RE: Re: mammography and biopsies Thermographs - and breast cancer death rates

[Guest guest]

The discussion on thermography has been illuminating. Moran makes the

point that there has been a substantial/significant decrease in deaths from

breast cancer despite increase in incidence. Does this mean that chemo regimes

are more effective or is there another explanation (ie women are better educated

and using more nutritional interventions that they don't necessarily discuss

with their doctors.)

Chamberlain

[Guest guest]

My last understanding of what the figures for survival were makes me dispute any

statement that there has been a 'substantial' reduction in Breast Cancer deaths.

Here is one report and while some of the figures used are somewhat dated, there

isn't any real evidence that an improvement has been seen. The report itself

was written in 2004 and that is not dated. The excerpt was taken from a report

by Ralph Moss, PhD and originally from the two Australian Oncologists that

reported....simply stated, " Chemotherapy doesn't work " .

" As an example of how chemotherapy is oversold, they cite the treatment of

breast cancer. In 1998 in Australia, out of the total of 10,661 women who were

newly diagnosed with breast cancer, 4,638 women were considered eligible for

chemotherapy. Of these 4,638 women, only 164 (3.5 percent) actually gained some

survival benefit from chemotherapy. As the authors point out, the use of newer

chemotherapy regimens including the taxanes and anthracyclines for breast cancer

may raise survival by an estimated additional one percent - but this is achieved

at the expense of an increased risk of cardiac toxicity and nerve damage.

" There is also no convincing evidence, " they write, " that using regimens with

newer and more expensive drugs is any more beneficial than the regimens used in

the 1970s. " They add that two systematic reviews of the evidence been not been

able to demonstrate any survival benefit for chemotherapy in recurrent or

metastatic breast cancer.

Another factor clouding the issue is the growing trend for clinical trials to

use what are called 'surrogate end points,' as a yardstick by which to measure a

chemotherapy regimen's effectiveness. This is instead of using the only real

measures that matters to patients - prolongation of life as measured by overall

survival and improved quality of life. Surrogate end points such as

'progression-free survival,' 'disease-free survival' or 'recurrence-free

survival' may only reflect temporary lulls in the progression of the disease.

Such temporary stabilization of disease, if it occurs at all, seldom lasts for

more than a few months at best. The cancer typically returns, sometimes with

renewed vigor, and survival is not generally extended by such interventions.

However, trials reported in terms of surrogate end points can create the

illusion that the lives of desperately ill patients are being significantly

extended or made more bearable by chemotherapy, when in reality this is not the

case. "

In later reports Moss points out the trickery used in how numbers are twisted.

In other words, they lie.

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

Early diagnosis of breast cancer means increased survival

rates. Stage 1 cancers are easily curable; stage 4 cancers are very,

very difficult. Early stage cancers are often latent or self healing

as evidenced by benign calcification or autopsy after death from

other causes. I think when such questionable lesions show up on

mammograms it is alarmist to even use the term cancer. Rather than

marketing products and services to the fearful patient, it is much

smarter to tell the patient that, " There seems to be evidence of a

healing process taking place. Let's track it over the next few

months by ultrasound elastography, etc. " This way you avoid

counterproductive drama.

Nature does quite a good job of healing without a helping hand

from marketers. Keep in mind that we have been divinely blessed with

millions of years of evolution that have fine-tuned a well-oiled

machine of tens of thousands of concurrently operating biochemical,

hormonal, and immune pathways all with an overriding cooperative goal

-- to keep the organism healthy. To achieve the current level of

perfection of our organism, nature has left untold zillions of failed

experiments in time's wake. No ego-driven scientist, greed-driven

marketer, nor lunacy-driven " healer " can compete with that.

[Guest guest]

Your focus is too narrow in this case. Cancer is an invasive disease and

regardless of which of the 117 identified types you have, still is not

understood enough to know its cause. There have been, as of this date,

literally hundreds of billions of dollars expended in research and like the

common cold, there is no definite cause that can be stated as of now. Two

of the most highly respected cancer specialists in the world have now come

out and said that advanced stage cancer treatments do not work any better

now than they did forty years ago.

