Cure For Cancer
FilthyLarry
Join Date: 2003-08-31 Member: 20423Members
Join Date: 2003-08-31 Member: 20423Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Follow the money</div> i) There is a huge amount of money in cancer/cancer-symptom treatment. Is there any motivation for a company to invent a miracle "cure" drug?
ii) Cures for cancer already exist. However, in the US these treatments are scoffed at and proponents thereof are hounded/persecuted/ruined by the establishment at large. Conspiracy theory or fact?
Discuss at your leisure ladies/gents.
ii) Cures for cancer already exist. However, in the US these treatments are scoffed at and proponents thereof are hounded/persecuted/ruined by the establishment at large. Conspiracy theory or fact?
Discuss at your leisure ladies/gents.
Comments
Four lines and the theme song to X-Files isn't enough to start a conversation. Most people want some kind of article to read, or at least a half-page of text explaining your side of the issue.
If you can't produce such artifacts I'll have to be locking this before it combusts.
I agree. If there was a good cure, it would be a huge story. 3x as many people die from cancer each week, in the US, than died from 9/11.
Anyone who had a cure for cancer would get billions of dollars, from organisations, in order to bring it to market. Any company who developed a cure for cancer would get billions of dollars, by bringing it to market.
Problem is, not a single one of them is 100% affective for all people.
<a href='http://www.cancercenter.com/conventional-cancer-treatment.cfm' target='_blank'>Source</a>
Example:
Some of these you guys may recgonize others probably not. Especially towards the bottom of the list. These are all convential treatments.
* Surgical OncologyOpen
o Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspiration
o Sentinel Node Biopsy
* ChemotherapyOpen
o Fractionated Dose Chemotherapy
o Intra-Arterial Chemotherapy
o Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy
* Radiation Therapy
o 3D Conformal Radiation
o External Beam Radiation
o High-Dose Rate Brachytherapy
o Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy
o MammoSite RTS
o TheraSphere
o TomoTherapy HI-ART
* Stem Cell Transplantation
* Biotherapy / Immunotherapy
o Hematopoietic Growth Factors
o Interferons
o Interleukins
o Monoclonal Antibodies
* Chemoembolization
* Hormone Therapy
* Local Hyperthermia
* Photodynamic Therapy
* Radiofrequency Ablation
I think that is probably sufficent dicussion. I can easily answer most of the questions you guys may have reguarding this. Since it is of a personal nature.
Why would a company (who only surrender to profit, nothing else) want to put out a cure and basically destroy their whole market? Answer, they wouldn't of course!
I don't think it would really be possible to create a cure for uncontrolable growth since cancer is random.
Why would a company (who only surrender to profit, nothing else) want to put out a cure and basically destroy their whole market? Answer, they wouldn't of course! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, capitalism would give people incentives not to find cures, if those people were making a lot of money off of treatments. However, I like to think that people are mostly good (especially people that work in medicine), so they wouldn't keep the cure a secret. Plus, if a company did want to make the cure a secret, then it would be likely that at least one employee would leak the news to the press.
If it came out that the company hid the cure, they'd get awful PR, whereas if a company does come out with a cure, they'd get great PR.
Four lines and the theme song to X-Files isn't enough to start a conversation. Most people want some kind of article to read, or at least a half-page of text explaining your side of the issue.
If you can't produce such artifacts I'll have to be locking this before it combusts. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very well, I'll type out some parapgraphs from "Never Be Sick Again" by Raymond Francis, M.Sc. To put this in context he is in favour of "natual/alternate"/personal responsibility such as diet/exercise etc. treatments for disease.
This would in support of ii)
"Resistant to change:
Adopting a more rational system of medicine would result in an enormous reduction in health-care costs by eliminating hundreds of thousands of physicians and closing thousands of hospitals (not to mention the potential financial ruin of drug companies).
Obviously, the economic incentive to maintain the status quo and not change is enormous. Currently, cancer is a billion-dollar-a-day "industry" in the United States,and more people are employed in the AIDS industry than there are sufferers of AIDS.
Modern medicine's efforts to protect money and jobs were vividly described and documented in the 2000 book by former New York State Legislator, Daniel Haley, 'Politics in Healing: The Suppression and Manipulation of American Medicine.
