Time honored treatments

| Anth lovingly trolled in a post entitled
| "Time Honored Treatments"...
|
| What they use to treat today is the barbarity
| of tomorrow. Typical examples of this [are]
| blood letting, chemotherapy [and] radiation.
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anth,

Recently I cared for a seven year old child one of whose
rapidly growing tumors was crowding his airway making
it very difficult for him to breathe. One could hear
him breathing from accross the room. As a result, any
activity left him short of breath. Left untreated (and
this is essentially what magical medicine does) the child
would have died of respiratory failure within a matter
of days. However, after the tumor was twice irradiated
over a period of twenty four hours it shrunk enough to
completely free his airway of the obstruction and he
was out of bed, happy smiling and playful.

Supporters of magical medicine may retort that this is
only an anecdote. It is not. It is the documented result
of a treatment the rationale and mechanism of which is
well explained and understood by the scientific community.

That new, more effective treatments for cancers will
be developed is a given. They might even supplant
chemotherapy and/or radiation. In the end, however,
no treatment for cancer can be completely non-toxic
or without side effects since the ultimate goal is the
elimination of those cells which are cancerous, either
by killing them or removing them (or some combination
of thereof), a process which is by definition toxic.

The "tomorrow" you envision, with its dismissal
of chemotherapy and radiation therapy as barbaric
treatments in the same class as bloodletting, is merely
wishful, deluded thinking. Whatever new treatments
are developed, history will not support the red herring
in your statement. The efficacy of chemotherapy and
radiation therapy has been demonstrated and documented.
Its continued use is a direct reflection of that knowledge.

This is NOT the case with bloodletting. We know
that bloodletting was not effective in any way for
any illness. Its use constituted a failed experiment
for which the patients could not possibly have given
informed consent.

Finally, the title of your post reflects the delusion
of those who support magical medicine. Effective
treatments are honored by continued use in the
medical community. But continued use over time
is NOT in any way a criteria by which to judge
efficacy.

Regards,
Snidely

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Snidely F Whiplash" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

| Anth lovingly trolled in a post entitled
| "Time Honored Treatments"...
|
| What they use to treat today is the barbarity
| of tomorrow. Typical examples of this [are]
| blood letting, chemotherapy [and] radiation.
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anth,

Recently I cared for a seven year old child one of whose
rapidly growing tumors was crowding his airway making
it very difficult for him to breathe. One could hear
him breathing from accross the room. As a result, any
activity left him short of breath. Left untreated (and
this is essentially what magical medicine does)

Happy that the child is better. But, you know so little about alternatives,
how can you KNOW that an ALT therapy would not have been effective? What is
"magical" medicine?
the child

Quoted message said:

would have died of respiratory failure within a matter
of days.

Hmmmm, that must have been one of those new "racer" models of tumor. To grow
that much in a few days. How long do you suppose that it had been there? Why
do you think it would have grown that much, that fast?
However, after the tumor was twice irradiated

Quoted message said:

over a period of twenty four hours it shrunk enough to
completely free his airway of the obstruction and he
was out of bed, happy smiling and playful.

Supporters of magical medicine may retort that this is
only an anecdote. It is not. It is the documented result
of a treatment the rationale and mechanism of which is
well explained and understood by the scientific community.

That new, more effective treatments for cancers will
be developed is a given. They might even supplant
chemotherapy and/or radiation. In the end, however,
no treatment for cancer can be completely non-toxic
or without side effects since the ultimate goal is the
elimination of those cells which are cancerous, either
by killing them or removing them (or some combination
of thereof), a process which is by definition toxic.

The "tomorrow" you envision, with its dismissal
of chemotherapy and radiation therapy as barbaric
treatments in the same class as bloodletting, is merely
wishful, deluded thinking. Whatever new treatments
are developed, history will not support the red herring
in your statement. The efficacy of chemotherapy and
radiation therapy has been demonstrated and documented.
Its continued use is a direct reflection of that knowledge.

This is NOT the case with bloodletting. We know
that bloodletting was not effective in any way for
any illness. Its use constituted a failed experiment
for which the patients could not possibly have given
informed consent.

Finally, the title of your post reflects the delusion
of those who support magical medicine. Effective
treatments are honored by continued use in the
medical community. But continued use over time
is NOT in any way a criteria by which to judge
efficacy.

