Cancer Victim Refuses treatment--Lives

[Rouser2]

Dr. Andrew Weil has written that virtually every doctor knows of such cases -- but no one has ever really attempted to study the phenomena -- cases where a patient is diagnosed with cancer, refuses treatment and lives.

Nor does one have to rely on high profile critics of Modern Medicine such as Dr. Andrew Weil, nor Dr. Robert Mendelsohn to believe such stories. Even the most established, mainstream doctors admit to them. One such doctor is Parade Magazine columnist Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld, Rossi Distyinguished Professor of Clinical Medicine at New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center and and attending physician at New York Presbyterian Hospital. The doctor wrote in the Jan. 18, 2004 issue of Parade Magazine:

" doctors make mistakes, which is why many hopeless cases miraculously survive. Many years ago, for example, I felt a very hard lump in the neck of a young woman I was examining in a routine checkup. The biopsy revealed it to be a highly malignant cancer. Its cells were so 'wild' that its origin could not be determined... Several consultants agreed that the woman's only chance for survival was the extensive removal of glands and tissues in the area, and even that would not assure her survival."

But the patient refused treatment and decided to instead take her chances with Mother Nature.

"We gave her no treatment and decided to wait until the malignancy showed up in some other part of her body. It never did! Nor did we ever find the primary site. And guess what? She went on to give birth to a beautiful healthy girl. Today she remains alive and well in her 60s!"

Thus, the suggestion to those who would pooh-pooh all alternative cancer treatments -- including the one above which might be called the "Do Nothing Treatment" or the "Leave It To Mother Nature" Treatment, -- is, that it might be a little bit wiser to keep an open mind.

[jj]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Thus, the suggestion to those who would pooh-pooh all alternative cancer treatments -- including the one above which might be called the "Do Nothing Treatment" or the "Leave It To Mother Nature" Treatment, -- is, that it might be a little bit wiser to keep an open mind.

Oh, cut the nonsense. You related nothing about alternative treatments. You related nothing about how often this works vs. how often it does not work. You have ONE biopsy, not a set, or a series. No radioassay, no bioassay, just one biopsy.

You DO know that sometimes the immune system does recognize tumors and just destroy them, don't you. You do know what one of the more expensive (presently) and effective treatments for advanced melanoma is, don't you?

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Dr. Andrew Weil has written ...

That's it. That's all I needed to hear. Tuning this one out too...

-TT

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by jj [/i]


>>You DO know that sometimes the immune system does recognize tumors and just destroy them, don't you.

Bravo! I do believe there is hope for you, if not for Dr. Third Twin.
(That is, after all, the entire POINT!!!)

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
That's it. That's all I needed to hear. Tuning this one out too...

-TT

(As the man in the white coat, wheels around, eyes closed, hands firmly clapsed over ears.)

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Dr. Andrew Weil has written ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That's it. That's all I needed to hear. Tuning this one out too...

-TT

Uh huh. Maybe because those many others who refused treatment and DIED are perhaps a tad too...hm.. dead to speak up about how "alternative" treatments failed them?

Andrew Weil... now there's an authority. A person who is 60 years old today, but might have been misdiagnosed; is such a thing were true.

In my opinion, Andrew Weil is only slightly better than Dr. Joel D. Wallach; at least Weil has never, to my knowledge, claimed to have done thousands of autopsies on humans.

[anonimouse]

Of course, it is wholly, totally impossible that this doctor misdiagnosed the malignancy. After all, Rouser, aren't you the one who tells us that doctors misdiagnose these cancers all the time and they're not really cancers anyway?

In any event, one anecdotal case of a person surviving a supposed malignancy does not prove your theory correct.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12974558 ... Pertinent quote from abstract: "The delay results in significant worsening of the disease process."

and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=12565991&dopt=Citation ... Pertinent quote from abstract: "The use of AM seems to predict a shorter survival from cancer."

You could say that use of sCAM medicine is equivalent to getting no treatment.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1793246

For fun do a google search on Sandra Schmirler, Thomas Navarro and Tyrell Dueck.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Rouser2

"We gave her no treatment and decided to wait until the malignancy showed up in some other part of her body. It never did! Nor did we ever find the primary site. And guess what? She went on to give birth to a beautiful healthy girl. Today she remains alive and well in her 60s!"



Nice try, or maybe not. Who is "she"????? What shows she had cancer beyond a shadow of a doubt? When?

[AK-Dave]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Nice try, or maybe not. Who is "she"????? What shows she had cancer beyond a shadow of a doubt? When? Stop asking questions like that! You are ruining a perfectly good anecdotal story!

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by sodakboy93
Of course, it is wholly, totally impossible that this doctor misdiagnosed the malignancy. After all, Rouser, aren't you the one who tells us that doctors misdiagnose these cancers all the time and they're not really cancers anyway?

In any event, one anecdotal case of a person surviving a supposed malignancy does not prove your theory correct. Exactly :D !

Now, according to Rouser2, doctors are maligneering incompetent idiots who waste 6-10 years studying useless things in a university, then proceed to do wicked things to innocent people for fun and profit.

But when one of these bumbling idiots for once says something that could support Rouser2's ideas..... Then it is suddenly the gospel :rolleyes:.

Hans

[Deetee]

and I thought according to rouser's gospel that even a biopsy was not proof of cancer...

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Deetee
and I thought according to rouser's gospel that even a biopsy was not proof of cancer... Ahh, you misunderstand, then. Please, allow me to explain:

If cancer is diagnosed by biopsy, and the patient goes through radical surgery and/or chemo/radiation therapy, and comes out with adverse efects but no cancer, then, according to rouserlogic, the biopsy was really faulty and the treatment was just destroying a perfectly good health.

If, however, cancer is diagnosed by biopsy and the patient eschews treatment and lives, then , according to rouserlogic, the biopsy diagnosis was True, and it is proof that cancer is really no more deadly than a sniffle if only the stupid, evil doctors would keep their hands off the poor patients.

I hope this helps.

Hans

[Kumar]

Do not claim or blame with certainity, unless/untill you are absolute or near to it.

Btw, suppose, if we are thinking & decided to KILL our own body cells eventhough they gone mad due to our own faults & excesses on them---how they can/should behave to exercise their Natural RIGHT FOR SURVIVAL?? DO we kill or should kill our children, if they gone mad due to our faults/excesses on them inspite their behaviour in this madness became hurting us?:eek:

[Benguin]

I know of a girl who had a serious ovarian cancer remain undiagnosed until she looked several months pregnant.

Beyond treatment, she sadly died at 17 years of age.

I find my anecdote more persuasive than yours, but that's just me.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Kumar
Do not claim or blame with certainity, unless/untill you are absolute or near to it.

Btw, suppose, if we are thinking & decided to KILL our own body cells eventhough they gone mad due to our own faults & excesses on them---how they can/should behave to exercise their Natural RIGHT FOR SURVIVAL?? DO we kill or should kill our children, if they gone mad due to our faults/excesses on them inspite their behaviour in this madness became hurting us?:eek:
So let me get this clear. We should consider malignant cells to be like naughty children (because we caused the cancer because our pH is too high or low or something) and humour them. Perhaps we should make sure they're invited round to our houses during the holidays and make them feel really welcome.

You are correct that cancer prevention is better than cancer treatment (insofar as it doesn't completely ruin your life) but expecting cancers to go into remission spontaneously is wishful thinking and is not supported by the survivial rates for treated and untreated individuals.

But of course that would fall into the scope of scientific evidence, something you choose to eshew.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Suezoled
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Uh huh. Maybe because those many others who refused treatment and DIED are perhaps a tad too...hm.. dead to speak up about how "alternative" treatments failed them?

Andrew Weil... now there's an authority. A person who is 60 years old today, but might have been misdiagnosed; is such a thing were true.