Haley points out that in the twentieth century several inexpensive and highly effective cures for cancer were introduced in Amercian medicine. The developers of these cures, well-meaning people, were naive and believed that the world would welcome a cancer cure. What these people - among others, Harry Hoxey, William Frederick Koch, Royal Raymond Rife and Dr. Andrew Ivy - all failed to understand is that someone who threatens the survival of a prospering and growing industry with an inexpensive cure will not be welcomed.
Proven and effective cancer cures were repudiated and suppressed by the American Medical Association (AMA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Discoverers of these cures were isolated, harassed, persecuted, prosecuted, financially ruined and destroyed, and their treatments essentially have been lost. Some events described in Haley's book are bizzare and are hard to believe, yet they are documented by evidence presented at jury trials and recorded in court records. The FDA,AMA , the National Cancer Institute, and the American Cancer Society still continue to suppress cancer cures, such as that developed by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski;his office has been raided by FDA agents and U.S. Marshalls, he has been persecuted relentlessly and his medical license is on a ten-year probation during which time he is not allowed to see new patients. These actions prevent public access to treatments and intimidate unorthodox physicians.
Physicians who have worked all their lives within the existing system often feel threatened by change. The majority of physicians support efforts by state medical boards and government regulatory boards to suppress alternative approaches.
A less expensive, more effective way of practicing medicine threatens their economic well-being, as well as philosophically questions the validity of their lifetime work. Physicians who have dared to introduce alternative treatments have had their licenses revoked, been financially ruined, and ostracized because they were willing to help patients with treatments that were not the "accepted standard of care."
A chilling example of how nonconforming doctors are kept in line is the case of Jonathan Wright, M.D. On May 6, 1992, a small army of FDA agents plus ten police officers, with drawn guns and flak jackets, attacked Dr. Wright's office.
Rather than simply opening the office door and walking in, they broke it down, terrifying his staff and patients in the waiting room. Why? Was Wright on the FBI's list of known terrorits? No. Wright was merely an outspoken critic of modern medicine and the FDA, and he regularly used vitamins and natural substances in his practice. This approach to healing made him a target.
During the fourteen-hour raid, all of Wright's records, equipment, manuals, vitamins, minerals and herbs were confiscated. They even took his postage stamps. None of Wright's patients ever had complained about him. Wright was never charged with anything, nor ever prosecuted for anything. Yet, both his practice and his reputation were damaged. It took years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to have his patient records returned and his practice restored.
Events like this are not supposed to happen in America, but they do happen to doctors who step out of line. As a result, we are denied the right to choose certain treatments because our doctors cannot offer them."
Why would a company (who only surrender to profit, nothing else) want to put out a cure and basically destroy their whole market? Answer, they wouldn't of course! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, capitalism would give people incentives not to find cures, if those people were making a lot of money off of treatments. However, I like to think that people are mostly good (especially people that work in medicine), so they wouldn't keep the cure a secret. Plus, if a company did want to make the cure a secret, then it would be likely that at least one employee would leak the news to the press.
If it came out that the company hid the cure, they'd get awful PR, whereas if a company does come out with a cure, they'd get great PR. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thing is, if a company invented a "miracle drug" that cured things like AIDS/cancer, their would be an _extreme humanitarian_ pressure placed on said company to cough up the know-how so that others could also produce the cure.
Can you imagine public outrage at not having such a cure be "free" ?
Put it this way, a co-worker of mine who used to work in the drug-research industry told me this story:
He was put on project to come up with a drug that helped nausea for chemotherapy patients. During the course of the project to determine if this wonderful relief for patients would be economically viable (running it by insurance companies) it turned out that it was decided no !!! It was more cost effective to let people throw up and soil their bedding than give 'em the drug.
Wonderful and caring no ?
Problem is, not a single one of them is 100% affective for all people.
<a href='http://www.cancercenter.com/conventional-cancer-treatment.cfm' target='_blank'>Source</a>
Example:
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd be interested in your opinion on this therapy <a href='http://www.gerson.org/' target='_blank'>here</a>
Extract:
Throughout our lives our bodies are being filled with a variety of disease and cancer causing pollutants. These toxins reach us through the air we breathe, the food we eat, the medicines we take and the water we drink. As more of these poisons are used every day and cancer rates continue to climb, being able to turn to a proven, natural, detoxifying treatment like the Gerson Therapy is not only reassuring, but necessary.