Regards,
Snidely

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet

News==----

Quoted message said:

http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000

Newsgroups

Quoted message said:

---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption

=---

chemotherapy/radiation is barbaric, it kills people.
Anth

"Snidely F Whiplash" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

| Anth lovingly trolled in a post entitled
| "Time Honored Treatments"...
|
| What they use to treat today is the barbarity
| of tomorrow. Typical examples of this [are]
| blood letting, chemotherapy [and] radiation.
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anth,

Recently I cared for a seven year old child one of whose
rapidly growing tumors was crowding his airway making
it very difficult for him to breathe. One could hear
him breathing from accross the room. As a result, any
activity left him short of breath. Left untreated (and
this is essentially what magical medicine does) the child
would have died of respiratory failure within a matter
of days. However, after the tumor was twice irradiated
over a period of twenty four hours it shrunk enough to
completely free his airway of the obstruction and he
was out of bed, happy smiling and playful.

Supporters of magical medicine may retort that this is
only an anecdote. It is not. It is the documented result
of a treatment the rationale and mechanism of which is
well explained and understood by the scientific community.

That new, more effective treatments for cancers will
be developed is a given. They might even supplant
chemotherapy and/or radiation. In the end, however,
no treatment for cancer can be completely non-toxic
or without side effects since the ultimate goal is the
elimination of those cells which are cancerous, either
by killing them or removing them (or some combination
of thereof), a process which is by definition toxic.

The "tomorrow" you envision, with its dismissal
of chemotherapy and radiation therapy as barbaric
treatments in the same class as bloodletting, is merely
wishful, deluded thinking. Whatever new treatments
are developed, history will not support the red herring
in your statement. The efficacy of chemotherapy and
radiation therapy has been demonstrated and documented.
Its continued use is a direct reflection of that knowledge.

This is NOT the case with bloodletting. We know
that bloodletting was not effective in any way for
any illness. Its use constituted a failed experiment
for which the patients could not possibly have given
informed consent.

Finally, the title of your post reflects the delusion
of those who support magical medicine. Effective
treatments are honored by continued use in the
medical community. But continued use over time
is NOT in any way a criteria by which to judge
efficacy.

Regards,
Snidely

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet

News==----

Quoted message said:

http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000

Newsgroups

Quoted message said:

---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption

=---

...and I don't support 'magical medicine' - if there was such I thing I would
support it.
Anth

"Snidely F Whiplash" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

| Anth lovingly trolled in a post entitled
| "Time Honored Treatments"...
|
| What they use to treat today is the barbarity
| of tomorrow. Typical examples of this [are]
| blood letting, chemotherapy [and] radiation.
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anth,

Recently I cared for a seven year old child one of whose
rapidly growing tumors was crowding his airway making
it very difficult for him to breathe. One could hear
him breathing from accross the room. As a result, any
activity left him short of breath. Left untreated (and
this is essentially what magical medicine does) the child
would have died of respiratory failure within a matter
of days. However, after the tumor was twice irradiated
over a period of twenty four hours it shrunk enough to
completely free his airway of the obstruction and he
was out of bed, happy smiling and playful.

Supporters of magical medicine may retort that this is
only an anecdote. It is not. It is the documented result
of a treatment the rationale and mechanism of which is
well explained and understood by the scientific community.

That new, more effective treatments for cancers will
be developed is a given. They might even supplant
chemotherapy and/or radiation. In the end, however,
no treatment for cancer can be completely non-toxic
or without side effects since the ultimate goal is the
elimination of those cells which are cancerous, either
by killing them or removing them (or some combination
of thereof), a process which is by definition toxic.

The "tomorrow" you envision, with its dismissal
of chemotherapy and radiation therapy as barbaric
treatments in the same class as bloodletting, is merely
wishful, deluded thinking. Whatever new treatments
are developed, history will not support the red herring
in your statement. The efficacy of chemotherapy and
radiation therapy has been demonstrated and documented.
Its continued use is a direct reflection of that knowledge.

This is NOT the case with bloodletting. We know
that bloodletting was not effective in any way for
any illness. Its use constituted a failed experiment
for which the patients could not possibly have given
informed consent.

Finally, the title of your post reflects the delusion
of those who support magical medicine. Effective
treatments are honored by continued use in the
medical community. But continued use over time
is NOT in any way a criteria by which to judge
efficacy.

Regards,
Snidely

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet

News==----

Quoted message said:

http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000

Newsgroups

Quoted message said:

---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption

=---

(also yours _is_ an anecdote)
There was no control, you could not be sure that the tumour would have
spontaneously gone away, come back in 5 or 10 years, when there is no
recurrence, and when the cause of cancer is known, radiation chemo will be
barbarity.