Dr. Lee Hartwell, a Nobel laureate, is president and director of the

Hutchinson Center. He has urged that the focus in cancer treatment shift

from drug development to the new disciplines of genomicsand, above all,

proteomics, the study of human proteins. Though he acknowledged the profound

advances in knowledge made over the past two decades, Hartwell emphasized

the issue by asking how well are we applying our knowledge to the problem.

He also stated that the therapy side of things has been a pretty weak story.

There have been advances such as with most childhood leukemias using

chemotherapy. But even this progress has been surprisingly weak given the

huge expenditures made in scientific research. Because we are spending over

$25 billion a year trying to improving cancer outcomes, the question he

raised really hits to the core of the issue. It really boils down to

wondering if we were looking at the right thing or not.

The conclusion he reached was that the focus needs to be on diagnostics

rather than therapeutics. Because it is possible to now catch more cancers

at Stage 1 or 2, almost everybody lives that benefits from the early

diagnostics. However, if the cancer is not caught until Stage 3 or 4, almost

everybody dies. Some researchers are even more skeptical. Mark Greene, the

Eckman professor of medical science at the University of Pennsylvania

and the scientist whose lab did much of the fundamental work on Herceptin,

the first important new type of drug specifically designed to target the

proteins in the genes that cause cells to become malignant, agrees with

Hartwell. His stated view is that the best way to deal with cancer is to

treat early, because basic understanding of advanced cancer is almost

nonexistent, and people with advanced cancer do little better now than they

did twenty, thirty, or forty years ago.

Bruce Guilmette, PhD

Survive Cancer Foundation, Inc.

http://survivecancerfoundation.org <http://survivecancerfoundation.org/>

Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day

has enough trouble of its own. Matt 6:34 (NIV)

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of JCastron

Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:35 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: mammography and biopsies Thermographs - and

breast cancer death rates

My last understanding of what the figures for survival were makes me dispute

any statement that there has been a 'substantial' reduction in Breast Cancer

deaths.

Here is one report and while some of the figures used are somewhat dated,

there isn't any real evidence that an improvement has been seen. The report

itself was written in 2004 and that is not dated. The excerpt was taken from

a report by Ralph Moss, PhD and originally from the two Australian

Oncologists that reported....simply stated, " Chemotherapy doesn't work " .

" As an example of how chemotherapy is oversold, they cite the treatment of

breast cancer. In 1998 in Australia, out of the total of 10,661 women who

were newly diagnosed with breast cancer, 4,638 women were considered

eligible for chemotherapy. Of these 4,638 women, only 164 (3.5 percent)

actually gained some survival benefit from chemotherapy. As the authors

point out, the use of newer chemotherapy regimens including the taxanes and

anthracyclines for breast cancer may raise survival by an estimated

additional one percent - but this is achieved at the expense of an increased

risk of cardiac toxicity and nerve damage.

" There is also no convincing evidence, " they write, " that using regimens

with newer and more expensive drugs is any more beneficial than the regimens

used in the 1970s. " They add that two systematic reviews of the evidence

been not been able to demonstrate any survival benefit for chemotherapy in

recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.

Another factor clouding the issue is the growing trend for clinical trials

to use what are called 'surrogate end points,' as a yardstick by which to

measure a chemotherapy regimen's effectiveness. This is instead of using the

only real measures that matters to patients - prolongation of life as

measured by overall survival and improved quality of life. Surrogate end

points such as 'progression-free survival,' 'disease-free survival' or

'recurrence-free survival' may only reflect temporary lulls in the

progression of the disease. Such temporary stabilization of disease, if it

occurs at all, seldom lasts for more than a few months at best. The cancer

typically returns, sometimes with renewed vigor, and survival is not

generally extended by such interventions. However, trials reported in terms

of surrogate end points can create the illusion that the lives of

desperately ill patients are being significantly extended or made more

bearable by chemotherapy, when in reality this is not the case. "

In later reports Moss points out the trickery used in how numbers are

twisted. In other words, they lie.

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

> Re: [ ] Re: mammography and biopsies Thermographs - and

> breast cancer death rates

>

> My last understanding of what the figures for survival were makes me

> dispute any statement that there has been a 'substantial' reduction in

> Breast Cancer deaths.