The Gerson Therapy is a powerful, natural treatment that boosts your body's own immune system to heal cancer, arthritis, heart disease, allergies, and many other degenerative diseases. One aspect of the Gerson Therapy that sets it apart from most other treatment methods is its all-encompassing nature. An abundance of nutrients from thirteen fresh, organic juices are consumed every day, providing your body with a superdose of enzymes, minerals and nutrients. These substances then break down diseased tissue in the body, while enemas aid in eliminating the lifelong buildup of toxins from the liver.
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Raymond_Rife' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Raymond_Rife</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Rife also commissioned the invention of a device called the "Beam Ray," which he allegedly used in 1934 at a University of Southern California clinic in La Jolla, California to cure 16 patients of their cancer. The Beam Ray operated on the principle of resonance. By finding the resonant frequency of a particular disease-causing organism, Rife claimed he could then use the "oscillatory energy" to destroy the organism, much as a pane of glass can be broken by sound at the pane's resonant frequency.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Resonance frequencies...that's pure BS. You can't cure cancer by using resonant frequencies of tumors to destroy them. I doubt that tumorous cells have unique resonant frequencies, which would mean that you'd be destroying healthy cells, in addition to malignant cells.
As for the others, I only found data about them on "alternative medicine" websites.
Frankly, I don't think that the medical establishment is a monolithic, stubborn, conspiratorial entity. If you can prove that something works, in scientific studies with good methodology, then doctors and pharmaceutical companies will definately take interest.
As for Gerson, show me evidence that the treatment actually works. Show me evidence that it isn't some scam. The fact that the specific juice they recommend has to be extracted from fruit in a specific way, and the fact that they recommend a specific company to get specific juicers from, imply that the Gerson therapy is just a moneymaking scam.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Put it this way, a co-worker of mine who used to work in the drug-research industry told me this story:
He was put on project to come up with a drug that helped nausea for chemotherapy patients. During the course of the project to determine if this wonderful relief for patients would be economically viable (running it by insurance companies) it turned out that it was decided no !!! It was more cost effective to let people throw up and soil their bedding than give 'em the drug.
Wonderful and caring no ?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are dozens of other antinausea medicines:
<a href='http://www.nccn.org/patients/patient_gls/_english/_nausea_and_vomiting/4_treatment.asp#table3' target='_blank'>http://www.nccn.org/patients/patient_gls/_...ment.asp#table3</a>
Maybe it was not economically viable in comparison to other anti-nausea medicines.
People will pay a lot of money in order to save their lives. There is no comprehensive cancer cure (by comprehensive, I mean a cure that would work for all types of cancer, rather than just a specific treatment like Cyndane mentioned). Cancer kills people. Therefore, pharmaceutical companies can charge exhorbitant rates for cancer drugs. A cancer drug would probably be one of the most profitable drugs ever created. Therefore, if there was a cancer drug, pharmaceutical companies would be very eager to obtain the rights to manufacture it.
Plus, all the therapies that you've cited are "natural." It's economical for even very small companies to sell them. Thus, it's economical for large companies to sell them.
Problem is, not a single one of them is 100% affective for all people.
<a href='http://www.cancercenter.com/conventional-cancer-treatment.cfm' target='_blank'>Source</a>
Example:
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd be interested in your opinion on this therapy <a href='http://www.gerson.org/' target='_blank'>here</a>
Extract:
Throughout our lives our bodies are being filled with a variety of disease and cancer causing pollutants. These toxins reach us through the air we breathe, the food we eat, the medicines we take and the water we drink. As more of these poisons are used every day and cancer rates continue to climb, being able to turn to a proven, natural, detoxifying treatment like the Gerson Therapy is not only reassuring, but necessary.
The Gerson Therapy is a powerful, natural treatment that boosts your body's own immune system to heal cancer, arthritis, heart disease, allergies, and many other degenerative diseases. One aspect of the Gerson Therapy that sets it apart from most other treatment methods is its all-encompassing nature. An abundance of nutrients from thirteen fresh, organic juices are consumed every day, providing your body with a superdose of enzymes, minerals and nutrients. These substances then break down diseased tissue in the body, while enemas aid in eliminating the lifelong buildup of toxins from the liver. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me guess, you think the medicine industry consists of cold, calculating money grubbing bastards?
Well, what do you think these 'alternative' treatments are?
It's a hodge podge of mumbo jumbo made up with the express intention of generating income and turning people away from real, effective, treatments.
To me, these people are right down there with Hitler, Stalin et al in terms of compassion for strangers.
