MD, MSKCC's President and CEO, is
a director of Pfizer Pharmaceuticals.

John S. Reed, also a chairman at MSKCC, is also the director of
Phillip Morris Tobacco Company.

AARP, the self proclaimed "watchdog" for the elderly, in the year
2000, received payments of $4 BILLION from their DISCOUNT DRUG PLANS
and their MEDICAL INSURANCE PROGRAMS.

Dr. Allan Greenberg said on 12/24/2002, "As a retired physician, I can
honestly say that unless you are in a serious accident, YOUR BEST
CHANCE OF LIVING TO A RIPE OLD AGE IS TO AVOID DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS
AND LEARN NUTRITION, HERBAL MEDICINE AND OTHER FORMS OF NATURAL
MEDICINE.

Almost all drugs are toxic and are designed only to treat symptoms and
not to cure anyone. Most surgery is unnecessary. In short, our
mainstream medical system is hopelessly inept and/or corrupt. THE
TREATMENT OF CANCER AND DEGENERATIVE DISEASES IS A NATIONAL SCANDAL.
The sooner you learn this, the better off you will be."

Have a good day

One of the annoying tendencies of alt.med rants is to take half truths that
are only applicable to particular contexts, and use any extreme to damn all
of medicine. Another is the supporting of one's case by the quoting of
extreme opinions with absolutely no reference to actual data.

For example chemotherapy is often useless and used mainly in desperation
many cases of metastatic and advanced cancer, but in others it can be
curative or provide very useful palliation. Even in advanced non-small
cell lung cancer modern chemotehrapy using platinum derivatives produce 25%
or more remissions and prolongation of survival. Is the quality of NSCLC
patient's lives better? Oncologists ask this question themselves and
Medline search on "best supportive care in Non-small cell lung cancer" will
show how oncologists are looking at it with mostly positive results when the
newer and less toxic regimes are used.

At least this piece offers one statistic that has held true for many years,
showing that about half those who get cancer are cured these days, mostly
with surgery, but in some types of cancer by radiotherapy (e.g. certain head
and neck cancers) or chemotherapy (leukenias, lymphomas, childhood cancers,
testicle).

See how the picture looks different when you actually look at the data?

Peter Moran

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Chemo or Schemo
From: [email hidden] (Dave)
Date: 11/12/2003 10:10 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Subject: Chemo or Schemo

Thought you might find this interesting

Thanks for sharing, Dave.

Shows one more side of organized medicine that is evil.

Jan must really hate children. After all why would she be against
chemotherapy that saves thousands of children's lives who suffer from
leukemias. But since she is consistently posting antivac web sites
when millions of children die each year from vaccine preventable
diseases, it comes as no surprise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Almost all drugs are toxic and are designed only to treat symptoms and
not to cure anyone.

And Jan Drew takes Elavil and Neurontin that only treats her symptoms
and covers up the real problem.

You see that the real problem was NOT parasites.

The real problem was NOT mercury amalgams.

Maybe the real problem is that Jan is evil and God is punishing her
for her wickedness. Maybe Jan needs to stop her lying and bearing
false witness. Maybe then she will regain her health and be able to
stop taking those EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL organized medicine drugs.
Because lord knows that she cannot possibly regain her health while
taking those god forsaken drugs.

But alas, Satan seems to have taken over Jan Drew. She obviously
cannot stop the lying and bearing false witness. Alas she is doomed to
suffer from various illnesses until the day she dies. And then she
will find out on Judgement Day what Jesus thinks of her calling a Jew
a Jewboy, saying that it is in the nature of Jews to lie, and to agree
that [censored] had the right idea when he went about exterminating the
Jews. And Jan calls *others* evil. Lord have mercy. Jan should pray,
for her sake, that he is.

In article
<[email hidden]
m.au>,

Peter Moran said:

One of the annoying tendencies of alt.med rants is to take half truths that
are only applicable to particular contexts, and use any extreme to damn all
of medicine. Another is the supporting of one's case by the quoting of
extreme opinions with absolutely no reference to actual data.

For example chemotherapy is often useless and used mainly in desperation
many cases of metastatic and advanced cancer, but in others it can be
curative or provide very useful palliation. Even in advanced non-small
cell lung cancer modern chemotehrapy using platinum derivatives produce 25%
or more remissions and prolongation of survival. Is the quality of NSCLC
patient's lives better? Oncologists ask this question themselves and
Medline search on "best supportive care in Non-small cell lung cancer" will
show how oncologists are looking at it with mostly positive results when the
newer and less toxic regimes are used.

At least this piece offers one statistic that has held true for many years,
showing that about half those who get cancer are cured these days, mostly
with surgery, but in some types of cancer by radiotherapy (e.g. certain head
and neck cancers) or chemotherapy (leukenias, lymphomas, childhood cancers,
testicle).

See how the picture looks different when you actually look at the data?

Now, Peter, you can't expect someone like "Dave" actually to look at the
data. It might contradict his anti-medicine bias.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"