The study you quote refers only to the use of chemotherapy and it also

leaves out those leukemias and childhood cancers that have quite respectable

cure rates with chemotherapy. It is true that with many cancers

chemotherapy has had little impact in terms of cure. Palliation is a

separate subject and also not addressed by the study.

With breast cancer chemotherapy plays a very small role in patients treated

for cure. Most cures (or " long term cancer-free survivals " if you prefer --

approaching 90% in early cases) are achieved by other modalities, mostly

*adequate* surgery, with contributions from radiotherapy and hormone

antagonists, depending on the case. Chemotherapy is being used more,

especially in pre-menopausal women because it is proved to add a few per

cent to the long term survival rates already achievable by the other

methods.

Patients are at liberty to take their chances without the chemotherapy after

proper informed consent, and most would come to no harm thereby, because the

prognosis with early breast cancer is already quite good without it. They

should, however, make sure they have the treatments need to produce

adequate *local control* of the cancer in the breast or accept the likely

need for a later mastectomy to clean things up. Many women have described

on this list what usually happens when this is forgone. I have also yet to

hear anyone point out that Lorraine Day's cancer went bad because she

refuses sensible local treatment to her breast, as she herself describes.

We don't know how much of the improvements in survival rates in developed

country is due to early diagnosis, or better treatments, or even possibly

changes in the biology of modern breast cancer.

Whatever the cause, the statistics are now quite compelling and justify the

present steady-as-she goes evolution of the treatment of breast cancer using

the best available package of screening and diagnostic methods, treatment

techniques and adjuvant therapies (and alternatives if you wish).

Moran

>

> Here is one report and while some of the figures used are somewhat dated,

> there isn't any real evidence that an improvement has been seen. The

> report itself was written in 2004 and that is not dated. The excerpt was

> taken from a report by Ralph Moss, PhD and originally from the two

> Australian Oncologists that reported....simply stated, " Chemotherapy

> doesn't work " .

> " As an example of how chemotherapy is oversold, they cite the treatment of

> breast cancer. In 1998 in Australia, out of the total of 10,661 women who

> were newly diagnosed with breast cancer, 4,638 women were considered

> eligible for chemotherapy. Of these 4,638 women, only 164 (3.5 percent)

> actually gained some survival benefit from chemotherapy. As the authors

> point out, the use of newer chemotherapy regimens including the taxanes

> and anthracyclines for breast cancer may raise survival by an estimated

> additional one percent - but this is achieved at the expense of an

> increased risk of cardiac toxicity and nerve damage.

>

> " There is also no convincing evidence, " they write, " that using regimens

> with newer and more expensive drugs is any more beneficial than the

> regimens used in the 1970s. " They add that two systematic reviews of the

> evidence been not been able to demonstrate any survival benefit for

> chemotherapy in recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.

>

[Guest guest]

> Re: [ ] Re: mammography and biopsies Thermographs - and

> breast cancer death rates

>

>

>

> My last understanding of what the figures for survival were makes me

> dispute

> any statement that there has been a 'substantial' reduction in Breast

> Cancer

> deaths.

>

> Here is one report and while some of the figures used are somewhat dated,

> there isn't any real evidence that an improvement has been seen. The

> report

> itself was written in 2004 and that is not dated. The excerpt was taken

> from

> a report by Ralph Moss, PhD and originally from the two Australian

> Oncologists that reported....simply stated, " Chemotherapy doesn't work " .

> " As an example of how chemotherapy is oversold, they cite the treatment of

> breast cancer. In 1998 in Australia, out of the total of 10,661 women who

> were newly diagnosed with breast cancer, 4,638 women were considered

> eligible for chemotherapy. Of these 4,638 women, only 164 (3.5 percent)

> actually gained some survival benefit from chemotherapy. As the authors

> point out, the use of newer chemotherapy regimens including the taxanes

> and

> anthracyclines for breast cancer may raise survival by an estimated

> additional one percent - but this is achieved at the expense of an

> increased

> risk of cardiac toxicity and nerve damage.