As for Gerson, show me evidence that the treatment actually works. Show me evidence that it isn't some scam. The fact that the specific juice they recommend has to be extracted from fruit in a specific way, and the fact that they recommend a specific company to get specific juicers from, imply that the Gerson therapy is just a moneymaking scam.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, the world is full of shiny happy people all wanting to work for the greater good.
As for Gerson:
First of all, I don't feel it my responsibility to prove that "it works". Considering the bias I'm already seeing at 'alternative treatment' I highly doubt any evidence would change your mind as it would undoubtedly fail some sort of criterion for scientific validity.
Second of all: If you bother to do some research you will see that the extraction method is particular to avoid raising the temperature of the produce in order to avoid nutrient loss. More than one Company manufactures juicers that use the Gerson-recommendation.
You don't believe that fruit and vegetables are good for one's health regardless ? Shame on you.
It's a hodge podge of mumbo jumbo made up with the express intention of generating income and turning people away from real, effective, treatments.
To me, these people are right down there with Hitler, Stalin et al in terms of compassion for strangers. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know what I think these 'alternative' treatments are? They are things that people turn to when conventional-medicine writes you off for dead. Maybe some are just scams, but no more so than alot of the bs modern medicine side-effect laden crap that gets peddled on TV.
Listen, you're welcome to tell the people that have recovered using methods like Gerson that its all mumbo jumbo and they'll tell you they're just happy to be alive.
Yes, real effective treatments like radiation which nuke good cells in the body, and potentially cause further cancer. Wonderful treatment that did absolutely nothing for my GrandFather who died of lung cancer.
Honestly, you can keep your "real effective" treatment for yourself thanks.
Have you actually done any sort of research into things like Gerson, or is this just some sort of knee-jerk response here ?
I'd say that it's also possible that they're recommending specific juices and juicers to make sure that, if the treatment doesn't work for them or something, it's easier to find out why not. Some juices use strange additives and processing methods.
To be honest, though, I'd rather just eat the fruit without juicing it. Takes no energy to digest, while commercial pasteurized juices might take some energy because it's cooked and may have additives, which would change the final product.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Plus, all the therapies that you've cited are "natural." It's economical for even very small companies to sell them. Thus, it's economical for large companies to sell them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not if the market gets completely saturated.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's a hodge podge of mumbo jumbo made up with the express intention of generating income and turning people away from real, effective, treatments.
To me, these people are right down there with Hitler, Stalin et al in terms of compassion for strangers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems like I am, but I'm really not taking sides here. These are all hypothetical questions. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
But, do you have any proof whatsoever that every single natural method is a scam? I'm asking for the proof that you seek for any medicine before it is approved by the FDA.
Actually, it is the responsibility of you (or the Gerson people) to show that it works. If you make extraordinary claims about the effictiveness of your treatments, then the burden of proof is layed upon you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second of all: If you bother to do some research you will see that the extraction method is particular to avoid raising the temperature of the produce in order to avoid nutrient loss.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So why not eat raw fruit and vegetables? Why go to all the effort of using special juicers? Why recommend a specific brand of juicer?
Frankly, all signs point to a scam:
<a href='http://www.gerson.org/store/default.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.gerson.org/store/default.asp</a>
Want to buy the $89.95 PAL VHS?
<a href='http://www.gerson.org/g_therapy/gerson_resources-juicers.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.gerson.org/g_therapy/gerson_resources-juicers.asp</a>
How about the $2195-$2295 Norwalk juicer? What a surprise, they recommend that juicer as the best juicer (http://www.gerson.org/g_therapy/faq.asp?id=37).
<a href='http://www.gerson.org/g_therapy/case_studies.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.gerson.org/g_therapy/case_studies.asp</a>
Hey, I actually found something somewhat scholarly: case studies. However, for all the entries that I looked at, there were only a few sentences regarding a single patient.
<a href='http://www.gerson.org/g_therapy/faq.asp?id=45' target='_blank'>http://www.gerson.org/g_therapy/faq.asp?id=45</a>
They seem reluctant to show their success rates. My google search for the study they mention didn't yield anything (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22alternative+therapies+magazine%22+gerson&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&filter=0).