In my opinion, Andrew Weil is only slightly better than Dr. Joel D. Wallach; at least Weil has never, to my knowledge, claimed to have done thousands of autopsies on humans.

Alas, but Dr.Weil is not the author of the article. A misdiagnosis???? Are you suggesting that the lady in question might have actually had a "pseudodisease"?????

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by sodakboy93 [/i]


>>Of course, it is wholly, totally impossible that this doctor misdiagnosed the malignancy. After all, Rouser, aren't you the one who tells us that doctors misdiagnose these cancers all the time and they're not really cancers anyway?

No. That would be Dr. H. Gilbert Welch http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicago...l?ts=1096454807

Don't shoot the messenger.

>>In any event, one anecdotal case of a person surviving a supposed malignancy does not prove your theory correct.

Nor does it support nor prove yours.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide [/i]


and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=12565991&dopt=Citation ... Pertinent quote from abstract: "The use of AM seems to predict a shorter survival from cancer."


Quoting from the abstract:

This study examines the association between alternative medicines (AM) and cancer survival. A national multicentre study was carried out in Norway in December 1992 to assess the prevalence of AM use among cancer patients. One of the aims of this study was to assess the association between AM and long-time survival. In January 2001, survival data were obtained with a follow-up of 8 years for 515 cancer patients. A total of 112 (22%) assessable patients used AM. During the follow-up period, 350 patients died. Death rates were higher in AM users (79%) than in those who did not use AM (65%). In a Cox regression model adjusted for demographic, disease

65% versus 79%??? Not a very imprssive difference, I'd say, even if true. And then there is the issue of quality of life. Nor is AM defined nor isolated as to therapy.

>>You could say that use of sCAM medicine is equivalent to getting no treatment.

And the presumption that AM is equivalent to doing nothing at all is just that -- a presumption unsupported by any facts.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Deetee
and I thought according to rouser's gospel that even a biopsy was not proof of cancer...

No., that would be Dr. H. Gilbert Welch.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicago...l?ts=1096454807


Get your sources straight. I am merely a messenger.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Benguin
I know of a girl who had a serious ovarian cancer remain undiagnosed until she looked several months pregnant.

Beyond treatment, she sadly died at 17 years of age.

I find my anecdote more persuasive than yours, but that's just me.

Sometimes it may actually be cancer. And sometimes cancer kills. Sometimes.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Rouser2
The patient refused treatment and decided to instead take her chances with Mother Nature.

Thus, the suggestion to those who would pooh-pooh all alternative cancer treatments -- including the one above which might be called the "Do Nothing Treatment" or the "Leave It To Mother Nature" Treatment, -- is, that it might be a little bit wiser to keep an open mind. If the above case its true then it does not advance the CAM cause.

Assuming it to be true, we know that in A% of cases if you do nothing there will be a remission of the cancer.

We have three other figures to consider.

If you use only conventional medicine then in B% of cases there is remission.

If you use only alternative medicine then is C% of cases there is remission,

If you combine conventional and alternative medicine then in D% of cases there is remission.

What you need to prove is that C>A or D>B.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by The Don
So let me get this clear. We should consider malignant cells to be like naughty children (because we caused the cancer because our pH is too high or low or something) and humour them. Perhaps we should make sure they're invited round to our houses during the holidays and make them feel really welcome.

You are correct that cancer prevention is better than cancer treatment (insofar as it doesn't completely ruin your life) but expecting cancers to go into remission spontaneously is wishful thinking and is not supported by the survivial rates for treated and untreated individuals.

But of course that would fall into the scope of scientific evidence, something you choose to eshew.

Let me also get it clear?

Do we do some excesses on our body or body's cells resulting some to become cancerous?

Are those cancer cells not our own body's cells & if yes, are those somewhat or better than our children--who probably worked 24hrs,12months & all the years we lived for us?

If above yes, Should/do we prefer to kill to those who are in real sense our first or pure type of children or basic unit of them? Our gross/outside children may be just about 50% of us--shall we behave similarily if this may be the case?

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, Kumar. If our children turn on us and try to kill us, we must kill them. What did you think?

Hans

[Rolfe]

Actually, I agree that the likeliest explanation of the single example case given, assuming that the facts are more or less correct, was misdiagnosis. Yes, Rouser, if you want to invoke the term "pseudodisease", this was probably one of them.

But beyond that, this is simply another thread revealing Rouser's utter failure to grasp any sort of basic statistics or probability.

Spontaneous unexpected recovery from cancers which are usually fatal is quite a well-documented occurrence. It's also very rare. Now wouldn't it be nice if we knew why that happened to some people, so we could maybe encourage it to happen in other people? Unfortunately though, we don't.

So, because there is the remote possibility of spontaneous remission, probably on about a par with winning the lottery, we should just opt for no treatment?

This is pretty much exactly the same argument Rouser came up with some months ago in respect of choosing not to vaccinate, and then "choosing" not to get sick when infected with the virulent pathogen. He took the position that the dangers of being vaccinated were quite unacceptable, and it was much better to take one's chances with the virulent pathogen. When I enquired as to how any specific individual could arrange to be one of these rare cases where the virulent organism doesn't cause disease, the best he could do was to declare that you simply choose to be one of these.

So, for example, probability of getting sick due to vaccination, maybe about 1 in a million. Probability of getting sick if infected with the virulent pathogen, probably about 999,500 in a million. Never mind, Rouser thinks the 1 in a million risk is unacceptable, but he can just "choose" to be one of the 0.05% who shake off the pathogen.

Same here. Never mind that the statistics show that cancer treatment very significantly improves survival rates, Rouser knows how he can just "choose" to recover spontaneously, with no treatment.

How, old boy?

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Yes, Kumar. If our children turn on us and try to kill us, we must kill them. What did you think?

Hans

Mr.Hans,

I can't say what sentiments & law interpret in this respect, but i read some mythologies/reputed ancient spritual mentionings--which indicates that 'Maintaing God' didn't liked father/elders to kill their children or youngers even if they gone against their(father/elders) madnesses/excessiveness. While killing those God just uttered(just in rememberance not exact)--"If fathers will kill, intend to kill or try to kill his own children--how I shall run & maintain the nature/existance". I think it applies on elders also similarily.:)

[Kumar]

Hello Rolfe,

For assessing cancer concepts , let us first know the appx. data in following headings:-

Total cancer suspect came.

Appx % declared as cancerous & not.

How much taken treatments out of declated ones.

How much cured permanentaly & saved.

How much died who are declared but not taken modren treatments.

How much died inspite taking treatment or by taking treatments.

How much not died who were declared cancerous but not taken modern treatments and/or taken alternative treatments.

Unless, we have above datas in hand--we can't comment/conclude accordingly.

As in other modern rise in some diseases as diabetes--there can be some similarity alike 5% & 95%.:)

[Deetee]

Originally posted by Rouser2
No., that would be Dr. H. Gilbert Welch.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicago...l?ts=1096454807


Get your sources straight. I am merely a messenger.

That's why I said "according to rouser's gospel" and not "according to rouser"

Pay attention.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Kumar
Mr.Hans,

I can't say what sentiments & law interpret in this respect, but i read some mythologies/reputed ancient spritual mentionings--which indicates that 'Maintaing God' didn't liked father/elders to kill their children or youngers even if they gone against their(father/elders) madnesses/excessiveness. While killing those God just uttered(just in rememberance not exact)--"If fathers will kill, intend to kill or try to kill his own children--how I shall run & maintain the nature/existance". I think it applies on elders also similarily.:) According to scripture, most gods are busy killing their children too. Now, I don't know which particular god you are referring to, but the JudeoChristian god has genocides on his conscience that makes the Nazi Holocaust look like a picnic, and more to to come.

