Hoxey -- Was he able to heal himself ?

[Guest guest]

How true is the story that Hoxsey himself contracted Prostate cancer,

and that he was unable to heal himself with his own medicine.

The story is, he eventually had to undergo conventional medical

treatment and dies several years later.

Just wanted to check if this story is factual.

[Guest guest]

At 08:13 AM 15/06/2001, you wrote:

>How true is the story that Hoxsey himself contracted Prostate cancer,

>and that he was unable to heal himself with his own medicine.

>

>The story is, he eventually had to undergo conventional medical

>treatment and dies several years later.

>

>Just wanted to check if this story is factual.

From a person who is on the hoxsey treatment and has almost 1.5 years

research on any/all non conventional cancer treatments. It is totally

false. There is ALOT of coruption on the conventional side, proven in the

US courts, with hoxsey and his treatment. The head of the AMA at the time

morise fisbien was the main person going after hoxsey. yet in the US COURT

fiebien admitied that he failed his medical exam, and had not treated 1

patient in his whole career.

the second book on hoxsey gives FULL court,etc refernce's about 100 pages.

if memory serve's correct.

And the worst part is hoxsey is only 1 of MANY that had some merit.

I would recommend getting

Politics in Healing : The Suppression & Manipulation of American Medicine

by daniel hayey (a ex politician from NY)

http://www.politicsinhealing.com/

[Guest guest]

It's probably true – different sources mention this fact. However,

in my opinion, that doesn't mean that his methods are of no value.

It just shows that they are no magic bullet – they might work in some

cases and don't work in others. This can be said about any other

alternative (and conventional) method. Patient's best chance is to

choose the therapy (a number of therapies) that give him/her the

largest probability of success. I'm probably in minority here on

this board but I think the first look should be at conventional

treatments – especially for early stages. Only if there is clear

data showing that standard treatments don't usually work in your

particular case you should concentrate on alternatives. Not because

they are inherently better (nobody proved it yet) but just because

you know for sure that there is almost no chance conventional

medicine is going to help you so why spend time trying it.

[Guest guest]

At 11:00 AM 15/06/2001, you wrote:

>It's probably true ­ different sources mention this fact. However,

>in my opinion, that doesn't mean that his methods are of no value.

>It just shows that they are no magic bullet ­ they might work in some

>cases and don't work in others. This can be said about any other

>alternative (and conventional) method. Patient's best chance is to

>choose the therapy (a number of therapies) that give him/her the

>largest probability of success. I'm probably in minority here on

>this board but I think the first look should be at conventional

>treatments ­ especially for early stages. Only if there is clear

>data showing that standard treatments don't usually work in your

>particular case you should concentrate on alternatives. Not because

>they are inherently better (nobody proved it yet) but just because

>you know for sure that there is almost no chance conventional

>medicine is going to help you so why spend time trying it.

I agree almost. Why not use EVERYTHING possible. I have a brain tumor, and

conventional treatment is very bad for them. so i went another way. I did

not just choose 1 alt treatment. im on 3 alt treatments and i have out

lasted the numbers already, with " quackery " treatments.

Many treatments could/can be used at the same time. convnt or alt.

Rob

[Guest guest]

--- dnkostya@... wrote:

> It's probably true – different sources mention this

> fact. However,

> in my opinion, that doesn't mean that his methods

> are of no value.

> It just shows that they are no magic bullet – they

> might work in some

> cases and don't work in others. This can be said

> about any other

> alternative (and conventional) method. Patient's

> best chance is to

> choose the therapy (a number of therapies) that give

> him/her the

> largest probability of success. I'm probably in

> minority here on

> this board but I think the first look should be at

> conventional

> treatments – especially for early stages. Only if

> there is clear

> data showing that standard treatments don't usually

> work in your

> particular case you should concentrate on

> alternatives. Not because

> they are inherently better (nobody proved it yet)

> but just because

> you know for sure that there is almost no chance

> conventional

> medicine is going to help you so why spend time

> trying it.

>

>

While at first glance your advice seems reasonable

enough I still found my self in disagreement after a

moment's thought.