>

> " There is also no convincing evidence, " they write, " that using regimens

> with newer and more expensive drugs is any more beneficial than the

> regimens

> used in the 1970s. " They add that two systematic reviews of the evidence

> been not been able to demonstrate any survival benefit for chemotherapy in

> recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.

>

> Another factor clouding the issue is the growing trend for clinical trials

> to use what are called 'surrogate end points,' as a yardstick by which to

> measure a chemotherapy regimen's effectiveness. This is instead of using

> the

> only real measures that matters to patients - prolongation of life as

> measured by overall survival and improved quality of life. Surrogate end

> points such as 'progression-free survival,' 'disease-free survival' or

> 'recurrence-free survival' may only reflect temporary lulls in the

> progression of the disease. Such temporary stabilization of disease, if it

> occurs at all, seldom lasts for more than a few months at best. The cancer

> typically returns, sometimes with renewed vigor, and survival is not

> generally extended by such interventions. However, trials reported in

> terms

> of surrogate end points can create the illusion that the lives of

> desperately ill patients are being significantly extended or made more

> bearable by chemotherapy, when in reality this is not the case. "

>

> In later reports Moss points out the trickery used in how numbers are

> twisted. In other words, they lie.

>

> Joe C.

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Re: [ ] Re: mammography and biopsies Thermographs - and

> breast cancer death rates

>

> Early diagnosis of breast cancer means increased survival

> rates. Stage 1 cancers are easily curable; stage 4 cancers are very,

> very difficult. Early stage cancers are often latent or self healing

> as evidenced by benign calcification or autopsy after death from

> other causes. I think when such questionable lesions show up on

> mammograms it is alarmist to even use the term cancer.

It certainly is if a biopsy has not been performed.

Rather than

> marketing products and services to the fearful patient, it is much

> smarter to tell the patient that, " There seems to be evidence of a

> healing process taking place. Let's track it over the next few

> months by ultrasound elastography, etc. " This way you avoid

> counterproductive drama.

>

I disagree here. Keeping patients under observation for something found

during screening is very stressful for the woman. It is usually only

needed for tiny, difficult to biopsy clusters of calcifications that have

not yet acquired now well-understood criteria indicating a risk of

malignancy (number, size, branching etc). Only mammography can follow such

lesions up.

If there is a lump, the ultrasonologist will look at a number of its

features, including compressibility, but I cannot see it having much of a

place in screening.

> Nature does quite a good job of healing without a helping hand

> from marketers. Keep in mind that we have been divinely blessed with

> millions of years of evolution that have fine-tuned a well-oiled

> machine of tens of thousands of concurrently operating biochemical,

> hormonal, and immune pathways all with an overriding cooperative goal

> -- to keep the organism healthy. To achieve the current level of

> perfection of our organism, nature has left untold zillions of failed

> experiments in time's wake. No ego-driven scientist, greed-driven

> marketer, nor lunacy-driven " healer " can compete with that.

>

It can equally be argued that frank cancer lies at the bottom of a cascade

of cellular abnormalities that our undoubtedly finely tuned bodies have

already failed to cope with. For example cancers are known to use at least

a dozen methods to evade immune attack (e.g. blocking antibodies, and the

selection out of cancer cells that display unrecognised proteins and leaving

alone those that don't} The mechanisms in our genes that are supposed to

cause aberrant cells to destroy themselves also seem to be helpless.

PM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

[ ] Re: mammography and biopsies Thermographs - and breast

cancer death rates

> Hi Cheryl,

>

>> Btw, didn't Lorraine Day, MD actually heal herself completely using

>> combination of the Gerson therapy, exercise, sunshine, and a return to

>> a more spiritual lifestyle? I have all of her videos and books.

>

> No, she actually had surgery, and was lucky to have a successful one

> that rid her of cancer. (Like with anything else, a percentage of

> people get lucky with something that doesn't work for other people.)

