Re: 's views

[Guest guest]

,

Her views, while you may not want to accept it, are shared by many, myself included. I have seen much incompetence and carelessness at the hands of conventional medicine in my lifetime and I would suggest to any of my loved ones, without hesitation, to seek alternative therapies to enhance their life rather than to tear it down at the hands of people in your profession. I think you are just too worried about the fact that many people are turning to alternative care as they are now taking the control for their own health back, which is as it should be, and your pockets might not be a full as you would like? That's the bottom line and you will never convince me otherwise.

Donna K

Politics of cancer>> ,>> I read your below remarks with interest.>> You say that we can't discuss the politics of cancer in a forum like this.> But that's exactly what happens when you look into how to best care for> your cancer. There is nothing about the treatment of cancer that can> exclude politics in any way.>> Whether you choose alt or conventional medicine, you choose to associate> with the purveyors of systems.>> To further imply that alt medicine is looking for your $$ is ludicrous. I> have yet to witness any of my collegues in alt. medicine driving expensive> cars, owning luxury boats, experiencing luxury vacations, or sending their> kids to private schools. Alt medicine still doesn't have access to the> elitist schools or medical institutions, and drums out it's recognized and> credentialed professionals who jump the sinking ship of the conventional> establishment. (note the drumming out of Dr. Len Horowitz, DDS,> distinguished Tufts University and Harvard graduate).>> You also mentioned that is pointless to say the chemo and radiation don't> work. When in fact, they are repeatedly used as pallitive (sp?)> treatments. This means that the treatments are KNOWN to cause other> cancers, but there is no other way to treat the cancer under the current> medical billing and insurance system, and that the cancer will probably> reoccur, if not in the same place, but somewhere else in the body.>This is not what "palliative" means, . Palliative treatment is caregiven to people with metastatic or recurrent cancer when it has theobjective of simply relieving symptoms rather than that of curing thecancer., you are one of the reasons that I am contributing to this list. Ihave been listening to the poison that you have been dripping into it aboutconventional medicine and especially doctors for many months. I don't knowhow much notice others take of you, but I am appalled by the ignorance andmalevolence that you sometimes display.You have undoubtedly been through a very distressing experience with yourmother's illness. I could argue with you about some of your interpretationsof what happened with her, but won't, as I am sure you will prefer your ownviews. Cancer deaths are not ever pleasant experiences for anyone involved,regardless of how they are treated, and I have observed over many years thatthere are few relatives sitting with their loved ones day in and day out,and feeling everything that happens to them, who will not find elements oftheir care to be critical of, even in the best of centres.Many look to alternatives or lash out at conventional medicine because ofsuch bitter experiences, but they don't have any experience of what cancerdeaths would be like without medical care. Sometimes too, I thinkeveryone's distress is magnified by the way we try to keep people alive foras long as possible these days, even when they are beyond any reasonablehope. We are many times in a dilemma ourselves, as we can do so much toprolong life, but often at the expense of intrusive measures such aschemotherapy, gastrostomies and nasogastric tubes, colostomies etc.Hospital administrators get more complaints if we are thought to be omittingsuch treatments than if we do them. But is it always worth it? I don'tknow. At any rate, such measures aren't usually used without gauging thewishes of the patient, and the relatives where appropriate.Modern palliative care is improving in leaps and bounds and undoubtedly cando much to keep advanced cancer patients comfortable these days despiteeverything. I am not sure how it stands in America, though.> It's not my desire to make anyone a convert to alt. medicine, because I> know, from working as a lobbyist for alt. medicine, that the> horror stories> abound on both sides of the fence.What is your intention, then? Is it merely to vent your anger? For youcarry on with your customary vitriol to try and portray Medical cancer carein the worst light possible, as follows----> We are dying, dear friends, from ignorance, not lack of care.>> We are being killed by pallitive treatments.>> We are the fodder of the "establishment".>> Cancer wards are the killing fields of modern medicine. Side effects of> treatments are not being fully disclosed, or even aided with> simple dietary> changes.If you are not seeking to "make anyone a convert", what's all this? I don'thave adequate words to describe what I feel about this, as the solerepresentative of conventional medicine here.