It is also known that radiation chemo and even surgery are barbaric, they
part of the parcel of what mainstream offers at the moment.
Anth

"Snidely F Whiplash" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

| Anth lovingly trolled in a post entitled
| "Time Honored Treatments"...
|
| What they use to treat today is the barbarity
| of tomorrow. Typical examples of this [are]
| blood letting, chemotherapy [and] radiation.
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anth,

Recently I cared for a seven year old child one of whose
rapidly growing tumors was crowding his airway making
it very difficult for him to breathe. One could hear
him breathing from accross the room. As a result, any
activity left him short of breath. Left untreated (and
this is essentially what magical medicine does) the child
would have died of respiratory failure within a matter
of days. However, after the tumor was twice irradiated
over a period of twenty four hours it shrunk enough to
completely free his airway of the obstruction and he
was out of bed, happy smiling and playful.

Supporters of magical medicine may retort that this is
only an anecdote. It is not. It is the documented result
of a treatment the rationale and mechanism of which is
well explained and understood by the scientific community.

That new, more effective treatments for cancers will
be developed is a given. They might even supplant
chemotherapy and/or radiation. In the end, however,
no treatment for cancer can be completely non-toxic
or without side effects since the ultimate goal is the
elimination of those cells which are cancerous, either
by killing them or removing them (or some combination
of thereof), a process which is by definition toxic.

The "tomorrow" you envision, with its dismissal
of chemotherapy and radiation therapy as barbaric
treatments in the same class as bloodletting, is merely
wishful, deluded thinking. Whatever new treatments
are developed, history will not support the red herring
in your statement. The efficacy of chemotherapy and
radiation therapy has been demonstrated and documented.
Its continued use is a direct reflection of that knowledge.

This is NOT the case with bloodletting. We know
that bloodletting was not effective in any way for
any illness. Its use constituted a failed experiment
for which the patients could not possibly have given
informed consent.

Finally, the title of your post reflects the delusion
of those who support magical medicine. Effective
treatments are honored by continued use in the
medical community. But continued use over time
is NOT in any way a criteria by which to judge
efficacy.

Regards,
Snidely

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet

News==----

Quoted message said:

http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000

Newsgroups

Quoted message said:

---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption

=---

...and it's not trolling it's called lighting the fire to debate since most
of the posts in here seem to be about Ritalin, which is so boring.
Anth

"Snidely F Whiplash" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

| Anth lovingly trolled in a post entitled
| "Time Honored Treatments"...
|
| What they use to treat today is the barbarity
| of tomorrow. Typical examples of this [are]
| blood letting, chemotherapy [and] radiation.
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anth,

Recently I cared for a seven year old child one of whose
rapidly growing tumors was crowding his airway making
it very difficult for him to breathe. One could hear
him breathing from accross the room. As a result, any
activity left him short of breath. Left untreated (and
this is essentially what magical medicine does) the child
would have died of respiratory failure within a matter
of days. However, after the tumor was twice irradiated
over a period of twenty four hours it shrunk enough to
completely free his airway of the obstruction and he
was out of bed, happy smiling and playful.

Supporters of magical medicine may retort that this is
only an anecdote. It is not. It is the documented result
of a treatment the rationale and mechanism of which is
well explained and understood by the scientific community.

That new, more effective treatments for cancers will
be developed is a given. They might even supplant
chemotherapy and/or radiation. In the end, however,
no treatment for cancer can be completely non-toxic
or without side effects since the ultimate goal is the
elimination of those cells which are cancerous, either
by killing them or removing them (or some combination
of thereof), a process which is by definition toxic.

The "tomorrow" you envision, with its dismissal
of chemotherapy and radiation therapy as barbaric
treatments in the same class as bloodletting, is merely
wishful, deluded thinking. Whatever new treatments
are developed, history will not support the red herring
in your statement. The efficacy of chemotherapy and
radiation therapy has been demonstrated and documented.
Its continued use is a direct reflection of that knowledge.

This is NOT the case with bloodletting. We know
that bloodletting was not effective in any way for
any illness. Its use constituted a failed experiment
for which the patients could not possibly have given
informed consent.

Finally, the title of your post reflects the delusion
of those who support magical medicine. Effective
treatments are honored by continued use in the
medical community. But continued use over time
is NOT in any way a criteria by which to judge
efficacy.