They were established in 1977, yet there are 0 private practice doctors in the US that use the Gerson therapy (http://www.gerson.org/g_therapy/faq.asp?id=23).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You don't believe that fruit and vegetables are good for one's health regardless ? Shame on you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did I say this? I think fruit and vegetables are a necessary part of a diet. The medical community thinks so too. So does the US government. However, if there was good evidence that fruit and vegetables could cure cancer, then I would think that some sort of reputable medical organistation would recognise that.
Not if the market gets completely saturated. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's why we've got copyright. A company can copyright a cancer cure and make billions.
Actually, it is the responsibility of you (or the Gerson people) to show that it works. If you make extraordinary claims about the effictiveness of your treatments, then the burden of proof is layed upon you.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually you can do your own research thanks <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Keep in mind I made no claims, just asked for an opinion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second of all: If you bother to do some research you will see that the extraction method is particular to avoid raising the temperature of the produce in order to avoid nutrient loss.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So why not eat raw fruit and vegetables? Why go to all the effort of using special juicers? Why recommend a specific brand of juicer?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the case of vegetables especially, juicing aids in nutrient absorption. The whole idea is to be able to absorb the _maximum_ nutrition from the food.
Again, special juicers improve quality. Again, certains brands produce better qaulity. Better quality improves success rate, no mystery here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Frankly, all signs point to a scam:
<a href='http://www.gerson.org/store/default.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.gerson.org/store/default.asp</a>
Want to buy the $89.95 PAL VHS?
<a href='http://www.gerson.org/g_therapy/gerson_resources-juicers.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.gerson.org/g_therapy/gerson_resources-juicers.asp</a>
How about the $2195-$2295 Norwalk juicer? What a surprise, they recommend that juicer as the best juicer (http://www.gerson.org/g_therapy/faq.asp?id=37).
They were established in 1977, yet there are 0 private practice doctors in the US that use the Gerson therapy (http://www.gerson.org/g_therapy/faq.asp?id=23).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Frankly you're knee-jerking here. Again, obviously better results are going to come with high-quality goods. Sheesh, now who is the conspiracy theorist ?
As for doctors in the US, thats my freakin point ! They don't use it because for god's sake...it's asking people to eat fruit and vegetable juice. Where's their cut off of recommending the next great purple pill that Company X peddled while sponsoring the doctor at some nice resort for a seminar or something.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You don't believe that fruit and vegetables are good for one's health regardless ? Shame on you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did I say this? I think fruit and vegetables are a necessary part of a diet. The medical community thinks so too. So does the US government. However, if there was good evidence that fruit and vegetables could cure cancer, then I would think that some sort of reputable medical organistation would recognise that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US government doesnt seem as concerned about chemically sprayed crops now does it? The medical community believes that diet and exercise are not enough! Or dont you have a television ?
Again, you have just a little too much faith in the good intentions of all our wonderful drug manufacturers...oh and the good ol FDA who are part sponsored by the companies they've been tasked with watch-dogging and are notorious for letting crap through because of the pressures involved with rejecting multi-million dollar investments.
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Did I say this? I think fruit and vegetables are a necessary part of a diet. The medical community thinks so too. So does the US government. However, if there was good evidence that fruit and vegetables could cure cancer, then I would think that some sort of reputable medical organistation would recognise that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, it does make sense, once you remove the marketing garbage.
Eat healthy -> Get healthier -> Have a stronger immune system -> Fight off disease easier.
Did I say this? I think fruit and vegetables are a necessary part of a diet. The medical community thinks so too. So does the US government. However, if there was good evidence that fruit and vegetables could cure cancer, then I would think that some sort of reputable medical organistation would recognise that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, it does make sense, once you remove the marketing garbage.
Eat healthy -> Get healthier -> Have a stronger immune system -> Fight off disease easier. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bingo!
The idea is that the body has natural defenses against cancer. Give it the optimum raw material and you're in good shape to heal naturally.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Frankly you're knee-jerking here. Again, obviously better results are going to come with high-quality goods. Sheesh, now who is the conspiracy theorist ?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is it kneejerking to this is a scam? These people have no scientific evidence that they are right, have absolutely 0 doctors in the US that use their treatment, sell lucrative merchandise, and point patients towards companies that sell other lucrative mechandise.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for doctors in the US, thats my freakin point ! They don't use it because for god's sake...it's asking people to eat fruit and vegetable juice. Where's their cut off of recommending the next great purple pill that Company X peddled while sponsoring the doctor at some nice resort for a seminar or something.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Frankly, I can see pharmaceutical companies going for profit instead of helping people. As for doctors, I think that the vast majority of doctors like helping people. Sure, many doctors chose the profession to get rich, but many doctors would have taken the job even if it paid poorly. Out of <a href='http://www.bls.gov/k12/help06.htm' target='_blank'>583,000</a> doctors in the US, I would think that, if Gerson worked, then there would be at least ONE, who used it. There are only <a href='http://www.gerson.org/g_therapy/ps.asp' target='_blank'>two</a> MDs in the world that have even started Gerson training.
