Exposing cancer tumours to OXYGEN significantly improves radiotherapy success

Exposing cancer tumours to OXYGEN significantly improves radiotherapy success

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 7:01 pm

August 2nd, 2009, 12:25 pm #1


 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... ments.html
"Exposing tumours to oxygen 'improves cancer treatments' Exposing tumours to oxygen can make radiotherapy significantly more effective in destroying cancer, research has indicated.  
By Matthew Moore
Published: 7:00AM BST <strong>01 Aug 2009</strong>

Experiments on mice have shown that cancer cells can be "softened up" before treatment by <strong>boosting the supply of oxygen</strong>.

University of Oxford researchers have successfully trialled the pioneering technique on human patients and say that it could bring hope to thousands of people who thought their cancers were untreatable.

"We have discovered a new way of overcoming the major reason most cancers become resistant to treatment with radiation or chemotherapy," said Professor Gillies McKenna of the university's Gray Institute for Radiation Oncology & Biology.

"Early results from a trial of clinical patients with advanced pancreatic cancer suggest that this method can <strong>greatly improve the outcome in this disease, which is very difficult to treat</strong>.

"<strong>Clinicians in Oxford are pressing on to expand their trials to include patients with lung, cervical and rectal cancer, and they hope to begin adding patients to new trials later this year</strong>."

He told the Daily Express: "If successful, these methods could bring new hope to patients with some of the most difficult to treat cancers."

In new research published today in the Cancer Research journal, mice were treated with drugs that improved the stability of oxygen-bringing blood vessels in tumours.

Scientists had <strong>previously</strong> focused on <strong>cutting blood supply to tumours to starve them of nutrients</strong>."


<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... .html"></a>
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 7:01 pm

August 2nd, 2009, 12:29 pm #2


http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/vie ... ls-cancer/
OXYGEN KILLS CANCER <img alt="Story Image" src="http://images.dailyexpress.co.uk/img/dy ... 7617_1.jpg" width="285">



The discovery is a real breakthrough
<a href="http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/myexpress/"></a>
Saturday August 1,2009
By <span class="bold">Jo Willey </span>
<img alt="Comment Speech Bubble" src="http://cdn.images.dailyexpress.co.uk/im ... Bubble.gif"> Have your say(12)

A NEW way of destroying cancer, radically increasing effectiveness of radiotherapy, was last night heralded as a very exciting breakthrough by scientists.


<p style="font-size:12px;margin:4px 5px 10px 0px;font-family:Arial, Tahoma, Hevletica, sans-serif;">If the oxygen supply within a tumour is increased, cancerous cells become far more sensitive to treatment.
<p style="font-size:12px;margin:4px 5px 10px 0px;font-family:Arial, Tahoma, Hevletica, sans-serif;">Experts hailed the discovery as ground-breaking and said it would allow drugs to prime and soften up potentially deadly tumours before they are targeted with intensive treatment.
<p style="font-size:12px;margin:4px 5px 10px 0px;font-family:Arial, Tahoma, Hevletica, sans-serif;">Research was carried out on breast, head and neck cancers as well as carcinomas that line the surface of the skin and organs. But it is hoped the treatment will be as effective in all radiotherapy-treated tumours, including those notoriously hard to treat such as pancreatic cancer.
<p style="font-size:12px;margin:4px 5px 10px 0px;font-family:Arial, Tahoma, Hevletica, sans-serif;">Previously experts have tried to cut off the blood supply, fuelling tumour growth to starve and kill it. But the new method improves the blood vessels within the tumour, increasing the concentration of oxygen.
<p style="font-size:12px;margin:4px 5px 10px 0px;font-family:Arial, Tahoma, Hevletica, sans-serif;">Instead of boosting a tumours growth potential, it has the opposite effect and weakens the cancer from the inside, making it far more sensitive to harsh radiotherapy.
<p style="font-size:12px;margin:4px 5px 10px 0px;font-family:Arial, Tahoma, Hevletica, sans-serif;">Usually cancer cells fight to survive, but the new treatment makes them weak and less resistant to treatment.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 7:01 pm

August 2nd, 2009, 1:25 pm #3


http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cancer ... nt/CA00066
Low blood cell counts: Side effect of cancer treatmentIt's very important to be vigilant for low blood cell counts during cancer treatment. Know what your doctor is looking for and what you should be watching for, too.
By Mayo Clinic staff
</h2>
Your doctor may monitor your blood cell counts carefully during your cancer treatment. There's a good reason you're having your blood drawn so often low blood cell counts put you at risk of serious complications.
<h2>What's measured in a blood cell count?