No! She is very clear in her testimony that the surgery simply debulked the

tumor. She had no breasts removed or lymph nodes. The nodes were filled with

cancer and huge but she left them. If she did not debulk the tumor it would

have broken open and caused a serious problem. She had no chemo or radiation

either. The only benefit she had by removing the tumor was lowering the

toxic load on her system. The cancer was still throughout her body and in

the nodes. She speaks of this on her videos and there may even be some of

mention of it on her site at http://www.drday.com/

> THEN she started telling stories about how sunshine and carrot juice

> and prayer healed her. Personally, I have a BIG problem with people

> on either side of the conventional/alternative fence who don't tell

> the WHOLE story. They package the part of the story that looks like

> an appealing _product_ while leaving out the part that doesn't quite

> match the product descripton, and voila -- there's your

> one-cure-fits-all in a pretty wrapper.

>

See above.

Larry

>

> Elena

>

>

[Guest guest]

Elena, That 'facts' you state are not facts.

Dr Day did have surgery, but she did not have surgery that " rid her of cancer " ,

she reports that she had infiltrating ductal carcinoma that was spreading

through her breast. She did hav a lump removed and was then told that in order

to get all the cancer (how many times have we heard that?), she would have to

have a breast removed. She refused that option, and also refused radiotherapy

and chemotherapy.

Despite your comments about the alternatives she chose, they did in fact help

her cure herself of cancer.

You are also misinformed about the Gerson Therapy, which is one of the few

alternative cancer therapies that has been proven to work.

You seem to think that approaches such as Dr Day's and

Dr Gerson's are " simplistic " . Have a good look at them - they

are anything but. If you want really simplistic approaches -- that'll be

surgery, radiation and chemo.

Simon.

----- Original Message -----

From: me2youlink

Hi Cheryl,

No, she actually had surgery, and was lucky to have a successful one that

rid her of cancer. (Like with anything else, a percentage of people get lucky

with something that doesn't work for other people.)

THEN she started telling stories about how sunshine and carrot juice and

prayer healed her.

[Guest guest]

We don't get cancer from a lack of toxic chemicals---in fact, it is safe to

say that we get cancer BECAUSE of toxic chemicals and drugs along with

carelessly putting things into the body that do not belong.

Sometimes the answers to very complex concerns are actually very simple.

Will there ever be a " cure " for cancer as in going and getting a shot or

taking a pill and everything being ok within ten days. I highly doubt it.

We have had cures for cancer for a long, long time. People reverse cancer

all the time, yet our " system " refuses to even recognize that this can

happen---it's all anecdotal. (So how many anecdotal testimonies does it take

for science to take an honest " look " ? And exactly who decides whether to

take this " look " or not?) Or maybe the person didn't really didn't have

cancer to begin with---an explanation that is given frequently. All excuses

that attempt to explain away something that the system has no answers for.

I must throw in something right here. Someone sort-of mentioned that

surgery can be a cure-all. The surgeons would love to have us believe that

but the comment " we got it all " is a lie and they know it. Usually several

weeks later the treating doctor will highly suggest " preventative chemo " .

We need to get away from the thinking that cancer is a " localized " disease.

It is not in any form or shape. This is one huge reason that our medical

community has not found anything that really works.

When we decide to go back to feeding our body real, living, food and insist

upon clean water, air, personal products, etc. and work on our toxic

emotions then we will begin to see results. Dealing with cancer using

natural methods is also no walk in the park because it takes desire,

discipline and most of all indefinite determination. The huge chemical

companies that are so often credited with making our life " easy " have also

given 1 out of 2 people a possible death sentence. Yes, 1 out of 2 people

will now, at some time in their life, get a diagnosis of cancer. And we are

still " racing for the cure " and wearing our " pink ribbons " over 30 years

later from the declaration of " war " on cancer.

More diagnosis means more money for the pharmaceutical companies and the

oncologists. Plus it allows for more " interpretation " and therefore, human

error or human manipulation. There are a lot of people with stage 3 and 4

cancers that are saying " no " to chemo/radiation. So that means money is

being lost. Solution? Let's go for the early diagnosis. I would suggest

that probably everyone at some time in their life will have a small, tiny

tumor(s) and in most cases this tumor(s) will take care of itself. But what

if we have the technology to diagnosis a tumor that is this small and begin

a course of treatment that may not even be necessary at all but has the

definite possibility of damaging other organs? And what if this technology

actually harms the body with added radiation, drugs, etc. And you a

scheduled for one every 2-3 months to check for " tumor response. " What

about the emotional turmoil that this puts the patient in? What if

pathologists are continued to be schooled to lean on the side of caution

when not 100% sure if a specimen is cancerous, especially a very tiny tumor?