Hans

[Benguin]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
According to scripture, most gods are busy killing their children too. Now, I don't know which particular god you are referring to, but the JudeoChristian god has genocides on his conscience that makes the Nazi Holocaust look like a picnic, and more to to come.

Hans

He very specifically instructs parents to kill disrespectful children.

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them; Then shall his father and mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of the city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:17) "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he that cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]


>>Actually, I agree that the likeliest explanation of the single example case given, assuming that the facts are more or less correct, was misdiagnosis. Yes, Rouser, if you want to invoke the term "pseudodisease", this was probably one of them.

How do you know that?

>>Spontaneous unexpected recovery from cancers which are usually fatal is quite a well-documented occurrence. It's also very rare.

How do you know that?

>>So, because there is the remote possibility of spontaneous remission, probably on about a par with winning the lottery, we should just opt for no treatment?

Remote? How do you know that?

>>But you don't know how remote the possiblity is

Exactly.

>>This is pretty much exactly the same argument Rouser came up with some months ago in respect of choosing not to vaccinate, and then "choosing" not to get sick when infected with the virulent pathogen. He took the position that the dangers of being vaccinated were quite unacceptable, and it was much better to take one's chances with the virulent pathogen.


False. I never took any such position. I merely raise questions, then from those questions you extrapolate your own strawman conclusions.

>>Never mind that the statistics show that cancer treatment very significantly improves survival rates,

They do?

>> Rouser knows how he can just "choose" to recover spontaneously, with no treatment.

I do? Not so. Unlike you, I do not assume answers but only raise questions. Get it????


Nah!

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Rouser2
I do? Not so. Unlike you, I do not assume answers but only raise questions. Get it????

Lessee...

Originally posted by Rouser2
*snip*
Thus, the suggestion to those who would pooh-pooh all alternative cancer treatments -- including the one above which might be called the "Do Nothing Treatment" or the "Leave It To Mother Nature" Treatment, -- is, that it might be a little bit wiser to keep an open mind. Do you call that a question? Then why do you use the word "suggestion", and why doesn't it end with a qustion-mark??

No, I don't get it ;).

Hans

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Originally posted by Rouser2
...And the presumption that AM is equivalent to doing nothing at all is just that -- a presumption unsupported by any facts.

Hmmm... you went after ONE of the three abstracts I posted. Said nothing about the three people whose outcome was different from your one UNreferenced anecdote.

That is very funny.

So exactly WHICH alternative medicine routine is effective against cancer?

And how do you differentiate between a "pseudodisease" and real cancer (keeping in mind that I've know people who have died from it, but also a few who have survived)

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
How do you know that?I study.

Rolfe.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Dr. Andrew Weil has written that virtually every doctor knows of such cases -- but no one has ever really attempted to study the phenomena -- cases where a patient is diagnosed with cancer, refuses treatment and lives.



:eek: Doctors see people who go untreated and don't die? UNBELIEVABLE? And no one has documented this?!!! :eek:

I knew someone who didn't die ( yet ), but no one will believe me either..

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I study.

Rolfe. Fool, that is the hard way.

I just stand next to someone who knows the answer and the knowledge 'jumps' across homeopathically.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
According to scripture, most gods are busy killing their children too. Now, I don't know which particular god you are referring to, but the JudeoChristian god has genocides on his conscience that makes the Nazi Holocaust look like a picnic, and more to to come.

Hans For HIM/GOD, eveyone is alike HIS children, although it is also indicated that HE gift salvation to anyone killed from HIS hand, still HE may not want us to do that & make an future adverse example to maintain the nature. Otherwise, HE may not want us to interfere in HIS field--probably.:)

Benguin,

I gave some aspect on prime/elementary/micro level --but things, due to environmental effects may change also, somewhat at secondary/gross/macro level. Therefore, I do not much contradict(except on initiations) in consideration of current age effect/requirement for Nature's balance. Moreover, child should only be responsible for all those adverses in him.

[Kumar]

Btw, do we all or most have some or some form of cancer cells fluroshing in our body--still they do no harm? What is this, I think I read it somewhare? Are these alike genetic predisposition to modern diabetes?:eek:

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Lothian
Fool, that is the hard way.

I just stand next to someone who knows the answer and the knowledge 'jumps' across homeopathically.

And if you do wish to read books, read as little can you can. The lesser you read, the greater is the amount of knowledge you will acquire...

[Rouser2]

]Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide [/i]


>>Hmmm... you went after ONE of the three abstracts I posted.

The only one I bothered to read which seemd to have a point.

>> Said nothing about the three people whose outcome was different from your one UNreferenced anecdote.


No, I do not make it a practice to go a-googling on somebody else's whim who has not even bothered to state a point. Get it???

>>So exactly WHICH alternative medicine routine is effective against cancer?

I dunno. But doing nothing seems to do pretty well with pseudo-cancer, and is a whole lot safer and more pleasant than chemotherapy.

>>And how do you differentiate between a "pseudodisease" and real cancer (keeping in mind that I've know people who have died from it, but also a few who have survived)

You don't "know" anything. And that is the entire point of Dr. Welch's theory, namely, that no one really knows what is, and what is not "cancer" at least before an autopsy.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
You don't "know" anything. And that is the entire point of Dr. Welch's theory, namely, that no one really knows what is, and what is not "cancer" at least before an autopsy. Well, speaking for yourself, I'd say that first sentence was pretty spot on.

Of course many many people know what is cancer and what is not cancer. Given that there will always be a few mistakes, and a proportion of lesions that aren't easily classifiable, most presentations of most things really do conform to the norm.

Rouser, do you even know what histopathology is?

Rolfe.

[jj]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by jj [/i]


>>You DO know that sometimes the immune system does recognize tumors and just destroy them, don't you.

Bravo! I do believe there is hope for you, if not for Dr. Third Twin.
(That is, after all, the entire POINT!!!)

What point? Somebody's immune system worked. There is no "alternative" necessary, there is no evidence of anything but a rare occurance, one that is well-known.

And, to be honest, with one biopsy, the evidence is rather thin, to say the least.

What's your point? There is no evidence of any alternative medicine, or anything of the sort.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by jj
What's your point? There is no evidence of any alternative medicine, or anything of the sort. I think his point is that because somebody somewhere once had a spontaneous remission from cancer, then everybody ought to refuse treatment and wait for that to happen to them.

OK, Rouser, if you get a malignant growth, don't let me force you into anything, now.

Rolfe.

[jj]

Originally posted by Lothian
If the above case its true then it does not advance the CAM cause.

Assuming it to be true, we know that in A% of cases if you do nothing there will be a remission of the cancer.


Precisely, this lunatic person is trying to represent something that, if confirmed, is uncommon but known to happen, as something that has to do with alternative medicine, which it doesn't.

Even if we give the diagnosis a break and accept it, we're strictly working on conventional grounds here. Risky, but all the people who die don't get to speak up.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Originally posted by Rouser2
]Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide [/i]

...>> Said nothing about the three people whose outcome was different from your one UNreferenced anecdote.


No, I do not make it a practice to go a-googling on somebody else's whim who has not even bothered to state a point. Get it???

>>So exactly WHICH alternative medicine routine is effective against cancer?

I dunno. But doing nothing seems to do pretty well with pseudo-cancer, and is a whole lot safer and more pleasant than chemotherapy.
....

I got it... and at least you are truthful with the "I dunno". You also seem to be immune to any information that counters your preconceived ideas.

Keep it that way... If you wish to avoid doctors, go for it. If you wish to just as well NOT know you have cancer, go for it. If you wish to avoid treatment if you do get a painful tumor, go for it. Don't let us get in your way.

That reminds me... I'm due for my annual appointment with the family doc --- and mammagram.