> My plan is to continue to write and speak out against the dangers of> unscientific medical treatments, lack of patient disclosure, and whatever> else I find unethical in health care treatment.Please tell me what "unscientific medical treatments" you refer to.One of your recurring themes is the simple-minded notion that radiotherapyand chemotherapy can cause cancer and could thus not conceivably be used inits treatment. In the hate-filled recesses of your mind I am sure you havenot considered then possibility that conventional medicine KNOWS thatradiation can cause cancer under some conditions, but has carefully assessedthe risks attached to using it for cancers that are an immediate threat.There is vast experience and many studies of this. With breast cancer, forexample ---looking at six separate studies of 150,000 women for whomradiotherapy was used as part of the treatment of primary breast cancer theprobability of a second malignancy occurring anywhere is non-significantstatistically(relative risk 1.17). About half of the cancers seen in suchstudies were in the bowel, uterus, ovary or other organs not exposed to anyradiation. ( eg Doherty et AL "Multiple primary tumours in patientstreated with radiotherapy for breast cancer" , Radiotherapy and Oncology1993;26:125-131)Also, If you look at ---http://www.facs.org/about_college/acsdept/cancer_dept/programs/ncdb/breastcancer4.htmlthe cancer-free survival rates at ten years are higher in the groups ofwomen given radiotherapy in the primary treatment of breast cancer, oftenquite significantly. The radiotherapy is mainly used for local control ofthe cancer in more advanced disease or in breast conservation, to reducelocal recurrences, but it clearly also can improve long term cure rates.The findings with chemotherapy are similar and under constant investigation.I have previously sent here figures showing that in some subgroups there isa fifteen per cent improvement in ten year cancer-free survival in womengiven adjuvant chemotherapy for primary breast cancer. So fifteen per centof women would have to get chemotherapy-induced cancers subsequent to tenyears to cancel out this benefit. It just doesn't happen.(BTW, numerous such findings explain why scientific medicine does not agreethat radiotherapy and chemotherapy significantly affect the ability of theimmune system to fight cancer. How could this be, when their use actuallyregularly improves long term cancer-free survival rates <ie "cure rates">in patients with comparable cancers? )> My desire, regarding my own personal bias AGAINST modern medicine stems> from the shoddy, sloppy, inconsistent, ignorant treatment that my mother> received over the last 7 years. She is not alone. In fact, her treatment> was likely the norm. And this incenses me.> whatYes, you are incensed. I think you are also like a spoilt child, stampingyour feet, railing at reality, and saying "It's just not fair". I agreeit's cruelly unfair, but it is cancer that is the underlying source of theunfairness and our common enemy. To imply that doctors, nurses and othersare not in general doing the best that they can, especially under manystrictures that present day health care funding imposes, insults a lot ofhonest people.Sure, you are right to lobby for better standards, for more qualityassurance measures, but do make some attempt to understand why Medicine doeswhat it does before you attack it blindly in other respects. Moran------------------------------------------------------------------------Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers.1/3019/4/_/481431/_/957068596/-------------------------------------------------------------------------List Archives: /archives.cgi/ Web Sites:http://home.sol.no/~dusan/cancerpage.htmlhttp://www.geocities.com/~mycleanse/http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/1158By joining the list you agree to hold yourself FULLY responsible FOR yourself!To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty message to: -unsubscribeonelistTo change status from normal to digest , send an empty message to: -digestonelistTo change status from digest to normal, send an empty message to: -normalonelistTo subscribe again to the list, send an empty message to: -subscribeonelist

[Guest guest]

,

I think that lately you have toned down the rabidity and obnoxiousness

of some of your presentations. You do not rely as often on the use of the

queenly second person plural. I do think that subscribers are more

interested in what YOU think than what is presented as hive-think from the

bought-and-paid-for scientific community. We know that we are no match for

corporate greed, but we do think there is room for evolution in individuals

such as yourself -- and ourselves too.

One of the main criticisms that obligate allopaths sustain is their

patronizing arrogance. I know you may think that your arrogance is

justified because you march in lock-step with corporate-sponsored scientism,

but please reread some of your response to :

> Yes, you are incensed. I think you are also like a spoilt child, stamping

> your feet, railing at reality, and saying " It's just not fair. "

With the list's disgust with the patrimonial attitude of allopaths,

don't you think that you are baiting not only but most of the list?

Some of the things that you say may have limited merit. But do you think

that you are going to get a fair hearing when you treat each respondant as a

mental waif? Have you ever stopped to consider that it may be you (and the

whole scientific community) who have wandered around in the desert for 40

years?