The very fact that a person develops a malignancy is

evidence that their immune system has failed them. So

if by conventional therapy you are recommending

surgery with general anesthesia,

radiation and chemotherapy (especially those which are

derivatives of mustard gas), then you might want to

reconsider your position. All of the above options

can wreak havoc upon the immune system. Have you not

read the recent news releases which show that children

treated successfully for cancer with conventional

therapy have a much higher probability of developing

even more virulent cancers years later? The stories

suggested a causal relationship between the treatments

received initially and the new cancers which developed

later. Additionally, Judah Folkman, M.D., has offered

an explanation for the phenomenon of making a clean

surgical removal of a " primary or mother tumor " only

to be followed by an immediate metastatic explosion of

growth of tumors throughout the body resulting in

patient death in mere weeks. This is seen in as many

as l5% of surgically removed malignancies. If you

have this a same kind of tumor, destroying it by

radiation will trigger the same results. This

phenomenon has been replicated in recent animal

studies with

results published-----results which the gurus of

radiology have blatantly denied for many years. Have

you really watched the movie, " Cancer Warrior " the

link to which I posted here about 6-8 weeks ago? If

not, you would be wise to do so. I think we must

always bear in mind that the opinions and/or advice we

sometimes, so blithely, dispense in our posts here

---can guide people to their deaths. Horrible,

certain deaths caused by treatments which can

literally cannibalize them physically--and

financially! Let us always remember, " First, do no

harm " . It's your roll of the dice.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

For Gerald Oros.....tell me more about the video " Cancer Warrior. " Where can it

be bought and what's it about? Apparently, I missed that post earlier.

Thanks,

Ellen Rhudy

Gerald Oros wrote:

> --- dnkostya@... wrote:

> > It's probably true – different sources mention this

> > fact. However,

> > in my opinion, that doesn't mean that his methods

> > are of no value.

> > It just shows that they are no magic bullet – they

> > might work in some

> > cases and don't work in others. This can be said

> > about any other

> > alternative (and conventional) method. Patient's

> > best chance is to

> > choose the therapy (a number of therapies) that give

> > him/her the

> > largest probability of success. I'm probably in

> > minority here on

> > this board but I think the first look should be at

> > conventional

> > treatments – especially for early stages. Only if

> > there is clear

> > data showing that standard treatments don't usually

> > work in your

> > particular case you should concentrate on

> > alternatives. Not because

> > they are inherently better (nobody proved it yet)

> > but just because

> > you know for sure that there is almost no chance

> > conventional

> > medicine is going to help you so why spend time

> > trying it.

> >

> >

> While at first glance your advice seems reasonable

> enough I still found my self in disagreement after a

> moment's thought.

> The very fact that a person develops a malignancy is

> evidence that their immune system has failed them. So

> if by conventional therapy you are recommending

> surgery with general anesthesia,

> radiation and chemotherapy (especially those which are

> derivatives of mustard gas), then you might want to

> reconsider your position. All of the above options

> can wreak havoc upon the immune system. Have you not

> read the recent news releases which show that children

> treated successfully for cancer with conventional

> therapy have a much higher probability of developing

> even more virulent cancers years later? The stories

> suggested a causal relationship between the treatments

> received initially and the new cancers which developed

> later. Additionally, Judah Folkman, M.D., has offered

> an explanation for the phenomenon of making a clean

> surgical removal of a " primary or mother tumor " only

> to be followed by an immediate metastatic explosion of

> growth of tumors throughout the body resulting in

> patient death in mere weeks. This is seen in as many

> as l5% of surgically removed malignancies. If you

> have this a same kind of tumor, destroying it by

> radiation will trigger the same results. This

> phenomenon has been replicated in recent animal

> studies with

> results published-----results which the gurus of

> radiology have blatantly denied for many years. Have

> you really watched the movie, " Cancer Warrior " the

> link to which I posted here about 6-8 weeks ago? If

> not, you would be wise to do so. I think we must

> always bear in mind that the opinions and/or advice we

> sometimes, so blithely, dispense in our posts here

> ---can guide people to their deaths. Horrible,

> certain deaths caused by treatments which can

> literally cannibalize them physically--and

> financially! Let us always remember, " First, do no

> harm " . It's your roll of the dice.