When checking your blood cell count, your doctor is looking at the numbers and types of:
  • <strong>White blood cells.</strong> These cells help your body fight infection. A low white blood cell count (leukopenia) leaves your body more open to infection. And if an infection does develop, your body may be unable to fight it off. </li>
  • <strong>Red blood cells. </strong>Red blood cells carry oxygen throughout your body. Your red blood cells' ability to carry oxygen is measured by the amount of hemoglobin in your blood. If your level of hemoglobin is low, you're anemic and your body works much harder to supply oxygen to your tissues. This can make you feel fatigued and short of breath. </li>
  • <strong>Platelets.</strong> Platelets help your blood clot. A low platelet count (thrombocytopenia) means your body can't stop itself from bleeding.</li>
If you're undergoing certain cancer treatments that could cause low blood cell counts, your doctor will likely monitor your blood cell counts regularly using a test called a complete blood count (CBC). Low blood cell counts are detected by examining a blood sample taken from a vein in your arm. "
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 7:01 pm

August 2nd, 2009, 1:30 pm #4


<em><strong>http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/truth_chemo.html</strong></em>

<em><strong>"...Linus Pauling Ph.D. </strong></em><span>
<strong>2 time Nobel Prize winner</strong></span><span>
(<strong>1901-1994</strong>)</span><span>
</span>
<span>Linus Pauling Bio</span><span>

"Everyone should know that
</span><span>most cancer research is largely a fraud</span>
<span> and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them."</span>


<span></span> 

<span></span> 
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 7:01 pm

August 2nd, 2009, 1:35 pm #5


 

 


<span><img height="215" alt="ralph_moss.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/Doctors ... h_moss.jpg" width="146" border="2"></span><span>
</span><span>Ralph Moss, PhD, </span><span>
</span>
<span>former Director of Information for Sloan Kettering Cancer Research Center</span><span>
Chemotherapy is basically ineffective in the vast majority of cases in which it is given
</span>
<span>, the exceptions being </span><span>acute lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, nonseminomatous testicular cancer,</span><span> as well as </span><span>a few very rare forms of cancer, including choriocarcinoma, Wilm's tumor, and retinoblastoma.</span><span>


<img height="170" alt="epsteinsam.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/Doctors ... einsam.jpg" width="130" border="3">
</span><span>Samuel S. Epstein</span><span>
</span><span>Dr. Epstein Bio</span><span>
</span><span>Congressional Record, Sept. 9, 1987</span><span>
</span><span>Chemotherapy and radiation </span><span>can increase the risk of developing a
second cancer by up to 100 times,
</span>
<span></span><span>according to Dr. Samuel S. Epstein.</span>
<span>



<img height="194" alt="chemical_society_300.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/Doctors ... ty_300.jpg" width="300" border="3">
</span><span>Alan C Nixon, PhD</span><span>
</span>
<span>former president of the American Chemical Society
</span><span>...as a chemist trained to interpret data, </span><span>it is incomprehensible to me</span><span> that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that </span><span>chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.</span><span>



<img height="225" alt="m_shapiro.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/Doctors ... hapiro.jpg" width="220" border="3">
</span><span>Dr. Martin Shapiro UCLA</span><span>
</span><span>"Cancer researchers, medical journals, and the popular media all have contributed to a situation in which many people with </span><span>common malignancies are being treated with drugs not known to be effective."</span><span>



<img height="310" alt="candace-pert_250.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/Doctors ... rt_250.jpg" width="250" border="2">
</span><span>Dr. Candace Pert,</span><span></span><span>
Georgetown University School of Medicine
</span><span>Except for two forms of cancer, chemotherapy does not cure.
</span><span>It tortures and may shorten life -- no one can tell from the available data.</span>
<span>



<img height="225" alt="juergen_buche.gif" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/Doctors ... _buche.gif" width="225" border="2">
</span><span>Dr. Jürgen Buche, Preventorium Institute</span><span>
</span><span>...chemotherapy is curative in very few cancers </span><span>- testicular, Hodgkin's, choriocarcinoma, childhood leukemia. </span><span>In most common solid tumors - </span><span>lung, colon, breast, etc. - chemotherapy is </span><span>NOT</span><span> curative.</span><span>

</span><span>
</span>
<span><img height="150" alt="thumb-tom-dao_200.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/Doctors ... ao_200.jpg" width="150" border="2"></span><span>
</span>
<span>Thomas Dao</span><span>
</span><span>MD New England Journal of Medicine </span><span>
Mar 1975 292 p 707
</span><span>Despite widespread use of chemotherapies, breast
cancer mortality has not changed in the last 70 years.
</span>
<span>




</span><span>Albert Braverman MD </span><span>
1991 Lancet 1991 337 p 901
</span>
<span>
"Medical Oncology in the 90s"
</span><span>Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure.</span><span></span><span>Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy.</span><span></span><span>Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers</span><span>. </span><span>This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.