PS: The three people listed died painful deaths due to cancer. One because she believed this loon in Canada would cure her, and the other two were kids whose parents thought that prayer would work better than treatment.

[Doubt]

Time for another anecdote:

My father has cancer. It was from a nuro-endcrin (spelling?) tumor that spread.

The first indication that something was wrong was that he started loosing weight and was tired. The X-rays and CAT scans showed the tumor was pinching off the duct from the pancreas into the intestines. So they did a biopsy. The results were inconclusive.

The tumor was going to have to come out regardless of the biopsy, since the pancreas was not able to function properly. The surgery for this is a bit messy and requires quite a bit of reworking for the digestive system. Most of my father’s pancreas is gone now.

Dad had some complications from the surgery but survived it. The tumor turned out to be about the size of a grapefruit. Tests done on it after extraction showed that is was turning cancerous but had not fully developed yet. There was no chemo done after the surgery. That is the norm for this type of cancer.

Five years later they found a new tumor of the same type in his liver. They are treating it with drugs designed to stop it from growing. The pace of growth was thought to be slow to start with. Two years have gone by since the new tumor was detected, but they still don’t know if the drugs are working.

Had nothing been done after the inconclusive biopsy, I would be down to one surviving parent by now. Even if you over look the size of the tumor, the fact that the thing was able to grow to noticeable size indicated that the immune system was not successful in dealing with it.

In the mean time, my parents try to get the most of out of whatever years they have left. Not treating the questionable case when discovered would have been the approach for fools and cowards.

[Rolfe]

In general, the immune system doesn't seem to have much of a rôle in combating cancer. The idea that cells are constantly becoming malignant in everyone but the immune system cuts them out and kills them is pretty much passé. This is well exemplified by looking at people with AIDS and those immunosuppressed for other reasons. They don't have higher incidences than anyone else of all the common cancers that afflict the population. They do show high incidences of very unusual tumours, like Kaposi's sarcoma, but that's another story, and the lack of a functioning immune system doesn't cause one to burst out in cancer all over.

I don't think anyone really knows why cancers occasionally regress, but it probably isn't as simple as the immune system dealing with it.

Rolfe.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by jj [/i]


>>What point? Somebody's immune system worked. There is no "alternative" necessary, there is no evidence of anything but a rare occurance, one that is well-known.

All depends on how you define "alternative". I would include the "do nothing" treatment as "alternative."

>>And, to be honest, with one biopsy, the evidence is rather thin, to say the least.

Who says there was one biopsy?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]


>>I think his point is that because somebody somewhere once had a spontaneous remission from cancer, then everybody ought to refuse treatment and wait for that to happen to them.

Yeah, well that would be your interpretation. Predictable.

[jj]

Originally posted by Rolfe

I don't think anyone really knows why cancers occasionally regress, but it probably isn't as simple as the immune system dealing with it.

Rolfe.

Dunno. There are some few kinds of tumor (melanoma in particular) that immunotherapy has at least occasionally cured. I know a person from a very melanoma-prone family who was cured by autoclonal antibodies against his melanoma. (I might have the details wrong, but it was something like that.)

It did have a side effect, it gave him vitiglio, it was rather rough on all melanocytes. He even suffered some short-term night blindness, which surprised the doctor...

But he's still with us, despite having what was described as a "grade 5 melanoma" that had spread to at least 100 locations according to radioassay.

Yes, he was sick as a dog for about 6 weeks, and had some trouble with opportunistic infections during the treatment, basically bits of his skin were dying from the treatment. I didn't say it was fun.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by jj
Dunno. There are some few kinds of tumor (melanoma in particular) that immunotherapy has at least occasionally cured. I know a person from a very melanoma-prone family who was cured by autoclonal antibodies against his melanoma. (I might have the details wrong, but it was something like that.)I have heard of that one. There are a few specific instances, but the general idea that the immune system is a major part in combating cancer seems not to be the case.

Rolfe.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide [/i]

>>That reminds me... I'm due for my annual appointment with the family doc --- and mammagram.

An act of faith, I'm sure. And going in you are fully aware that those who get annual mammograms over a 10 year period, have an almost 50 percent chance of contracting cancer from the radiation exposure (reference, previously cited in Pseudodisease thread). But surely, you've weighed all that in the balance.

>>PS: The three people listed died painful deaths due to cancer. One because she believed this loon in Canada would cure her, and the other two were kids whose parents thought that prayer would work better than treatment.

Cancer often kills. So what else is new?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]

>>I think his point is that because somebody somewhere once had a spontaneous remission from cancer, then everybody ought to refuse treatment and wait for that to happen to them.

Yeah, well that would be your interpretation. Predictable. Well, if your point was a different one, care to make it?

Oh, I forgot, you don't have a point so you don't have to defend it.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
And going in you are fully aware that those who get annual mammograms over a 10 year period, have an almost 50 percent chance of contracting cancer from the radiation exposure (reference, previously cited in Pseudodisease thread).Don't be ridiculous. Whatever your reference says, it isn't that. Care to retract and rephrase that statement?

Rolfe.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I think his point is that because somebody somewhere once had a spontaneous remission from cancer, then everybody ought to refuse treatment and wait for that to happen to them.

OK, Rouser, if you get a malignant growth, don't let me force you into anything, now.

Rolfe.

important point glazed over in all these posts .... treatment is always at the patient's option. I know personally and from others that surgeons and specialists are very clear about setting out the options and likely prognoses and letting the patient make the choice.

I know there is a legal imperative there, but we are hardly unwillingly dragged into surgery.

[jj]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide [/i]
And going in you are fully aware that those who get annual mammograms over a 10 year period, have an almost 50 percent chance of contracting cancer from the radiation exposure (reference, previously cited in Pseudodisease thread).

Bull pucky.

Such a trend would be hugely, gigantically visible in the USA.

And, guess what? It's not visible at all. The rate of cancer that would be required from your quacked assertion would require many times more cancer than is reported.

Your claim is trivially, obviously refuted by very simple epidemological observation.

Please cease spreading such falsehood. If you convince ONE person, just ONE, not to get a mammogram, and that person dies of breast cancer that was curable, I call you murderer.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by jj [/i]
>>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide [/i]
And going in you are fully aware that those who get annual mammograms over a 10 year period, have an almost 50 percent chance of contracting cancer from the radiation exposure (reference, previously cited in Pseudodisease thread).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Bull pucky.

>>Such a trend would be hugely, gigantically visible in the USA.

I have located the reference and am happy to report a slight error in my recollection of it. The author, Dr. H. Gilbert Welch actually refers not to cancers caused by mammography, but its detection of False Positives which he estimates to be as high even on one reading as 10 percent. Thus, over ten years... (do the math) highly likely that the patient will suffer the emotional pain of being falsely informed of an abnormality. The PDF file of Chap. II availabe at

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10079.html

Nonetheless the point previously suggested is still valid -- namely, that mammography may cause more cancer than it validly detects. I submit the following:

Berrington de Gonzalez, A and Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. The Lancet. 363, 345-351. January, 2004.

as cited at:
http://www.thedoctorslounge.net/oncolounge/articles/x-rays_cancer/

"These researchers compiled their data on the incidence of cancers from tumor registers in the UK and 14 other countries. They compared these statistically with the numbers of X-ray procedures done in these countries and statistically analyzed the numbers of cancers induced by the radiation exposure from these procedures. The lifetime risk of developing cancer attributable to diagnostic X-rays was 0.6-1.8% in the countries investigated, except in Japan where the lifetime risk was 3.2%, where X-ray use is more common. In the US this was estimated to amount to 0.9% of all cancer cases. In plain English this means that X-rays have been the cause of more than 5,600 cancer cases in the United States."

[jj]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Nonetheless the point previously suggested is still valid -- namely, that mammography may cause more cancer than it validly detects. I submit the following:

Berrington de Gonzalez, A and Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. The Lancet. 363, 345-351. January, 2004.