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

" I think we must always bear in mind that the opinions and/or advice

we sometimes, so blithely, dispense in our posts here ---can guide

people to their deaths. " I personally don't think that my (or your

for that matter) advice will be that important, but I'm ready to

accept it for the sake of argument.

So, what did I say? That if there exists high probability (based on

thousands or even millions of cases) that coventional treatment will

be beneficial in your case, you should use it (that doesn't exclude

using other supplemental therapies provided they do not negatively

affect the main one). But if there exists clear data (again based on

thousands/millions of cases) showing that conventional medicine won't

help you, then you better concentrate on alternatives. What is so

terrible/harmful about this opinion?

And what do you recommend? Only because SOME fail a conventional

treatment NOBODY should use it? What to use instead? Beta glucan?

Transfer factor? Enzymes? TAC? Something else? I'm not arguing –

they might work. But can you provide data from clinical trials

demonstrating that, for example, 95/85/75% of patients who took them

are well and alive at least 5 years later? I don't think so. Again,

I'm not arguing whose fault it is that no such data exists – that's

another question. I'm just stating the fact – no such data exists.

So, is it responsible on your part to push people with conventionally-

treatable cancers away from therapies with a statistically confirmed

success rate and toward totally unproven ones?

> While at first glance your advice seems reasonable

> enough I still found my self in disagreement after a

> moment's thought.

> The very fact that a person develops a malignancy is

> evidence that their immune system has failed them. So

> if by conventional therapy you are recommending

> surgery with general anesthesia,

> radiation and chemotherapy (especially those which are

> derivatives of mustard gas), then you might want to

> reconsider your position. All of the above options

> can wreak havoc upon the immune system. Have you not

> read the recent news releases which show that children

> treated successfully for cancer with conventional

> therapy have a much higher probability of developing

> even more virulent cancers years later? The stories

> suggested a causal relationship between the treatments

> received initially and the new cancers which developed

> later. Additionally, Judah Folkman, M.D., has offered

> an explanation for the phenomenon of making a clean

> surgical removal of a " primary or mother tumor " only

> to be followed by an immediate metastatic explosion of

> growth of tumors throughout the body resulting in

> patient death in mere weeks. This is seen in as many

> as l5% of surgically removed malignancies. If you

> have this a same kind of tumor, destroying it by

> radiation will trigger the same results. This

> phenomenon has been replicated in recent animal

> studies with

> results published-----results which the gurus of

> radiology have blatantly denied for many years. Have

> you really watched the movie, " Cancer Warrior " the

> link to which I posted here about 6-8 weeks ago? If

> not, you would be wise to do so. I think we must

> always bear in mind that the opinions and/or advice we

> sometimes, so blithely, dispense in our posts here

> ---can guide people to their deaths. Horrible,

> certain deaths caused by treatments which can

> literally cannibalize them physically--and

> financially! Let us always remember, " First, do no

> harm " . It's your roll of the dice.

>

>

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

--- ROBERT R RHUDY <rhudy@...> wrote:

> For Gerald Oros.....tell me more about the video

> " Cancer Warrior. " Where can it be bought and what's

> it about? Apparently, I missed that post earlier.

> Thanks,

> Ellen Rhudy

>

> Gerald Oros wrote:

>

> > --- dnkostya@... wrote:

> > > It's probably true – different sources mention

> this

> > > fact. However,

> > > in my opinion, that doesn't mean that his

> methods

> > > are of no value.

> > > It just shows that they are no magic bullet –

> they

> > > might work in some

> > > cases and don't work in others. This can be

> said

> > > about any other

> > > alternative (and conventional) method.