I'm not saying that all alternative medicine is wrong, but I'd say that most of it is. The placebo effect is powerful enough to give even the most meritless treatments a few success stories. At least convential medicines has been proven to beat the placebo effect (which is how they became part of convential medicine in the first place).
.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
You see, FilthyLarry, everyone thinks that diet and exercise are extremely important. However, there is little scientific evidence that diet and exercise alone can cure cancer.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What kind of serious studies have been done to determine this though? Thats the thing: if there has been little evidence gathering attempts then of course theres going to be little evidence.
Also, we're talking a _radical_ dietary shift for cancer cures such as Gerson.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Is it kneejerking to this is a scam? These people have no scientific evidence that they are right, have absolutely 0 doctors in the US that use their treatment, sell lucrative merchandise, and point patients towards companies that sell other lucrative mechandise.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry but none of those point to it being a scam. You can't use the profit argument because you could label just about anything as profit-oriented.
As for evidence: if there has been no serious studies done there is no evidence then. Does not imply the treatment is without merit.
As for 0 doctors. You do realize doctors can lose their right to practise medicine if they don't follow certain standards right ? If gerson is not approved as a conventional treatment I'd say they'd be scared to recommend it. Again this does not mean it does not work if:
Certain people would like to make sure it never becomes a standard treatment.
...
As for 0 doctors. You do realize doctors can lose their right to practise medicine if they don't follow certain standards right ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's funny that you mention this. Gerson therapy states that it cannot be performed if the patient has had any form of conventional therapy. Thus, for a study to be performed, all members of the experimental group would have to abandon treatments that have been shown to have efficacy, in favor of a treatment that has not been shown to have efficacy. If you take into account that the illnesses that cancer is fatal, then it would be unethical to perform a study of Gerson. It's something that doctors should lose their licenses over.
The funny thing is, if Gerson is a scam, then this is exactly the sort of claim that would be made, in order to prevent a study that would show that it had no efficacy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Certain people would like to make sure it never becomes a standard treatment.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe. I'd say that the forces who want a cancer cure are more powerful than the ones that don't.
Its a shame some people have issues with this type of technology and are choking the research being done. Perhaps they are just jealous that they won't be able to benefit from the technology? Who knows what agendas these types have... humans are such odd creatures... entirely unpredictable.
<!--emo&::gorge::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/pudgy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pudgy.gif' /><!--endemo-->
That has no affect on cancer, I can assure you on that one.
It has shown the HIV/AIDS can decrease with better health but that is pecause the T-cells keep reproducing at a rate faster then what HIV/AIDS can destroy them. It does not kill them though.
...
As for 0 doctors. You do realize doctors can lose their right to practise medicine if they don't follow certain standards right ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's funny that you mention this. Gerson therapy states that it cannot be performed if the patient has had any form of conventional therapy. Thus, for a study to be performed, all members of the experimental group would have to abandon treatments that have been shown to have efficacy, in favor of a treatment that has not been shown to have efficacy. If you take into account that the illnesses that cancer is fatal, then it would be unethical to perform a study of Gerson. It's something that doctors should lose their licenses over.
The funny thing is, if Gerson is a scam, then this is exactly the sort of claim that would be made, in order to prevent a study that would show that it had no efficacy.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You still continue to look for skeletons in the closet where there are none. Most conventional medicine actually inteferes with the bodies _natural ability to heal_ e.g. chemotherapy. You're destroying good cells with the bad, how are you supposed to heal naturally in this way?
Also, another reason for 0 doctors:
"Why has your hospital traditionally been in Mexico and not in the U.S.?
For many years states had laws stating that is was illegal for any doctor to treat cancer using any method other than chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery. Recently, a few states have begun to recognize alternative healthcare and begun to allow it with some oversight. In general, acceptance of alternative treatments is hard to come by. The small handful of states to allow alternative treatment clinics are: Washington state, Arizona, New York and Nevada."