We must realize what this does to the patient. And even with a

" wait-and-see " type of diagnosis it still puts the person into

turmoil---unless they are wise enough to seek out treatment that will help

to bring the body into health. And we call this progress??

What about the emotional baggage that comes with a cancer diagnosis. This

staging stuff is baloney! And only matters to conventional treatment as to

how toxic the treatment will be and how emotional the patient gets so that

they will panic and do whatever the doc says. Surely there must be a better

way. Either you have active cancer or you don't. There is no doctor that

knows when a person's time is to leave this earth and to give people an ETD

(estimated time of departure) is, in my opinion, malpractice to the hilt.

We must begin to realize how the emotions affect a person who is ill---from

cancer or any other degenerative disease. We must realize that we can never

radiate or drug a person back to health.

" As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. " Proverbs 23:7

Our scientists, doctors, etc. have not given us much to work with in the

last 40-50 years when it comes to cancer. They keep spending the money,

racing for the cure, tying pink ribbons everywhere and making darn sure that

anything that is natural/alternative is " quieted " very quickly. How many

oncologists get sued because their treatment did not work? How about...none!

We continue to look for this magic bullet that will make everything go away

without us having to do or change our lifestyle---a lifestyle that is toxic

in every way to the body. We are lazy and literally killing ourselves in

the name of convenience. We have huge food corporations that are trying the

smudge the line between what true organic means and what they " want " it to

mean so they can continue to add their chemicals in order to allow food to

last longer on the grocery store shelf. We are told that foods that

actually will benefit the body are harmful and should be outlawed.

Until we, as a people, wake-up and start taking responsibility for how we

treat our body and not allowing chemical companies to make us think that all

these chemicals are ok and really won't hurt you---then maybe we deserve

what we get. Until we decide that if we can't get clean food in the grocery

stores then we will grow it ourselves or support our local farmers, until we

decide to shout about fluoride being added to our water, until we decide

that chemicals do go through the skin from personal care products, until we

decide that " fear " is a good way to control the masses...until WE decide

that we have had " enough " we will keep getting the same 'ole same 'ole when

it comes to cancer or any other degenerative disease.

Yes, I am passionate about this because I am a cancer survivor of stage 3

colon cancer that according to the literature, I was not supposed to

survive. I have played the game (surgery and 1 month of chemo), being used

as a guinea pig for a chemo drug that they decided (the next year) was

killing people because they were giving too much, and watched the politics,

especially living here in the shadow of MD . I have nutritional

clients that walk in my door that look like they have been in a

concentration camp and their oncologist now wants them to consider a

clinical trial or go home and get their affairs in order. The doctor has

given up on them, pronounced upon them a death sentence and now wants to use

them for further exploitation. They have had every last ounce of hope

stripped from them, their quality of life is non-existent and their immune

system is shot. All of this because they are made to think that they will

be the " one " that chemo/radiation/surgery will work for.

A cancer diagnosis produces more fear in the mind than just about anything

" traumatic " that could happen to a person. In fact, many believe that an

emotional event 3-10 years before could have even triggered cancer cells to

proliferate thus beginning the cancer process. So we can imagine what the

cancer diagnosis does to the cells and then add to that the words " at best

you have 6 months to 1 year. " This is emotional rape to the hilt and yet we

continue to allow it to happen.

Even the best of natural/alternative practitioners feel like they must ride

the fence when it comes to cancer, even some of the MD's that know

alternative therapies work better and give a much better quality of life.

It's drug, cut, burn or lose your license. Alternative practitioners are

not allowed to " treat " or even hint at the fact that the information they

have " might " help cancer to heal. They cannot hint at or say that certain

herbs have anti-viral and anti-bacterial properties and in no way can they

say that a particular herb is useful for cancer treatment. If conventional

medicine is so effective then " why " do they worry and seek to silence

alternative therapies---therapies that do no harm? Is it truly because they

want the " best " for their patients? I think not. It's pride, ego and when

there is no competition then they can make all the rules and change them

when they want. They don't think that you and I are smart enough to decide

about how we want to take care of our health...or could it be that they are

actually afraid that one-day someone will be brave enough to take them on

and actually bring to " light " all the fraud, politics, money, titles,

positions and literally in-bed situations that occur in the cancer/medical

industry.