> Patient's

> > > best chance is to

> > > choose the therapy (a number of therapies) that

> give

> > > him/her the

> > > largest probability of success. I'm probably in

> > > minority here on

> > > this board but I think the first look should be

> at

> > > conventional

> > > treatments – especially for early stages. Only

> if

> > > there is clear

> > > data showing that standard treatments don't

> usually

> > > work in your

> > > particular case you should concentrate on

> > > alternatives. Not because

> > > they are inherently better (nobody proved it

> yet)

> > > but just because

> > > you know for sure that there is almost no chance

> > > conventional

> > > medicine is going to help you so why spend time

> > > trying it.

> > >

> > >

> > While at first glance your advice seems reasonable

> > enough I still found my self in disagreement after

> a

> > moment's thought.

> > The very fact that a person develops a malignancy

> is

> > evidence that their immune system has failed them.

> So

> > if by conventional therapy you are recommending

> > surgery with general anesthesia,

> > radiation and chemotherapy (especially those which

> are

> > derivatives of mustard gas), then you might want

> to

> > reconsider your position. All of the above

> options

> > can wreak havoc upon the immune system. Have you

> not

> > read the recent news releases which show that

> children

> > treated successfully for cancer with conventional

> > therapy have a much higher probability of

> developing

> > even more virulent cancers years later? The

> stories

> > suggested a causal relationship between the

> treatments

> > received initially and the new cancers which

> developed

> > later. Additionally, Judah Folkman, M.D., has

> offered

> > an explanation for the phenomenon of making a

> clean

> > surgical removal of a " primary or mother tumor "

> only

> > to be followed by an immediate metastatic

> explosion of

> > growth of tumors throughout the body resulting in

> > patient death in mere weeks. This is seen in as

> many

> > as l5% of surgically removed malignancies. If you

> > have this a same kind of tumor, destroying it by

> > radiation will trigger the same results. This

> > phenomenon has been replicated in recent animal

> > studies with

> > results published-----results which the gurus of

> > radiology have blatantly denied for many years.

> Have

> > you really watched the movie, " Cancer Warrior " the

> > link to which I posted here about 6-8 weeks ago?

> If

> > not, you would be wise to do so. I think we must

> > always bear in mind that the opinions and/or

> advice we

> > sometimes, so blithely, dispense in our posts here

> > ---can guide people to their deaths. Horrible,

> > certain deaths caused by treatments which can

> > literally cannibalize them physically--and

> > financially! Let us always remember, " First, do

> no

> > harm " . It's your roll of the dice.

> >

> > __________________________________________________

> >

[Guest guest]

cures for cancer

From: dnkostya@...

Date sent: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:16:19 -0000

Send reply to: cures for cancer

Subject: Re: Hoxey -- Was he able to heal himself ?

> So, what did I say? That if there exists high probability (based on

> thousands or even millions of cases) that coventional treatment will be

> beneficial in your case, you should use it (that doesn't exclude using

> other supplemental therapies provided they do not negatively affect the

> main one). But if there exists clear data (again based on

> thousands/millions of cases) showing that conventional medicine won't help

> you, then you better concentrate on alternatives. What is so

> terrible/harmful about this opinion?

Hi,

I will tell you of a conventional medical technique only performed by

medical practitioners in hospitals. This conventional medical treatment did

produce

86% complete remission in cancer patients in the clinical trial.

I guess this is the sort of treatment that you advocate and refer to below.

It is the saline or ethanol injection technique.

Guess what. No medical doctor is going to give you this orthodox, hospital

based,

non toxic and clinically proven treatment - 86% complete cure with no

recurrence of

cancer.

It is too expensive, it would cost billions of dollars in lost drug sales if

implemented. Many oncologists and hospital staff would also loose their jobs if

this

quick safe, clinically proven therapy was used.

Go to you doctor and ask for the above treatment, I will give you a reward if

they

do offer you this conventional, very successful, cancer treatment.

I posted a clinical trial of beta glucan by Dr Mansell. " Tumors shrank

remarkably

in as little as 5 days " .

Ask for this type of proven treatment also, they will not give it to you.

Do you work for a drug company or gain any financial rewards for attacking

alternative therapies? Are you affiliated with QUACKWATCH.COM ?

Did you know that FDA EXAMINERS also work for drug companies simultaneously.