Sanity Check.

If that was the case, rates of cancer would be rising beyond the expectation for longer life.

What's more, the kind of cancer would be changing. Radiation usually causes different cancers than naturally happen.


as cited at:
http://www.thedoctorslounge.net/oncolounge/articles/x-rays_cancer/

" In the US this was estimated to amount to 0.9% of all cancer cases. In plain English this means that X-rays have been the cause of more than 5,600 cancer cases in the United States."

Vs. how many detected and cured? And let's not hear that old bit about how "nobody gets cured'.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by jj
Vs. how many detected and cured? And let's not hear that old bit about how "nobody gets cured'.


Yeah, well "cured" does seem to be a word seldom used in the cancer lexicon -- five year survival rates -- that's the preferred marker. As to "cures" or survival rates of cancers caused by routine x-rays inlcuding mammograms, I think most people would prefer not to have to deal with the disease in the first place. Thus, before undergoing "routine" x-rays, be it mammograms or even dental x-rays, it seems prudent to me for one to think twice.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Yeah, well "cured" does seem to be a word seldom used in the cancer lexicon -- five year survival rates -- that's the preferred marker. As to "cures" or survival rates of cancers caused by routine x-rays inlcuding mammograms, I think most people would prefer not to have to deal with the disease in the first place. Thus, before undergoing "routine" x-rays, be it mammograms or even dental x-rays, it seems prudent to me for one to think twice.

I can't even say "nice try" Rouser. Of course "cure" isn't used in the cancer lexicon; even if a cancer is in remission for years, practioners of mainstream med don't like to use the word cure, because they know that the cancer could come out of remission, or secondary cancers can come about as well.

And your five year survival rate is also bull Rouser, which you have been told several times. There are many cancer survivors who followed the advice of the evil medical doctors, and there are some who avoided cancers because they let their evil surgeons cut them open and take out the growth that wasn't being "dealt with by the immune system."

Well just avoid all forms of radiation Rouser, then. X rays, mammograms, ct and cat scans, mri, ultrasound, microwaves, grocery checkout lanes, etc.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Thus, before undergoing "routine" x-rays, be it mammograms or even dental x-rays, it seems prudent to me for one to think twice. You can't stand there "thinking" for the rest of your life. You have to come to some decision.

Care to present any evidence that might help such a decision? And not just "this may happen to some people".

Hint. The actual death rates between those who do have the screening X-rays and those who don't would be a nice bit of info. Without these numbers or others like them, you're spouting hot air.

Rolfe.

[Hellbound]

Since we're on the topic, I'd like to point out a bit about X-rays myself.

U.S. Law sets limits on how much exposure one can get to X-rays, or any other radiation. These limits vary from occasional exposure rates (X-rays, etc) to occupational rates (workers who take X-rays or work in nuclear plants).

Even the highest of these rates (those for occupational exposure) doses a person with less radiation per year than you get from the natural production of radon that occurs everywhere. For that matter, the amount of radiation you get from sunlight massivley swamps that you get from a single X-ray, or even a dozen over the course of a year.

It's really a non-argument.

Also, a 0.9% incidence caused by X-rays (supposedly) is very, very low. If this is considered to be "unacceptable risk" by you, then for Ed's sake don't drive a car anywhere!!! For that matter, you're more likely to be shot by your own gun, or die from falling off a ladder, than you are to get cancer from screening exams.

It's a non-issue. Mountains and molehills. Forests and trees. Pots and kettles.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Since we're on the topic, I'd like to point out a bit about X-rays myself.

U.S. Law sets limits on how much exposure one can get to X-rays, or any other radiation. These limits vary from occasional exposure rates (X-rays, etc) to occupational rates (workers who take X-rays or work in nuclear plants).


I know how that works at an occupational level, how would it apply to patients? Would anyone worry about that if a patient came in from a bad car wreck or climbing fall or something and needed several hundred x-rays in a short period of time? (I'm not speculating, I'm asking, since I don't know!)

I know it's a bit of an over simplified hypothesis, but what would be the likely risks (statistically) of someone trying to re-align and re-set fractured limbs with vs without x-rays?

[Hellbound]

Benguin:

I'll have to double check to be sure, but I believe the number of X-rays one would need in a year to equal the occupational exposure level is on the order of about two hundred.

Here (http://www.niehs.nih.gov/odhsb/radhyg/radguide/sectxi.htm) is a link that gives the limits for the U.S.

The average background dose in the U.S. is 360 millirems. Here (http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/health/fullbody-ctscan/risks.htm) is an even better link, giving the number of days of background radiation equivalent to a particular examination. A full abdominal CT scan is about 3.3 years of background radiation, or about 1.1 rem. A full chest X-ray is only the equivalent of 2.4 days of background radiation. By comparison, look here (http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0337.shtml) for the radiation levels in Nevada. They're 400 millirems per year from natural background. So, living in Nevada is the equivalent of about 17 X-rays a year above the national average. Far more than one would get from routine screening.

Basically, you'd need 152 X-rays to be equivalent to the background radiation. The occupational level of radiation is equivalent to about 1,667 X-rays per year. Now, the time frame does make a difference, but even a few dozen X-rays should not be a problem. And it would be rare for more than that to be needed in the case of an accident, perhaps fifty to one hundred in severe cases. Considering that a CT scan is equal to about 1200 X-rays, and these are consdiered to be relatively safe procedures, I don't think a large number of X-rays puts anyone at an appreciable risk...especially considering the lives and function saved by using X-rays.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Benguin:

I'll have to double check to be sure, but I believe the number of X-rays one would need in a year to equal the occupational exposure level is on the order of about two hundred.

Here (http://www.niehs.nih.gov/odhsb/radhyg/radguide/sectxi.htm) is a link that gives the limits for the U.S.

The average background dose in the U.S. is 360 millirems. Here (http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/health/fullbody-ctscan/risks.htm) is an even better link, giving the number of days of background radiation equivalent to a particular examination. A full abdominal CT scan is about 3.3 years of background radiation, or about 1.1 rem. A full chest X-ray is only the equivalent of 2.4 days of background radiation. By comparison, look here (http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0337.shtml) for the radiation levels in Nevada. They're 400 millirems per year from natural background. So, living in Nevada is the equivalent of about 17 X-rays a year above the national average. Far more than one would get from routine screening.

Well yes, I know it is small, but it is cumulative is it not? Just presumably you'd need to actually fly a long way over the occupational limit before you become statistically 'at-risk' of anything.

I was trying to establish a realistic figure for risk to quantify, as I think it is easy to verify some risk and the oddly motivated then use that to construct a false dichetomy to persuade the under-informed.

[Kumar]

In many cases, the exact cause of cancer remains a mystery. We know that certain changes in our cells can cause cancer to start, but we don't yet know exactly how this happens. Many scientists are studying this problem.

Under this consideration, anything can be thought.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Benguin
Well yes, I know it is small, but it is cumulative is it not? Just presumably you'd need to actually fly a long way over the occupational limit before you become statistically 'at-risk' of anything.

I was trying to establish a realistic figure for risk to quantify, as I think it is easy to verify some risk and the oddly motivated then use that to construct a false dichetomy to persuade the under-informed.

Yes, it is cumulative. So X-rays do increas eyour exposure above the background limits. However, as I mentioned, your choice of where you live has a far greater effect in the amount of radiation you recieve. Getting an X-ray once a year to check for breast cancer is about 6% of the risk that comes with living in Nevada. Even if there is an effect there, it's so small as to be inisignificant. There are amny, many other factors that are far larger contributers, such as location, amount of time in the sun, occupation, etc.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Huntsman [/i]

>>For that matter, the amount of radiation you get from sunlight massivley swamps that you get from a single X-ray, or even a dozen over the course of a year.
It's really a non-argument.