"A more likely possibility is that fruits and vegetables may protect against certain cancers. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization, recently completed a monumental review of the best research on fruits, vegetables, and cancer. Here's what this 387-page tome concludes about studies in humans: "There is limited evidence for a cancer-preventive effect of consumption of fruit and of vegetables for cancers of the mouth and pharynx, esophagus, stomach, colon-rectum, larynx, lung, ovary (vegetables only), bladder (fruit only), and kidney. There is inadequate evidence for a cancer-preventive effect of consumption of fruit and of vegetables for all other sites." (5) However, considering all evidence from human epidemiological, animal, and other types of studies, it appears that eating more fruit "probably lowers the risk of cancers of the esophagus, stomach and lung" and "possibly reduces the risk of cancers of the mouth, pharynx, colon-rectum, larynx, kidney, and urinary bladder." Eating more vegetables "probably lowers the risk of cancers of the esophagus and colon-rectum" and "possibly reduces the risk of cancers of the mouth, pharynx, stomach, larynx, lung, ovary and kidney.""
More research is needed, but yes a good diet of vegatables and fruits will most likely lower the risk of cancer.
<a href='http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6283' target='_blank'>http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6283</a>
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3655586.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3655586.stm</a>
Cannabis fights cancer aswell D:'
I've heard about a plant in africa that supposedly cures aids, but its being put on hold by medical companys and wont be seen by the public for like 15~20 years.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since when is radiation therapy or chemotherapy peddled on TV? And hell, writing someone of for dead is the honest thing to do if there is no treatment deemed to be usefull. Cleaning up their bank account or getting their friends and family in debt to supply some false hope is so imoral it's not even funny.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Listen, you're welcome to tell the people that have recovered using methods like Gerson that its all mumbo jumbo and they'll tell you they're just happy to be alive.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Annecdotal evidence does not count.
And I'd be more than happy to tell them if you tell the people who no anyone who died of cancer that may have been preventable if they had sought conventional treatment instead of being fleced and left to die.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Yes, real effective treatments like radiation which nuke good cells in the body, and potentially cause further cancer. Wonderful treatment that did absolutely nothing for my GrandFather who died of lung cancer.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So? You being angry changes nothing. A statistical sample of one changes nothing.
Flecing someone and leaving them for dead is infinetly worse than giving them a small but REAL hope.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Have you actually done any sort of research into things like Gerson, or is this just some sort of knee-jerk response here ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've had a good long hard look at alternative medicines in general, and they share some common trends:
Rely on annecdotal evidence(down play statistics).
Count on confounding factors(e.g. natural fluctuations(bias due to the patient seeking help when feeling the worst), placebo effect)
Follow fashionable trends(natural mumbo jumbo is hip right now, radiocativity was once a miracle cure for everything from arthritis to impotence and 'low energy').
Do biased research if at all(e.g. don't ever do double blind studies).
Play on conspiracy theories regarding the medical establishment(try to turn people away from sensible research, especially if there is research done that shows you're a sharlatan).
I don't need to do any serious research on gerson because neither did Gerson himself(if you wish to claim that he did, point me to that peer-reviewed paper in a non-crummy journal please).
Why would gerson be different than the tens of thousands of other cheesy alternative medicine treatments?(which are as likely to have a beneficial effect as they are to be detrimental).
You may not take this seriously now, but this is the direct equivalent to gerson therapy in general behaviour of the early 20th century <a href='http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quackcures/quackcures.htm' target='_blank'>radioactive cures</a>. Same **** different name.
Quick overview of gerson therapy as I see it: 'invented' circa 1930's and is based on the belief that toxins are the cause of cancer(even when the cancer is established), and that removing the toxins will remove the cancer. (This is from a time when DNA hadn't even been discovered). But cancer is caused by cancerous cells, which don't need unspecified toxins to support their existence once they are initially formed, claiming the opposite needs very major evidence to back it up.
Since radiation can cause cancer, and you admit so yourself, then this claim is obviously just outright flawed. If the basic ideas are outright wrong then the treatment is as good as any random untested treatment. I can make up a treatment just as likely to be usefull as gersons: e.g. soaking your feet in strong black tea every alternate week day to releieve that negative energy that builds up in your pinky.
That has no affect on cancer, I can assure you on that one. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not?
That has no affect on cancer, I can assure you on that one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was the prime example of health. That is how I know.