Approving for the FDA the same drug that they themselves developed for the drug

company, the week before? Is that unbiased?

There will never be a time when the FDA, in its current state of operation as

a

strong arm for the big pharmaceutical companies, approves an alternative

product.

And there's good reason for this: no sane person would invest the $100

million and 15 years in clinical trials to get a " drug " approved that

cannot be truly protected by patent law. And there is no set of patent

laws on the planet that will truly protect the owner of an herbal formula.

Only chemical compounds with unique empirical formulas not yet patented

can get meaningful patent protection. Without this protection there is no

intelligent reason for filing a New Drug Application (NDA), investing $100

million and waiting for 15 years to get a government to approve a claim on

a life-saving product that has already been curing people of cancer for

nearly 100 years.

The government should provide funding for trials of non patented products

with

cancer. Say 200 million $ per year for clinical trials on non patented products.

You imply that alternatives are unproven, but that is not true. Either you

did

not know that alternatives are proven to work, perhaps you have read very few of

my

posts, or maybe you are working for the drug companies.

Those who have had chemo and radio therapy have an 18 fold higher chance of

developing a new cancer later, soley due to the effect of the cheomo and radio

therapy. Is this the therapy that you recommend?

moonbeam

>

> And what do you recommend? Only because SOME fail a conventional

> treatment NOBODY should use it? What to use instead? Beta glucan?

> Transfer factor? Enzymes? TAC? Something else? I'm not arguing – they

> might work. But can you provide data from clinical trials demonstrating

> that, for example, 95/85/75% of patients who took them are well and alive

> at least 5 years later? I don't think so. Again, I'm not arguing whose

> fault it is that no such data exists – that's another question. I'm just

> stating the fact – no such data exists. So, is it responsible on your

> part to push people with conventionally- treatable cancers away from

> therapies with a statistically confirmed success rate and toward totally

> unproven ones?

>

>

>

> > While at first glance your advice seems reasonable

> > enough I still found my self in disagreement after a

> > moment's thought.

> > The very fact that a person develops a malignancy is

> > evidence that their immune system has failed them. So

> > if by conventional therapy you are recommending

> > surgery with general anesthesia,

> > radiation and chemotherapy (especially those which are

> > derivatives of mustard gas), then you might want to

> > reconsider your position. All of the above options

> > can wreak havoc upon the immune system. Have you not

> > read the recent news releases which show that children

> > treated successfully for cancer with conventional

> > therapy have a much higher probability of developing

> > even more virulent cancers years later? The stories

> > suggested a causal relationship between the treatments

> > received initially and the new cancers which developed

> > later. Additionally, Judah Folkman, M.D., has offered

> > an explanation for the phenomenon of making a clean

> > surgical removal of a " primary or mother tumor " only

> > to be followed by an immediate metastatic explosion of

> > growth of tumors throughout the body resulting in

> > patient death in mere weeks. This is seen in as many

> > as l5% of surgically removed malignancies. If you

> > have this a same kind of tumor, destroying it by

> > radiation will trigger the same results. This

> > phenomenon has been replicated in recent animal

> > studies with

> > results published-----results which the gurus of

> > radiology have blatantly denied for many years. Have

> > you really watched the movie, " Cancer Warrior " the

> > link to which I posted here about 6-8 weeks ago? If

> > not, you would be wise to do so. I think we must

> > always bear in mind that the opinions and/or advice we

> > sometimes, so blithely, dispense in our posts here

> > ---can guide people to their deaths. Horrible,

> > certain deaths caused by treatments which can

> > literally cannibalize them physically--and

> > financially! Let us always remember, " First, do no

> > harm " . It's your roll of the dice.

> >

> >

> >

> > __________________________________________________

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I hate to be rude but I wonder if you can read at all. Where am I

deterring people from taking alternatives? Where am I attacking

them? I posted several times here about some promising treatments

(Dr Sun's soup, study in India, about PSK by the way). But as soon

as I said that people should first find out if there exists a

standard successful therapy (and even in this case suggesting using

supplemental therapies provided they do not interfere with the main

one) I became an agent of the drug companies.