Just what kind of x-ray are you referring to? Mammograms deliver a far greater dose than do dental x-rays, for example. And when going in for any kind of x-ray, do patients routinely ask, "Doctor, could you please tell me the last time this machine was calibrated? And could you show me the paperwork???"

>>Also, a 0.9% incidence caused by X-rays (supposedly) is very, very low.

In the US, it's more like 1.8% of the cancers. In Japan, 3%. It adds up to thousands.

>>It's a non-issue. Mountains and molehills. Forests and trees. Pots and kettles.

It's life as versus death -- a condition that diagnostic x-rays are supposed to to help prevent, but do they?

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Rouser2
In the US, it's more like 1.8% of the cancers. In Japan, 3%. It adds up to thousands.
[/B][

Source?

It's life as versus death -- a condition that diagnostic x-rays are supposed to to help prevent, but do they?

Are you suggesting they never do?

[Hellbound]

Mammograms also deliver a smaller dose than a full chest X-ray. And a full chest X-ray is equivalent to living for 2.3 days. Do you ever read the links anyone posts, or are you afraid you might learn something?

And, if you ask to see the calibration data on an X-ray machine, they have it on hand. There are strict regulations in place concerning this sort of thing.

And yes, 1.8% may add up to thousands (assuming your data is accurate). But guess what? Many, many, many more died from the cancers that went undetected before these X-Rays came into use. That's why diagnostic X-Rays were promoted in the first place. Because they can catch cancers at an early enough stage to greatly improve surival rates. IF 1.8% are caused by the X-rays (that's 1.8% of cancers, mind you, not people), that means 98.2% of those cancers were not caused by the X-Rays. Assuming that only one tenth of those are accurate diagnosis, that still leaves 9.82% of cancers found by the X-rays, 4 to 5 times more than those you claim are caused by it. And note, I'm being extremely generous with the numbers.

You have an extremely flawed view of risk assessment. Driving carries a much, much, MUCH higher risk of death or disability than any sort of X-ray (higher even than working in a nuclear plant or in a high-radiation laboratory). Yet I'm sure you drive or ride in vehicles almost daily. Heck, you're more likely to die from food poisoning. By your logic, we should all stop eating.

[Benguin]

I wonder how much monitor radiation a forum addict absorbs daily?

[jj]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Yeah, well "cured" does seem to be a word seldom used in the cancer lexicon -- five year survival rates -- that's the preferred marker. As to "cures" or survival rates of cancers caused by routine x-rays inlcuding mammograms, I think most people would prefer not to have to deal with the disease in the first place. Thus, before undergoing "routine" x-rays, be it mammograms or even dental x-rays, it seems prudent to me for one to think twice.

You didn't answer the question. How many people are saved by early detection of tumors vs. those who get a tumor from the x-rays?

Even if we accept the rates you provide, which seem quite a bit high, given the radiation involved in, say, 1 airplane ride ...

Are you for banning airplanes?

[jj]

Originally posted by Kumar
Under this consideration, anything can be thought.

But no knowledge arises.

Would you like to deal with evidence, now?

[anonimouse]

Originally posted by Huntsman
You have an extremely flawed view of risk assessment. Driving carries a much, much, MUCH higher risk of death or disability than any sort of X-ray (higher even than working in a nuclear plant or in a high-radiation laboratory). Yet I'm sure you drive or ride in vehicles almost daily. Heck, you're more likely to die from food poisoning. By your logic, we should all stop eating.

Is it the typical "woo" response (I see it constantly with anti-vaxers) to recoil in horror at odds of 1 in 10,000, without understanding that the odds of dying in a car crash are 1 in 8,000. It is further woo to talk about the risks of a medical procedure or drug - especially when they see "death" as a potential outcome - and ignore the fact that many times the risk of "death" without the medical procedure is exponentially greater.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Benguin [/i]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
In the US, it's more like 1.8% of the cancers. In Japan, 3%. It adds up to thousands.
[/B][
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source?

Oops. It's 0.9% in the US and 3.2" in Japan.

Berrington de Gonzalez, A and Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. The Lancet. 363, 345-351. January, 2004.

as cited at:
http://www.thedoctorslounge.net/onc.../x-rays_cancer


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's life as versus death -- a condition that diagnostic x-rays are supposed to to help prevent, but do they?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Are you suggesting they never do?

No. I'm suggesting that overall whether they do more harm than good is open to question, except in the case of mammography, where they clearly seem to do more harm than good.

"Mammography continues to offer earlier detection, however. According to the report, mammography plus physical examination provides a 3.6-year advantage in detection-time over no screening, whereas physical examination provides only a 1.5 year advantage. Consistent with this 2.1-year lead-time advantage, tumors detected by mammography plus physical examination tend to be smaller and are less likely to have spread to the lymph nodes, the researchers report.Unfortunately, the investigators admit, these apparent advantages do not translate into an increased survival rate for women screened with mammography plus physical examination."
Journal of the National Cancer Institute September 20, 2000;92:1490-1499

As cited at http://www.mercola.com/2000/oct/1/mammograms.htm

Dr. Mercola's comment:

"Well now, here we have it mammograms don't work. This is not published in some "rinky-dink" journal or press release. This is from the National Cancer Institute. Their analysis confirms what we have suspected for some time, that mammograms are not a good idea...."

"It is interesting how mammograms can found found to provide absolutely no benefit, yet it is the"standard of care" of mainstream medicine. "Quackbusters" like Stephen Barrett love to jump on alternative medical practices as essentially being worthless, yet I don't hear him referring to the tens of thousands of doctors ordering mammograms as "quacks". If this same exact study had come out with similar results for an alternative practice such as chelation, he and the government would be looking to shut down alternative medical practices across the country. "

Nuff said.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by jj
You didn't answer the question. How many people are saved by early detection of tumors vs. those who get a tumor from the x-rays?

Even if we accept the rates you provide, which seem quite a bit high, given the radiation involved in, say, 1 airplane ride ...

Are you for banning airplanes?

I refer you to the study referenced in my post to Benquin.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Huntsman [/i]


>>And yes, 1.8% may add up to thousands (assuming your data is accurate).

My error. It's 0.9% in the US.

>>But guess what? Many, many, many more died from the cancers that went undetected before these X-Rays came into use. That's why diagnostic X-Rays were promoted in the first place. Because they can catch cancers at an early enough stage to greatly improve surival rates.

Not so. I refer you to the study cited in my post to Benquin. And the reason mammograms were originally promoted was not because they improve survival rates, but for a more pressing motivation, namely, $$$$$$$$$.

[gmanontario]

Well as long as I am allowed to get personal here, all I can say is THANK YOU to x-rays. I was having a little problem with my hearing at the time (1998) and the doctor suggested a quick x-ray of both my inner ear bits. Guess what..they found a shadow which turned out to be an acoustic neuroma which was about to interfere with the ventricles and upper brain stem. While death wasn't likely from the tumor, a seriouly degraded lifestyle was definite. For those who don't know, its a tumor (usually benign) growing on the 7th or 8th cranial nerve on the canal on the side of the skull that allows entrance through the dura and into the brain. If allowed to grow, it will compress the brain stem and block the fluid ducts that allow spinal fluid to flow between the brain and spinal cord. When this happens, you start to lose control of random autonomic body functions that could cause death if extreme enough. My tumor was about 3.5 cm in length and the width of a stringbean. I let the evil allopaths rip it out (15+ hours) and they didn't even let me take it home in a jar. Damn evil doctors. Of course, the tradeoff always has to happen. In return for living a (semi) normal life, I lost the hearing in the right ear, some vision in the right eye, have limited movement in the right eyelid and forehead and almost none in the lower right quadrant of my face. Oh yes the tinnitus is like having an ambulance siren screaming in the ear 24/7.