</span>
<span><img height="215" alt="ralph_moss.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/Doctors ... h_moss.jpg" width="146" border="2"></span>

<span>Ralph Moss, PhD</span><span>
former Director of Information for Sloan Kettering Cancer Research Center
</span><span>Question: </span><span>"How in the world, Dr Moss, can [chemotherapy] be considered a standard cure, when it works for 2-4 [percent of cancer patients], and very specific ones?</span><span>

</span><span>Answer:</span><span> We are dealing with an industry.</span><span> It is not supported by the facts. </span><span>The way that it is done is this. The drugs are tested in test tubes, and they look for things that will kill cells. After you have found something that kills cells, cancer cells, cell lines which are very abnormal non-typical sort of growths, maybe a new life form almost, then you put it into animals. </span><span>Then if it kills the cancers before it kills the animals, and shrinks the tumours, you consider you have an active agent.

</span>
<span>You then put it into people, and go through the 3 phases the FDA prescribes for this,</span><span> and basically if you can shrink the tumour 50% or more for 28 days you have got the FDA's definition of an active drug.</span><span> That is called a response rate, so you have a response.. Quite a bit [different from a cure] because when you look to see if there is any life prolongation from taking this treatment what you find is all kinds of hocus pocus and song and dance about the disease free survival, and this and that. </span><span>In the end there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumour and extending the life of the patient.</span><span> [Or that there is a correlation between looking at a cancer cell in a test tube and the tumour in someone's body.] </span><span>What happens as you grow those cells in cell lines they become very weird. Hundreds and hundreds of generations later they don't even look like normal human cancer cells.</span><span> They are things that grow under glass, immortal cells, unlike normal cancer cells. </span><span>So much cancer research is very questionable because it is based on this cell line research.</span>

<span>
</span><span>CHEMOTHERAPY:
AN UNPROVEN PROCEDURE
</span><span>"a scientific wasteland"</span>


<span>How can that be true of the main cancer treatment in the U.S.? Fact is, </span><span>no solid scientific studies or clinical trials prove chemotherapy's effectiveness,</span><span> except in a small percentage of very rare types of cancer. For solid tumors of adults, the vast majority of cancer, or anything that has metastasized, chemotherapy just doesn't work.</span>

<img height="294" alt="dr_ulrich_abel_text_350.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/images/ ... xt_350.jpg" width="350" border="4">

<span>
</span><span>A German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic, Dr. Ulrich Abel has done a comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done.</span><span></span><span>His conclusions should be read by anyone who is about to embark on the Chemo Express. To make sure he had reviewed everything ever published on chemotherapy, </span><span>Abel sent letters to over 350 medical centers around the world asking them to send him anything they had published on the subject. </span><span>Abel researched thousands of articles: </span><span>it is unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about chemotherapy than he.</span><span>

The analysis took him several years, but the results are astounding:
</span><span>Abel found that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy was "appalling" because there was simply no scientific evidence available anywhere that chemotherapy can "extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers."</span><span> Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely can improve the quality of life. </span><span>He describes chemotherapy as </span><span>"a scientific wasteland" </span><span>and states that at least 80 percent of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless,</span><span> and is akin to the "emperor's new clothes" - neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on chemotherapy even though there is no scientific evidence that it works! -
</span><span>Lancet 10 Aug 91</span>

<span>No mainstream media even mentioned this
comprehensive study: it was totally buried.
</span>
<span>



</span><span>Tell Your Oncologists
to argue with these Results!
</span>
<span><img height="200" alt="dr_ulrich_abel_text_350.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/images/ ... xt_350.jpg" width="250" border="4"></span>

<span>In an especially dramatic table</span><span>, Dr. Abel displays the
</span><span>results of chemotherapy</span><span>
</span><span>in patients with various types of cancers, </span>
<span>as the improvement
of survival rates, compared to untreated patients. This table shows:
</span>

<table width="93%" border="2" bgcolor="#ffffff"><tr><td width="100%"><span>* </span><span>Colorectal cancer</span><span>:</span><span></span><span>no evidence survival is improved. </span><span>

*
</span><span>Gastric cancer</span><span>: </span><span>no clear evidence. </span><span>

*
</span><span>Pancreatic cancer</span><span>: </span><span>Study completely negative. Longer survival in control (untreated) group.</span><span>

*
</span><span>Bladder</span><span></span><span>cancer</span><span>: </span><span>no clinical trial done. </span><span>

*
</span><span>Breast cancer</span><span>: </span><span>No direct evidence that chemotherapy prolongs survival; its use is "ethically questionable."</span><span> (That is particularly newsworthy, since all breast cancer patients, before or after surgery, are given chemotherapy drugs.)