OK, what else do I find in your response? 18 fold higher chance of

developing a new cancer due to chemo? Compared to whom? To people

who died and so have no chance of developing a new cancer? Or to

people who never had a cancer? Or who had a completely different

stage or a completely different cancer? Is that a fine example

of " fuzzy math " or what? And where is your proof that beta glucan is

better than what conventional medicine can offer? NOTE, I'M NOT

IMPLYING THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE – I'M JUST ASKING FOR REAL DATA. And

what I hear - some Dr Mansell injected 9 patients with beta glucan

and noticed that their tumors shrank. And what's next? How long did

he monior them? What stage they were? What was their long-term

survival compared to the historical average? And based on that sole

experiment with as many as 9(!) people and some other lab tests I'm

supposed to decline any conventional treatment even if it has a

proven success rate and go take your beta glucan instead? I would be

the biggest fool if I did.

Why, by the way, you constantly equate PSK to the beta glucan?

Nobody proved it yet that the efficasy of the beta glucan that you

tout in every message is comparable to PSK. Which is itself no cure-

all, by the way – what it does is moderately increase your chances.

And maybe you forgot, but in almost all trials it was used in

conjunction with conventional treatment.

And, please, stop repeating that BS about criminal drug companies,

oncologs " killing " millions of people to keep their jobs, and FDA

whose only mission is to prevent american public from getting cancer

cure. Yes, drug companies often market new practically useless drugs

just to make more money. Yes, researchers could pay more attention

to natural therapies. Yes, there could be more money allocated for

testing alternatives. Yes, approval process could be more fair.

However, maybe you didn't know but there are over 200 countries in

the world and none of them to the best of my knowledge yet declared

victory over cancer. Most of them even fare far worse that US. Why

is that? Many of them do not have any drug industry at all. Or,

like in former communist countries, drug companies were nationalized

and couldn't care less about profit. What stops those countries from

discovering cancer cures? You don't have to have bags of money or

high-tech industry to give people beta glucan/or transfer factor/or

PSK/ or whatever and declare to the world that the war against cancer

has been won. Maybe there is a world-wide medical conspiracy to

supress real cancer cure? Maybe all the doctors in the world in

addition to the oath of Hippocrates give another secret one where

they swear to keep cancer patients from any natural remedy? Is that

so?

> cures for cancer@y...

> From: dnkostya@h...

> Date sent: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:16:19 -0000

> Send reply to: cures for cancer@y...

> Subject: Re: Hoxey -- Was he able to heal

himself ?

> > So, what did I say? That if there exists high probability (based

on

> > thousands or even millions of cases) that coventional treatment

will be

> > beneficial in your case, you should use it (that doesn't exclude

using

> > other supplemental therapies provided they do not negatively

affect the

> > main one). But if there exists clear data (again based on

> > thousands/millions of cases) showing that conventional medicine

won't help

> > you, then you better concentrate on alternatives. What is so

> > terrible/harmful about this opinion?

>

>

> Hi,

> I will tell you of a conventional medical technique only

performed by

> medical practitioners in hospitals. This conventional medical

treatment did produce

> 86% complete remission in cancer patients in the clinical trial.

>

> I guess this is the sort of treatment that you advocate and

refer to below.

> It is the saline or ethanol injection technique.

>

> Guess what. No medical doctor is going to give you this

orthodox, hospital based,

> non toxic and clinically proven treatment - 86% complete cure with

no recurrence of

> cancer.

>

> It is too expensive, it would cost billions of dollars in lost

drug sales if

> implemented. Many oncologists and hospital staff would also loose

their jobs if this

> quick safe, clinically proven therapy was used.

>

> Go to you doctor and ask for the above treatment, I will give you

a reward if they

> do offer you this conventional, very successful, cancer treatment.

>

> I posted a clinical trial of beta glucan by Dr Mansell. " Tumors

shrank remarkably

> in as little as 5 days " .

>

> Ask for this type of proven treatment also, they will not give

it to you.

>

> Do you work for a drug company or gain any financial rewards

for attacking

> alternative therapies? Are you affiliated with QUACKWATCH.COM ?