But looking at the big picture, doing nothing is stupidly dangerous and everyone needs to get examined and/or treated with proven effective medical expertise at some point. I for one will forego the dangers of xrays when the benefits far outweigh them. I'm living proof.

Ok off the soapbox and back to lurking and getting totally p****ed off at the anti-medicine lunatics and the alternative medicine losers. Alt med is a pile of horsepucks that only relieves a pain in the wallet. I've had them try to sell me the crap and I only wish there was a law here to put the (possible) killers away for a long time.

color me :mad: :mad:

[jj]

Originally posted by Rouser2
I refer you to the study referenced in my post to Benquin.

No you don't. What about one airplane ride?

What's the exposure from that.

Deal with reality, Rouser.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by jj
What's the exposure from that.
Rouser has some funny ideas (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32336&perpage=40&pagenumber=8) about X-rays.
Deal with reality, Rouser. Sage advice, but likely to fall on deaf ears.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
And the reason mammograms were originally promoted was not because they improve survival rates, but for a more pressing motivation, namely, $$$$$$$$$. Evidence, please? I certainly don't think "nuff" has been said on the risk/benefits ratio of mammograms. I understand this has been quesitoned, but these studies need to be repeated.

However, I want to know Rouser's evidence for his assertion that they were ever promoted for purely financial reasons. They are widely available and indeed encouraged in systems of socialised medicine where the patient pays nothing and scarce resources are consumed. The motivation is to detect cancer early and so save lives. One may debate whether this is being achieved (personally I think it is), but to impugn the motivation in the way that Rouser is doing is scandalous and indeed libellous. So, prove it Rouser.

Rolfe.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Evidence, please? I certainly don't think "nuff" has been said on the risk/benefits ratio of mammograms. I understand this has been quesitoned, but these studies need to be repeated.

However, I want to know Rouser's evidence for his assertion that they were ever promoted for purely financial reasons. They are widely available and indeed encouraged in systems of socialised medicine where the patient pays nothing and scarce resources are consumed. The motivation is to detect cancer early and so save lives. One may debate whether this is being achieved (personally I think it is), but to impugn the motivation in the way that Rouser is doing is scandalous and indeed libellous. So, prove it Rouser.

Rolfe.

"Do the math: a $100 mammogram for all 62 million U.S. women over 40, and a $1,000+ biopsy for 1-to 2-million women (year 2000 figures), is an $8 billion per year industry." -- Dr.Joseph Mercola
http://www.mercola.com/2000/oct/29/thermography.htm

When you have an a multi-billion dollar industry perpetrating a medical fraud on the general public, it's fairly logical to assume that money has something to do with it -- especially since much of these funds are routinely stolen from taxpayers. Thus, the "industry" needs not face the discipline of market forces. There is no such a thing as a "free" lunch. Nor a "free" mammogram, nor a "free" biopsy.

[Drooper]

An interesting piece of recent news on this subject.

The was a recent report in Ireland about statistics that showed a higher mortality for breast cancer in the Republic of Ireland compared with Northern Ireland. It was believed that the reason was because there is no breast screening program in Ireland, but there is in the UK.

The Irish government is now looking at introducing regular breast cancer screening. Doesn't sound $$$$ motivated to me.

[Drooper]

Also, I just wanted to address a point to the title of the thread, which seems lost back in time. Let's refresh:

Cancer Victim Refuses treatment--Lives

I have an alternative thread title.


Woman falls out of a plane from 30,000 feet - lives. (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/gwr5/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=43941)


Let's all go jump out of a plane shall we?

[Rolfe]

Rouser, I didn't ask you to show how much money was involved, but to prove that the motivation of those advocating the screening was for financial gain rather than a desire to help women by detecting cancer early.

You really are a nauseating creep, you know.

Rolfe.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Drooper
Also, I just wanted to address a point to the title of the thread, which seems lost back in time. Let's refresh:



I have an alternative thread title.


Woman falls out of a plane from 30,000 feet - lives. (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/gwr5/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=43941)


Let's all go jump out of a plane shall we?

Okay. You first. We'll be right behind you.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Drooper
I have an alternative thread title.

Woman falls out of a plane from 30,000 feet - lives. (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/gwr5/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=43941)

Let's all go jump out of a plane shall we? .... no other passengers survived.Which is why we won't.

Rouser doesn't seem capable of making the same calculation when it comes to flukey survivals without medical intervention.

Rolfe.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Drooper
An interesting piece of recent news on this subject.

The was a recent report in Ireland about statistics that showed a higher mortality for breast cancer in the Republic of Ireland compared with Northern Ireland. It was believed that the reason was because there is no breast screening program in Ireland, but there is in the UK.

The Irish government is now looking at introducing regular breast cancer screening. Doesn't sound $$$$ motivated to me.

Your un-sourced report may indeed be true for "mortality" in cancer is measured by 5-years survival rates. Earlier detection means more 5-year survivals since the point of diagnosis is years earlier. I refer you to Dr. H. Gilbert Welch's book "Should I Be Tested For Cancer" as cited in the first post under the thread regarding "Pseudo-Diseases". As to the Irish government looking into a breast screening "program," it may be an altruistic motive, or just stupidity. But I'd bet on the other motive -- $$$$$$$$$.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Rouser, I didn't ask you to show how much money was involved, but to prove that the motivation of those advocating the screening was for financial gain rather than a desire to help women by detecting cancer early.
Rolfe.

There is no imperical test known to man that measures "motivation." In a criminal case, a jury infers it. And from the facts layed out, an honest observer can likewise infer it. If it looks like a duck...

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Your un-sourced report may indeed be true for "mortality" in cancer is measured by 5-years survival rates. Earlier detection means more 5-year survivals since the point of diagnosis is years earlier. I refer you to Dr. H. Gilbert Welch's book "Should I Be Tested For Cancer" as cited in the first post under the thread regarding "Pseudo-Diseases". Nice try, Rouser.

He's trying to wriggle out of this by asserting that "higher mortality for breast cancer" actually means "fewer breast cancer patients still being alive five years after first diagnosis".

Of course, the likelihood is that it actually means "a higher percentage of the popluation died from breast cancer" (rather than something else). Perhaps Drooper could cite a reference so we can all check.

Rolfe.

[jj]

Hey, Rouser. What about radiation from X-rays? What about Radon? What about solar input? Thorium? Actinides?


Was the sun invented to make $$$$??? It radiates you a whole lot more than a whole life's worth of x-rays.

How about Radon? Are you asserting that Radon exists to make $$$$ for someone?

What about riding in an airplane? Were airplanes invented to make $$$$$ by making us sick?

What, Rouser, is the actual radiation exposure on a trans-pacific flight, compared to a chest x-ray?

Until you can cite the numbers exactly, precisely, and explain how you justify airplane rides based on those numbers, you are in contempt of the facts.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Rouser2
There is no imperical test known to man that measures "motivation." In a criminal case, a jury infers it. And from the facts layed out, an honest observer can likewise infer it. If it looks like a duck...

Well of COURSE motivation can't be measured. But the motivation for money, ah, yes, those evil pro-cancer radiology technicians! And those doctors! The nurses! And those scientists! EVERYONE needs to make money by giving millions of unsuspecting people cancer. The five-year survivial rate is only to keep the cancer victims from talking; drain 'em of their life savings, and give them the final deadly push.
I'm sorry I didn't see that before.