Regards,
Snidely

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet

News==----

Quoted message said:

http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000

Newsgroups

Quoted message said:

---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption

=---

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

chemotherapy/radiation is barbaric, it kills people.
Anth

It is cancer that is barbaric if not controlled. Get a sane perspective.

Peter Moran

It is chemo that is barbaric.
I am sane and in perspective.
Anth

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

chemotherapy/radiation is barbaric, it kills people.
Anth

It is cancer that is barbaric if not controlled. Get a sane perspective.

Peter Moran

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(also yours _is_ an anecdote)
There was no control, you could not be sure that the tumour would have
spontaneously gone away,

If rapid shrinkage and even disappearance of cancers was not such a regular
event with radiotherapy, that might be a reasonable suggestion.

Quoted message said:

come back in 5 or 10 years, when there is no
recurrence, and when the cause of cancer is known, radiation chemo will be
barbarity.

Maybe. You have a lot to learn about the present..

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy can cure some kinds of cancer on their own.
With others they can improve cure rates when used as adjuvants to surgery,
and in yet other incurable cancers they can provide useful palliation and
prolong life.

In a few situations they may do more harm than good. Such occurrences in
no way cancel out the their usefulness elsewhere, no matter what distorted
and ignorant nonsense from AM you are reading.

Peter Moran

In article <[email hidden]>,

Snidely F Whiplash said:

Whatever new treatments
are developed, history will not support the red herring
in your statement. The efficacy of chemotherapy and
radiation therapy has been demonstrated and documented.
Its continued use is a direct reflection of that knowledge.

This is NOT the case with bloodletting. We know
that bloodletting was not effective in any way for
any illness. Its use constituted a failed experiment
for which the patients could not possibly have given
informed consent.

Well, that's not *quite* true. It is a pretty standard
treatment for hemochromatosis. But it certainly was not
the right way to go for your average illness.

That said, I strongly disagree with Anth about the value
of both radiation and chemo, though I admit that the
side-effects of chemo can be pretty awful and in many
cases (but not all!) it doesn't work that well.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

It cannot be shown without doubt that 1 case of tumour shrinkage because
they had radiation indicated that the person is cured OR that the tumour
shrinkage is a direct result of the radiation.
Also shrinking tumours doesn't mean the cancer is cured. The cancer isn't
the tumour it's the bodies inability to deal with the rogue cells.
You could argue that since there's an abundance of cells in the tumour, the
likelihood that one of those cells would be the type that can break off and
metastasise, removing the tumour removes the cancer.
Anth

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(also yours _is_ an anecdote)
There was no control, you could not be sure that the tumour would have
spontaneously gone away,

If rapid shrinkage and even disappearance of cancers was not such a

regular

Quoted message said:

event with radiotherapy, that might be a reasonable suggestion.

Quoted message said:

come back in 5 or 10 years, when there is no
recurrence, and when the cause of cancer is known, radiation chemo will

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

barbarity.

Maybe. You have a lot to learn about the present..

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy can cure some kinds of cancer on their own.
With others they can improve cure rates when used as adjuvants to surgery,
and in yet other incurable cancers they can provide useful palliation and
prolong life.

In a few situations they may do more harm than good. Such occurrences in
no way cancel out the their usefulness elsewhere, no matter what distorted
and ignorant nonsense from AM you are reading.

Peter Moran

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It is chemo that is barbaric.
I am sane and in perspective.
Anth

I am prepared to argue this. Are you? For example, despite AM dogma that
chemotherapy destroys the immune system and makes cancer harder to treat,
there are numerous studies showing that adjuvant chemotherapy improves the
long term cure rate with certain cancers (e.g. Breast and colon), and
prolongs survival in even some advacned cancers.

Did you come across those studies in your readings so far? Of course not,
if you are looking only at AM sites. Just as antivax literature is riddled
with lies and distortions, so is the alt.cancer literature.

And there is nothing that chemotherapy does to a person that is worse than
the predations of cancer.

Sure it can have side effects (less so with more recent drugs). But even
when used in desperate cases, which is where it has gained its bad
reputation, if it is not shrinking the cancer within two months it is not
likely to work and need not be continued. I think it is very much overused
in circumstances where it is not likely to do much good, but that, as with
the use of a lot of useless 'alternatives', is dictated by urgings to be
"doing something".