" During the early part of the 19th century, the United States experienced an

era known as " free trade in medicine. " A historical vignette in the Journal

of the American Medical Association explains that during the mid-1800s,

botanics and homeopathy were in great demand.(17) Those alternative health

practices were a powerful counterforce to regular medicine. Most state

licensure laws that granted special privileges to physicians were repealed

because of the widespread consumer demand for botanicals. During the period,

the United States was one of the healthiest nations, with the world's lowest

infant mortality rate.(18) "

(17) Lester S. King, " Medical Sects and Their Influence, " Journal of the

American Medical Association 248 (1982). (18) Lawrence , " The Case

against Medical Licensing, " in The Dangers of Socialized Medicine, ed.

Hornberger and Ebeling (Fairfax, Va.: Future of Freedom Foundation,

1994), p. 59.

See complete article:

http://www.chiro.org/alt_med_abstracts/ABSTRACTS/The_Medical_Monopoly.shtml

We are not progressing in our thinking about cancer, but we " think " we are.

We continue to do the same thing over and over expecting different results.

That is the definition of insanity. We continue to hear about all of this

cutting-edge technology but are still getting the same results that we got

in the '70s. The continual feeding to the media about cancer advancement

thus resulting in commercials about beginning chemotherapy and making it

look like a walk in the park are sickening, at best. We are lulled to sleep

by all this false advertising thinking that if we ever get cancer all will

be well---chemotherapy?---no big deal. For two months, every week, I drove

by the MD pick-up area at 3:30 in the afternoon and had a close

look at the patients waiting for their rides. I assure you that it looks

like something from a Holocaust movie. People sitting on the curb looking

so frail that if you touched them they would fall, thin children playing in

the area that have no hair, people in wheelchairs and covered in blankets

and people holding vomit bags. And we really believe this is part of a

process that heals??

I know my post doesn't sound very " scientific " , quoting this doctor or that

doctor or this clinical trial or that statistic. But doctors are not the

answer and possibly neither is science. No one has to be a statistic.

Clinical trials can be skewed as can statistics, survival rates and tumor

responses. We can " make " anything say what we " want " it to say. It's called

" the *love* of money... God did not put us on this earth without a means to

take care of our body. Yes, there are answers but no quick fixes.

Just, what-if we find out that all this research, money raised, walks and

runs and chemically/emotionally raping patients proves that in reaching for

the sky and an ultimate cure, we have everything completely upside down?

Even my oncologist (who does research at MD ) told me in 2000 that

within 5 years we would look back on the way that cancer is being treated

and consider it barbaric. Well...his prophecy has not come about other than

the proposed vaccine for cervical cancer...but there is truth in that the

treatment is still barbaric.

I encourage that the Buyer Beware! Prevention is " always " the best answer

but there is no money in this solution and it actually means that we must,

must, must take responsibility for our own health or lack of it. It may be

inconvenient and may cost money, but just ask any cancer patient if they

" wished " they would have inconvenienced themselves by using prevention in

trade-off of having to experience a cancer diagnosis.

Loretta

[Guest guest]

Though there may be times when surgery is required to remove an eminent danger

from a fast growing cancer, I do not think that surgery can ever be termed a

" cure. " It is at best a removal of symptoms. The whole problem with modern

medicine is that it is aimed at treating symptoms rather than causes. If you

had arthritis in your fingers, would you consider amputating the hand a

successful treatment? I don't think so.

The following information is from to post to which I am replying and is here for

the purpose of giving the readers of my post a frame of reference. Please leave

this information intact out of respect for the writer and the reader:

----- Original Message -----

Re: Doctor Day:

No, she actually had surgery, and was lucky to have a successful one that rid

her of cancer. (Like with anything else, a percentage of people get lucky with

something that doesn't work for other people.) THEN she started telling stories

about how sunshine and carrot juice and prayer healed her.

