On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 00:25:21 -0600, in misc.health.alternative, Marc
Bissonnette wrote:
Mark I hope you don't mind, I set follow-ups out of the support
group.
Bob Officer -*-*.@.*-*- jumped out of the airlock. These were their
final words before their head exploded:
:
On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 21:46:09 -0500, in misc.health.alternative,
dr_jeff wrote:
On 12/2/10 9:11 PM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/2/10 10:29 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/2/10 3:42 AM, john wrote:
http://whale.to/cancer.html
Thank you for showing how alternative medicine has a whole bunch
of unsupported claims based on no evidence.
All alternative medicine is interested in is making money.
Allopathic medicine has increased the survival rate for kids with
cancer to over 75% and the survival rate for all people with
cancer to around 60%. It is far from ideal, but compared to the
alternatives (which in the case of alternative medicine is really
nothing), it is far better.
Jeff
More tin can rattling from the allopathic mob.
Don't you ever get tired of rationalising allopathic medicine with
cures always "just around the corner" for
this and that?
75% of kids being cured doesn't sound like "just around the
corner."
Doesn't sound too bad if its true.
It is.
However, there are some cures that were 100% such as rife's.
So? Where is the Rife's cure today? What is the evidence that it
works?
There was no evidence back in the day. That's why there was court
action. It was deemed a scam/con.
What I've heard is that "cured" means 5 years alive from diagnosis.
That cutoff is often used. After all, if you use a much longer
time-frame, you would have to wait like 60 years for cures of kids
with cancer. While there are exceptions, if a cancer doesn't recur
within five years, it rarely does.
What I've also heard is on average people live longer with no
treatment than conventional.
You've heard? That's not strong evidence.
Hear-say or is the mere-say?
People with certain types and stages of cancer are not helped with
conventional. But considering that over 50% are cured, what you heard
is incorrect.
I known people that had pancreatic cancer lived over 5-8 years after
treatments. And the nice thing is those extra years are something
they wouldn't have had without the treatments.
"Oh science hasn't got all the answers, but alternative medicine
is wrong" blah blah blah!
No one ever said science has all the answers. However, alternative
medicine is unproven, at best.
On the one hand you say that science doesn't have all the answers,
and on the other hand you say that it knows that alternative
remedies don't work. Which is to say that allopathic knows
alternative is no good because it doesn't follow the same rules as
allopathic.
There have been alternative treatments that have been suppressed you
know, they say they're "quack" medicine and get rid of them as
quickly as they can in the interests of "getting rid of snake oil
salesmen". Well that's what is called a "cover story". The real
reason is protect the profits of big pharma.
The sad thing is that is "Carole" ever "joined the club" (And may she
never receive that dubious honour) - She'd be sitting in an oncology
clinic, just like so many of us have to date.
My own membership to the club began 15 years ago with a melanoma
being removed.
After that each biopsy done, and every doctor visit sets you a little
on edge.
It is all too easy to make preposterous claims about "The Man", when you
can sit, nice, safe and comfy from a position of non-cancer.
Carole made some claim in a follow up that Cancer is the result of
leading a bad life, eating the wrong types of food and living an
unhealthy life style.
One word for her: Neuroblastoma, it has been seen in babies a matter
of days old.
yes, she can sit and take her cell salts and make her very silly and
ignorant claims. and she can afford to do this because she sits safe
and personally un effected.
--
Bob Officer
"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
. com