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

chemotherapy/radiation is barbaric, it kills people.
Anth

It is cancer that is barbaric if not controlled. Get a sane

perspective.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran

If you look at the value or progress of chemo and radiation for the common
cancers (typically the silent stage 4 inoperable types)
Their value is of very little use.
There's no point in poisoning someone to death because they are going to die
anyway.
Anth

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Snidely F Whiplash said:

Whatever new treatments
are developed, history will not support the red herring
in your statement. The efficacy of chemotherapy and
radiation therapy has been demonstrated and documented.
Its continued use is a direct reflection of that knowledge.

This is NOT the case with bloodletting. We know
that bloodletting was not effective in any way for
any illness. Its use constituted a failed experiment
for which the patients could not possibly have given
informed consent.

Well, that's not *quite* true. It is a pretty standard
treatment for hemochromatosis. But it certainly was not
the right way to go for your average illness.

That said, I strongly disagree with Anth about the value
of both radiation and chemo, though I admit that the
side-effects of chemo can be pretty awful and in many
cases (but not all!) it doesn't work that well.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It is chemo that is barbaric.
I am sane and in perspective.
Anth

I am prepared to argue this. Are you? For example, despite AM dogma

that

Quoted message said:

chemotherapy destroys the immune system and makes cancer harder to treat,
there are numerous studies showing that adjuvant chemotherapy improves the
long term cure rate with certain cancers (e.g. Breast and colon), and
prolongs survival in even some advacned cancers.

Quoted message said:

AM dogma that chemotherapy destroys the immune system and makes cancer

harder to treat

It's absolute fact that chemotherapy _does_ destroy the immune system, and
the bodies immune system plays the critical part in getting a person well
from cancer, so they are correct with their point.

Chemotherapy would do nothing for my relative and the evidence was clear
cut, but they were still willing to put her on chemo and poison her..In the
end the killed her with a stent while they tried to palliate her... There
seems to be a lot of screaming about how AM kills people, well from my point
of view mainstream medicine kills people, and since my sample space is so
small I have reason to be more baised towards my personal experience..

Show me studies where chemo or radiation has been shown effective against
inoperable metastisied end stage cancers?
In which case I will make it my mission to let the doctors and people who
advised me know that they were a bunch of incompetant monkeys.

Quoted message said:

Did you come across those studies in your readings so far? Of course

not,

Quoted message said:

if you are looking only at AM sites. Just as antivax literature is

riddled

Quoted message said:

with lies and distortions, so is the alt.cancer literature.

I started in the mainstream looking for help and nothing did help, that's
why I turned into AM, which was fruitless also because mainstream threw a
spanner in the works with their arrogant monopoly.

Quoted message said:

And there is nothing that chemotherapy does to a person that is worse than
the predations of cancer.

Incorrect cancer+suffering+death is much greater than cancer+death

Quoted message said:

Sure it can have side effects (less so with more recent drugs). But even
when used in desperate cases, which is where it has gained its bad
reputation, if it is not shrinking the cancer within two months it is not
likely to work and need not be continued. I think it is very much

overused

Quoted message said:

in circumstances where it is not likely to do much good, but that, as with
the use of a lot of useless 'alternatives', is dictated by urgings to be
"doing something".

I agree - chemo is overused typically when it doesn't have any effect
whatsoever. 'When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.'
Other 'useless' AM alternatives (which incidently 50% of, come from M.D.'s)
could be explored in these end stage cases, if the person was willing and
the mainstream as a whole wasn't so brainwashed and hell bent on
brainwashing people against AM/unproven treatments.

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran

Anth

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Time honored treatments
From: "Snidely F Whiplash" [email hidden]
Date: 9/23/2003 2:43 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

| Anth lovingly trolled

PLONK!

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Time honored treatments
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 9/23/2003 3:46 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

chemotherapy/radiation is barbaric, it kills people.
Anth

It is cancer that is barbaric if not controlled. Get a sane perspective.

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

chemotherapy/radiation is barbaric, it kills people.

Jan

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Time honored treatments
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 9/23/2003 3:55 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(also yours _is_ an anecdote)
There was no control, you could not be sure that the tumour would have
spontaneously gone away,

If rapid shrinkage and even disappearance of cancers was not such a regular
event with radiotherapy, that might be a reasonable suggestion.

Quoted message said:

come back in 5 or 10 years, when there is no
recurrence, and when the cause of cancer is known, radiation chemo will be
barbarity.

Maybe. You have a lot to learn about the present..

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy can cure some kinds of cancer on their own.
With others they can improve cure rates when used as adjuvants to surgery,
and in yet other incurable cancers they can provide useful palliation and
prolong life.

