CANCER INC

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

"dr_jeff" 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?
"Oh science hasn't got all the answers, but alternative medicine is wrong" blah blah blah!

--
carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Its pretty hard to keep in touch with reality when you see so little of it."

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."

"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.

Jeff

"dr_jeff" 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.
However, there are some cures that were 100% such as rife's.
What I've heard is that "cured" means 5 years alive from diagnosis.
What I've also heard is on average people live longer with no treatment than conventional.


"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.

--
carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Its pretty hard to keep in touch with reality when you see so little of it."

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?

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.

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.

Jeff


"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.

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.


--
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