>

>

> Did you know that FDA EXAMINERS also work for drug companies

simultaneously.

> Approving for the FDA the same drug that they themselves developed

for the drug

> company, the week before? Is that unbiased?

>

> There will never be a time when the FDA, in its current state of

operation as a

> strong arm for the big pharmaceutical companies, approves an

alternative product.

>

> And there's good reason for this: no sane person would invest the

$100

> million and 15 years in clinical trials to get a " drug " approved

that

> cannot be truly protected by patent law. And there is no set of

patent

> laws on the planet that will truly protect the owner of an herbal

formula.

> Only chemical compounds with unique empirical formulas not yet

patented

> can get meaningful patent protection. Without this protection there

is no

> intelligent reason for filing a New Drug Application (NDA),

investing $100

> million and waiting for 15 years to get a government to approve a

claim on

> a life-saving product that has already been curing people of cancer

for

> nearly 100 years.

>

> The government should provide funding for trials of non

patented products with

> cancer. Say 200 million $ per year for clinical trials on non

patented products.

>

> You imply that alternatives are unproven, but that is not true.

Either you did

> not know that alternatives are proven to work, perhaps you have

read very few of my

> posts, or maybe you are working for the drug companies.

>

> Those who have had chemo and radio therapy have an 18 fold

higher chance of

> developing a new cancer later, soley due to the effect of the

cheomo and radio

> therapy. Is this the therapy that you recommend?

>

> moonbeam

>

> >

> > And what do you recommend? Only because SOME fail a conventional

> > treatment NOBODY should use it? What to use instead? Beta

glucan?

> > Transfer factor? Enzymes? TAC? Something else? I'm not

arguing – they

> > might work. But can you provide data from clinical trials

demonstrating

> > that, for example, 95/85/75% of patients who took them are well

and alive

> > at least 5 years later? I don't think so. Again, I'm not

arguing whose

> > fault it is that no such data exists – that's another question.

I'm just

> > stating the fact – no such data exists. So, is it responsible on

your

> > part to push people with conventionally- treatable cancers away

from

> > therapies with a statistically confirmed success rate and toward

totally

> > unproven ones?

> >

> >

> >

> > > While at first glance your advice seems reasonable

> > > enough I still found my self in disagreement after a

> > > moment's thought.

> > > The very fact that a person develops a malignancy is

> > > evidence that their immune system has failed them. So

> > > if by conventional therapy you are recommending

> > > surgery with general anesthesia,

> > > radiation and chemotherapy (especially those which are

> > > derivatives of mustard gas), then you might want to

> > > reconsider your position. All of the above options

> > > can wreak havoc upon the immune system. Have you not

> > > read the recent news releases which show that children

> > > treated successfully for cancer with conventional

> > > therapy have a much higher probability of developing

> > > even more virulent cancers years later? The stories

> > > suggested a causal relationship between the treatments

> > > received initially and the new cancers which developed

> > > later. Additionally, Judah Folkman, M.D., has offered

> > > an explanation for the phenomenon of making a clean

> > > surgical removal of a " primary or mother tumor " only

> > > to be followed by an immediate metastatic explosion of

> > > growth of tumors throughout the body resulting in

> > > patient death in mere weeks. This is seen in as many

> > > as l5% of surgically removed malignancies. If you

> > > have this a same kind of tumor, destroying it by

> > > radiation will trigger the same results. This

> > > phenomenon has been replicated in recent animal

> > > studies with

> > > results published-----results which the gurus of

> > > radiology have blatantly denied for many years. Have

> > > you really watched the movie, " Cancer Warrior " the

> > > link to which I posted here about 6-8 weeks ago? If

> > > not, you would be wise to do so. I think we must

> > > always bear in mind that the opinions and/or advice we

> > > sometimes, so blithely, dispense in our posts here

> > > ---can guide people to their deaths. Horrible,

> > > certain deaths caused by treatments which can

> > > literally cannibalize them physically--and

> > > financially! Let us always remember, " First, do no

> > > harm " . It's your roll of the dice.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > __________________________________________________

> > >