In a few situations they may do more harm than good. Such occurrences in
no way cancel out the their usefulness elsewhere, no matter what distorted
and ignorant nonsense from AM you are reading.

Peter Moran

They are recommended for any cancer, even when the doc knows they do more harm
than good.

That is a pity, and it is all about money.

And your belittling is typical, from a doctor no less.

You have made ASSumptions also, so you could throw in you hatred of AM.

No wonder people are fed up with doctors like YOU.

Jan

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

If you look at the value or progress of chemo and radiation for the
common cancers (typically the silent stage 4 inoperable types)
Their value is of very little use.

I'll ignore the grammatical horror of that last sentence. Anyway,
there are cases where radiation works quite well; some inoperable
lung cancers shrivel up like raisins after radiation treatment,
just as an example.

Quoted message said:

There's no point in poisoning someone to death because they are going
to die anyway.

I'm not advocating pointless chemotherapy. On the other hand, I'm not
just reflexively screaming "all chemotherapy is bad!" or "all
radiation is bad!"

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Quoted message said:

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Snidely F Whiplash said:

Whatever new treatments
are developed, history will not support the red herring
in your statement. The efficacy of chemotherapy and
radiation therapy has been demonstrated and documented.
Its continued use is a direct reflection of that knowledge.

This is NOT the case with bloodletting. We know
that bloodletting was not effective in any way for
any illness. Its use constituted a failed experiment
for which the patients could not possibly have given
informed consent.

Well, that's not *quite* true. It is a pretty standard
treatment for hemochromatosis. But it certainly was not
the right way to go for your average illness.

That said, I strongly disagree with Anth about the value
of both radiation and chemo, though I admit that the
side-effects of chemo can be pretty awful and in many
cases (but not all!) it doesn't work that well.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

"Snidely F Whiplash" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

| Anth lovingly trolled in a post entitled
| "Time Honored Treatments"...
|
| What they use to treat today is the barbarity
| of tomorrow. Typical examples of this [are]
| blood letting, chemotherapy [and] radiation.
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anth,

Recently I cared for a seven year old child one of whose
rapidly growing tumors was crowding his airway making
it very difficult for him to breathe. One could hear
him breathing from accross the room. As a result, any
activity left him short of breath. Left untreated (and
this is essentially what magical medicine does) the child
would have died of respiratory failure within a matter
of days. However, after the tumor was twice irradiated
over a period of twenty four hours it shrunk enough to
completely free his airway of the obstruction and he
was out of bed, happy smiling and playful.

Supporters of magical medicine may retort that this is
only an anecdote. It is not. It is the documented result
of a treatment the rationale and mechanism of which is
well explained and understood by the scientific community.

That new, more effective treatments for cancers will
be developed is a given. They might even supplant
chemotherapy and/or radiation. In the end, however,
no treatment for cancer can be completely non-toxic
or without side effects since the ultimate goal is the
elimination of those cells which are cancerous, either
by killing them or removing them (or some combination
of thereof), a process which is by definition toxic.

The "tomorrow" you envision, with its dismissal
of chemotherapy and radiation therapy as barbaric
treatments in the same class as bloodletting, is merely
wishful, deluded thinking. Whatever new treatments
are developed, history will not support the red herring
in your statement. The efficacy of chemotherapy and
radiation therapy has been demonstrated and documented.
Its continued use is a direct reflection of that knowledge.

This is NOT the case with bloodletting. We know
that bloodletting was not effective in any way for
any illness. Its use constituted a failed experiment
for which the patients could not possibly have given
informed consent.

Finally, the title of your post reflects the delusion
of those who support magical medicine. Effective
treatments are honored by continued use in the
medical community. But continued use over time
is NOT in any way a criteria by which to judge
efficacy.

Regards,
Snidely

I am very happy for this child. We work with a lot of cancer patients and
get people in
two kinds of situations. We get the ones who have become "incurable" by any
mainstream
method and we are using Bing Han Refined Ginseng Powder to rebuild their
defenses and
the cancer is being eradicated. The patients we are seeing, are terrified by
the side effects of
chemotherapy and radiation treatments and are taking Bing Han Refined
Ginseng Powder to
see the traditional side effects of enemia, hairloss, pain, nausea,
diarrhea and heathy cell
destruction, eliminated.

I predict that there will be a more humane way to successfully treat cancer.
Very soon.

Quoted message said:

---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption

=---