I mean, it's not as if there are doctors, scientists, radiology techs, etc have family or friends themselves who has had, could have, does have, cancer. Sacrifice your loved ones for the almighty buck. Face it. You dupes at Big Pharma and the Medical Industry in general have been harming the people all along. You horrible horrible bastiges.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Suezoled

Edited to remove sarcasm.
Well of COURSE motivation can't be measured. But the motivation for money, ah, yes, those evil pro-SCAM homeopathic fineds! And those Chiros! The researchers! And those pseudoscientists! EVERYONE needs to make money by convincing millions of unsuspecting people that they have cancer, or convincing them they can get cancer treatment better, faster, and cheaper, and convincing them that Big Pharma will just make them sicker instead of offering them effective treatment. The five-year survival rate is only to keep the cancer victims from talking; drain 'em of their life savings, and give them the final deadly push.



Well, that's pretty much it. How long do people survive with cancer if it goes untreated. They conveniently die so that the SCAM folks can move on to fresh victims.

All these idiotic conspiracy theories are getting very old. The doctors, nurses, scientists, etc. get the same treatment for Cancer as everyone else. If it was fake treatment that made things worse, then why do they go for it?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
There is no imperical test known to man that measures "motivation." In a criminal case, a jury infers it. And from the facts layed out, an honest observer can likewise infer it. If it looks like a duck... When Vikram suggested that Rouser's favourite author (Mendelssohn) might be mistaken or misreporting, Rouser suggested that his motivation for this speculation was "hatred", and asked, "what does this say about you?"

Well, Rouser chooses to conclude that the entire medical profession, including salaried doctors working in systems of socialised medicine, is motivated by greed, and is so immoral that it will deliberately harm all and sundry in pursiut of money. Hatred, Rouser? What does this say about you?

Rolfe.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by jj
Hey, Rouser. What about radiation from X-rays? What about Radon? What about solar input? Thorium? Actinides?


Was the sun invented to make $$$$??? It radiates you a whole lot more than a whole life's worth of x-rays.

How about Radon? Are you asserting that Radon exists to make $$$$ for someone?

What about riding in an airplane? Were airplanes invented to make $$$$$ by making us sick?

What, Rouser, is the actual radiation exposure on a trans-pacific flight, compared to a chest x-ray?

Until you can cite the numbers exactly, precisely, and explain how you justify airplane rides based on those numbers, you are in contempt of the facts.


The important thing is, radiation exposure is all cumulative. And though a lot is natural, the unnatural not only adds to the natural, but often adds in the most dangerous places.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Rouser2
The important thing is, radiation exposure is all cumulative. And though a lot is natural, the unnatural not only adds to the natural, but often adds in the most dangerous places.
Hah! This is a new abuse of the term "natural" I haven't heard before. Even natural radiation is better than "artificial" radiation, now...

[jj]

Originally posted by Rouser2
The important thing is, radiation exposure is all cumulative. And though a lot is natural, the unnatural not only adds to the natural, but often adds in the most dangerous places.

Really, you don't say.

Let's see. The radiation from one plane flight is equal to how many sets of dental x-rays?

How does one flight from LA to Gatwick compare with a mammogram?

You need to do some math, Rouser.

Now, about natural radiation from the environment. How many days does it take to equal the radiation from a full body cat scan?

Radiation exposure is indeed cumulative, but there is no evidence of thresholding, so get your data, and let's see it. Your references, to date, contain no cost/benefit analysis at all, so include that too.

[anonimouse]

Originally posted by Rouser2
The important thing is, radiation exposure is all cumulative. And though a lot is natural, the unnatural not only adds to the natural, but often adds in the most dangerous places.

I hear a similar refrain from anti-vaxers with regards to mercury. "Mercury exposure is cumulative" is their mantra, so their belief is that the mercury in vaccines (despite vaccines being, you know, actually beneficial) is what they should avoid.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

This discussion on relative risk reminds of a conversation where I used to work. A tech aide was telling us about the evils of food additives and the benefits of shopping at a health food store --- while puffing away on her cigarette.

[Benguin]

Reminds me of this one (http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/pregnant.asp)

http://67.19.222.106/photos/signs/graphics/pregnant.jpg

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Nice try, Rouser.

He's trying to wriggle out of this by asserting that "higher mortality for breast cancer" actually means "fewer breast cancer patients still being alive five years after first diagnosis".

Of course, the likelihood is that it actually means "a higher percentage of the popluation died from breast cancer" (rather than something else). Perhaps Drooper could cite a reference so we can all check.

Rolfe.

Here is a media report that I tracked down:

North rate of breast cancer deaths falls by a fifth.
Difference with South attributed to long-established screening practice (http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/0901/1476807887HM1CANCER.html)



Although the incidence of breast cancer on the island is increasing at a rate of 1.5 per cent per year, death from the disease is falling at a rate of 4 per cent per annum in the North. There has been no reduction in breast cancer deaths in the Republic, however.


Edited to add this quote:

The report suggests that Ireland's significantly low survival rate for breast cancer may be due to more women being diagnosed with late stage disease, when treatments are less effective, because of a lack of screening.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by jj
Hey, Rouser. What about radiation from X-rays? What about Radon? What about solar input? Thorium? Actinides?


Was the sun invented to make $$$$??? It radiates you a whole lot more than a whole life's worth of x-rays.

How about Radon? Are you asserting that Radon exists to make $$$$ for someone?

What about riding in an airplane? Were airplanes invented to make $$$$$ by making us sick?

What, Rouser, is the actual radiation exposure on a trans-pacific flight, compared to a chest x-ray?

Until you can cite the numbers exactly, precisely, and explain how you justify airplane rides based on those numbers, you are in contempt of the facts.

Of course these are all sophomoric questions. There are significant differences between whole body, natural radiation exposure and medical radiation exposures. The question is, does medical radiation pose a significant health risk? According to author John W. Grofman, it most certainly does. I refer you to the following abstract of his book,

Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease:
Dose-Response Studies with Physicians per 100,000 Population
John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph. D.
Professor Emeritus, Molecular and Cell Biology
University of California, Berkeley

"The evidence presented in this book strongly indicates that over 50% of the death-rate from Cancer today, and over 60% of the death-rate from Ischemic Heart Disease today, are xray-induced as defined and explained in Part 5 of the Introduction. The finding means that xrays (including fluoroscopy and CT scans) have become a necessary co-actor --- but not the only necessary co-actor --- in causing most of the death-rate from Cancer and from Ischemic Heart Disease (also called Coronary Heart Disease, and Coronary Artery Disease). In multi-cause diseases such as Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, more than one necessary co-actor per fatal case is very likely. Absence of any necessary co-actor, by definition, prevents such cases. The concept of xray-induced cases means cases which would be absent in the absence of exposure to xrays. "

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RMP/chp1F.html

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rouser2


Worked hard on your response, eh, rouser? Its great to see how much thought goes into your rants here. Thanks for your "thoughtful contributions" to the dialogue.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Zombified
Hah! This is a new abuse of the term "natural" I haven't heard before. Even natural radiation is better than "artificial" radiation, now...

This is obvious, zombified. Of course it is better. It is "natural."

Asking rouser questions about "natural" is like asking a blonde which is further: the moon or London. "Hello? I can like see the moon from here!"

(Sorry for the blonde joke, Eos.)

[Eos of the Eons]

Hmmm, something for Rouser:

http://www.immunocal.com/product.htm

Any comments on this quackery would be most appreciated.

My favorite blonde joKe:

Why did the blonde stare at the frozen orange juice can?












On the label it says "concentrate".

[Eos of the Eons]

Okay, some help:

To get an idea of how pervasive some of the stealth marketing is for one of his pet projects, namely Immunocal, just do a Google Search for "Immunocal scam" and you come up with sites like this, that are actually run by a major Immunocal MLM distributor named Health-ebiz.com. Take a look at it, and you might think that the site was set up to warn you about MLM scams. But look again at the bottom of the page.

http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Cancer/Wickware/

Canada has got to be the worst for what it allows quacks to get away with. Quackhaven.