.

[Guest guest]

Thank you Loretta!

Simon.

[Guest guest]

Cheryl wrote:

> Well, , all I can say is that I truly wish that I had known more about

Lorraine Day, MD, BEFORE I opted 8 years ago for my own TRAMflap mastectomy for

my DCIS -- for which I was tentatively offered a 95+% chance of " no recurrence "

because it had been caught so early. I was pre-menopausal then and even took

Tamoxifen for 18 months post surgery -- until it began destroying my uterine

lining. I was hemorrhaging for 4 days straight every month until I quit taking

it and everything went back to normal. Until 2 years later when suddenly tiny

LUMPS, not calcifications, began appearing at the exact site of every surgical

scar. In my opinion, with my extremely elevated nanobacteria score (discovered a

few years later) plus no antibodies and perfectly normal breast cancer markers

(yes, all 10 of them! including the ones taken right before the TRAMflap), I

deeply regret ever having ANY surgery at all -- including the stereotactic

needle biopsies. All of those invasive procedures only prodded the nanobacteria

out of their dormant stage and made them go berserk.... Btw, didn't Lorraine

Day, MD actually heal herself completely using combination of the Gerson

therapy, exercise, sunshine, and a return to a more spiritual lifestyle? I have

all of her videos and books.

>

Cheryl,

Dr Day had a lumpectomy which was regarded as inadequate and she rejected

the further treatments that were advised. She then used her first choice of

alternative treatments, but while doing so the cancer recurred and grew to

the enormous size shown in the photographs she used to have on her web page,

where there was a small surgical scar and a massive recurrent cancer. Her

story gets murky thereafter but she admits to later surgery at least. She

is not a trustworthy source of information, in my view, as she withholds

important information about the treatments she underwent and misrepresents

her story.

I feel terrible that somehow, in the year 2006, medicine in all its forms

has failed you miserably. It is your sad story that led me to break silence

on this list. You should never have reached the state you are in, but not

necessarily for the reasons that you think. I would love to be able to

discuss your case further but feel I cannot.

[Guest guest]

Moran wrote:

>...Her story gets murky thereafter but she admits to later surgery at least.

She is not a trustworthy source of information, in my view, as she withholds

important information about the treatments she underwent and misrepresents her

story.

>

It's quite obvious that she did have " later surgery " as she would have had the

said enormous lump removed. (The pictures of it are still on her website, by the

way.) I presume, from what you've said before, that having this thing cut off --

once it was " outside " the body -- constitutes a " cure " by surgery and therefore

invalidates her claims. Is that right? This is the second or third time you have

used the word " murky " to describe her story. Is it just " murky " to you, or do

you have some evidence that she is not telling the truth?

Simon.

[Guest guest]

Hi Elena...

I had a feeling this would happen. Firstly, I did not write the line about

facts -- it was rewritten by one of the moderators.

What I did say, was that you were " misrepresenting " the facts.

What you have to say about her surgery is factual. But she didn't " get

lucky " ; she was told the surgery wasn't curative. And I would hardly call

her " lucky " when the tumour recurred and, as the pictures on her website

show, grew to what she calls the size of a grapefruit.

I don't want to get into a " I didn't say you said they didn't " type of

routine. You were very dismissive and sarcastic about the fact she had used

alternative treatments, so I assumed you didn't think they helped her.

As far as Gerson and other treatments go, I've no particular " belief system "

I am attached to, just a different experience with Gerson than you had. In

contrast to your experience, I have met and interviewed -- " in person " --

dozens of Gerson patients who testify the therapy saved their lives. It

doesn't work for everybody: nothing does. Anyone with a mind to can track

down Gerson " survivors " and check their stories for themselves, as the

Gerson Institute is one of the few organizations in the alternative field

that makes a point of doing follow-ups - year after year. So, no, what you

posted was absolutely NOT " as accurate at is gets " , but was your own opinion

being passed off as a fact.

" Do not close your ears to information that flies in the face of a current

belief system " you write. Excuse me? That is so patronising I don't know

what to do with it.

Simon.