CHEMO in Voices Windward

lets break it down.

First to be clear the majority of anti chemo info given and elsewhere seems to be formed around a article by Moritz in ‘91. Even for the time it was shown to be wildly inaccurate and cited scholarly papers that were much less than they seemed.

In general anti Chemo arguments tend to assume that A: Chemotherapy is a singular anti cancer treatment and B: it uses radiation. It is in accurality a massive range of treatments formed around the method of killing of rapidly splitting cells, IE limiting the spread and impact of dangerous cells, which covers various cancerous cells (each their own disease with forms of treatment) to MS, Chrons, Lupus etc etc

The means can be anything from light, temperature, antibodies, electrical and many other things, yes including radiation, which is usually the focus of these anti modern medicine thread. The subject matter is actually chemoradiotherapy, and when you assault Chemotherepy you tint a name you don’t even mean to with arguments against chemoradiotherapy. So please us the accurate terms before beginning the assault.

Secondly a short note on Modern Medicine and Alternative Medicine,You seem to believe that they are separate things.They are not. many scientists and indeed many corporations are exploring more and more into forms of treatments found in natural compositions as opposed to simulated chemeical compositions, they have been doing this rather extensively since they found some mold and found it helpped with the sniffles a while back. Modern medicine explores the “alternative” and Alternative uses the language of “modern” to validate and promote itself.

I think the terms you are looking for are traditional medicine and spiritual medicine, but with large corporations commiting to massive studies into chinese herbal and india ayavedic medicines I think we can discontinue this train of thought that seems to think science doesn’t care about all that stuff and is ignoring it because SCIENCE.

Science is all over that shit and loving it with many of the treatments we use daily coming from such sources and making some folks very wealthy.

Which is the problem here as it is with vaccination. Some dudes are getting wealthy by promoting something that the masses don’t understand that seems to limit the promotiong of unproven spiritual remedies with vague scienes lingo on the package.... IE If you think that Cancers eat all the sugars and you shouldn’t eat the unpure big pharma evil supermarket monsanto sugars but the EARTH LOVE sugars the body craves you have spiralled out into fiction. That’s not an attack on a belief, or a spiritual belief but upon the pseudo science that permeates in such threads.

Saying all this may go awash, because some simply believe that modern medicine is one big conglomeration of financial greed and evil, so nothing any educated individual with observable and repeatable studies says is going to mean a thing, I can’t help that but here are some of those…

as promoised.

1. Secondary cancers :- They have hardly exploded and this misdirection could lead you to think that things arn’t too good… reality is if you survive a cancer you are indeed twice as likely to get another cancer as someone who has never had it. This is due to detection bias and simply how cancer works.

Holland-Frei Cancer Medicine. 5th edition.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20948/

1. 90% die in twenty years :- … inaccurate conclusion formed from poor evidence and perspectives, further CRT is often given as sources of SC.

Hermann Brenner and Timo Hakulinen
http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/20/21/4405.full (link itself from 2002, the stats are much lower now, but this was easily readable)

3 toxicity:- 50% eh? Those figures you’ll find only come near close in regards to certain forms of cancer given to certain degrees and usually when it’s a last ditch effort to save someone, like in house when they OD em to kick the system into working…

Wiki will do here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotherapy

4.Not used to treat breats,bums etc :- First part right (ish) second part lie (ish) they are used to help remove portions of damaged cells after surgical treatment so to stop rapid cell division and spreading. It is sometimes used before surgery to reduce size.

Generally surgery is the first option before chemo… strange for folk who just wanna get rich.

something focused on Breat cancer
http://www.breastcancer.org/treatment/chemotherapy

5 Chemo makes you have leaukemia :- You mean like when someone has MDS and they get chemo and boom Leukaemia? the numbers are more like twice or a third and you’ll find it was coming anyways ..

a mild article that supports you ish
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/06/chemo-a-treatment-that-could-wind-up-giving-you-another-cancer/258498/

1. dna baby :- true enough. This is very often the entire point, but yeah there is collateral damage. It’s the high stakes version of a scabby nose due to use of a hanky.

Supporting material for use against modern medicine.
Peter Bouwman & Jos Jonkers
http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v12/n9/full/nrc3342.html

1. boosts growth .... I think we already covered this but yeah…

internets got me back
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/09/16/two-percent-gambit-chemotherapy/

8 … CHEMO MUCH USE … Good. This is a good thing. It’s a wide spectrum of treatments used for many many things to many many degrees.

I have no link for this, because it doesn’t need citation.

1. everyone will have cancer by 2030 ..... well once again ish… it’s detection bias and further science opening up things, a policy shift in what we call a “cancer” and you know all the new tech, atom bombs, smoking and other bad stuff…

Also people live like forever now with decent docs who can see shit heres a cancer boys…

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/cancer-cases-set-to-rise-by-half-by-2030-un/story-fneuz9ev-1226817107034

Last updated October 11, 2014