*
</span><span>Ovarian cancer</span><span>: </span><span>no direct evidence. </span><span>

*
</span><span>Cervix and uterus</span><span>: </span><span>No improved survival. </span><span>

*
</span><span>Head and neck</span><span>: </span><span>no survival benefit but occasional shrinkage of tumors.</span></td></tr></table><table width="20%" border="0"><tr><td width="100%"> </td></tr></table>

<a></a>

<span>What does HIV & Chemotherapy
have in common?
</span>
<span>

</span><span>They both destroy White Blood Cells!</span>

<span>This destruction of </span><span>WHITE BLOOD CELLS</span><span> is very much like what happens to HIV patients who are initially diagnosed as being HIV positive. Over time, the </span><span>HIV virus destroys CD4 cells</span><span></span><span>(Look at Hypothetical Example below)</span><span> which are </span><span>WHITE BLOOD CELLS</span><span> called </span><span>"Helper Cells"</span><span>. These </span><span>CD4 white blood cells are our first line of defense against any foreign invader and protect us from many different types of diseases and ailments like pneumonia, the common cold, the flu and on and on and on.
</span>
<span>
You will notice in the
</span><span>HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE</span><span> below, that when an HIV patient's </span><span>CD4 count reaches 200</span><span>, </span><span>the patient is diagnosed as having AIDS.</span><span> It is at this point when a person can become vulnerable to over 30 different types of diseases. </span><span>Their immune system no longer has the ability to fight off these diseases that normally would not cause them any problem.</span>

<span>(Hypothetical Example)</span><span>
</span><span>Progression of HIV & the destruction of
CD4 White Blood Cells
</span>


<table width="40%" border="0"><tr><td width="25%">
<img height="401" alt="body_pic.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/images/body_pic.jpg" width="281" border="2"><span>
</span><span>Healthy adults usually have CD4 counts of
1000 or more per cubic millimeter of blood
</span>

</td><td width="21%">
<span>




Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec
</span>

</td><td width="24%">
<span>HEALTHY
Patient
</span>
<span>

</span><span>HIV </span><span>Negative</span><span>
1000

986

1022

1009

980

1102

1050

980

1021

893

977

1007
</span>
</td><td width="30%">
<span>
</span><span>HIV/AIDS
</span>
<span>
HIV
</span>
<span>Positive</span><span>
1000

932

872

792

716

623

542

439

356

263

</span><span>200-AIDS

53
</span>

</td></tr></table><table width="466" border="0"><tr><td colspan="3"><span>*</span><span>AIDS is diagnosed when the </span><span>CD4 cell count drops below</span><span> 200 cells per cubic millimeter of blood.</span></td></tr></table><span>.</span><span>
</span><span>*</span><span>This is why Doctors have to keep an eye on each </span><span>Chemotherapy Patient's White Blood Count </span><span>because they know that </span><span>if they keep giving the patient Chemotherapy </span><span>they will eventually </span><span>create the same condition that AIDS Patients die from.</span>
<span>


</span><span>1. Chemotherapy kills WHITE BLOOD CELLS.</span>

<span>After reading this information, </span><span>one quickly realizes when Chemotherapy kills your White Blood Cells it is a Step by Step destruction of an already compromised immune system, one White Blood Cell at a time.</span><span> Did you know that studies have been done that indicate that </span><span>over 60% of Cancer patients</span><span>, who take Chemotherapy, die from opportunistic illnesses like pneumonia, the common cold, etc. instead of the Cancer intself.</span><span></span><span>Why? They have no immune system left to fight anything.</span>



<span>2. </span><span>Chemotherapy kills RED BLOOD CELLS.</span>

<span>Red Blood Cells are your </span><span>oxygen carriers.</span><span> In the section called </span><span>WHAT YOU MUST KNOW</span><span>, you will find a section that discusses </span><span>ACIDOSIS</span><span>.</span><span> This section explains how important it is to have a balanced PH. Did you know all Cancer patients have 2 things in common irregardless of the type of Cancer they have? </span><span>They are highly acidic and anemic which causes a myriad of health problems.</span><span> Acid drives out Oxygen and creates an anaerobic atmosphere that Cancer & other degenerative diseases love and thrive in.

The reason, many Cancer patients are Anemic, is because
</span><span>Acid drives out the Oxygen found in a Red Blood Cell.</span><span> As that Red Blood Cell</span><span>(full of Oxygen)</span><span> travels from the Heart to the rest of the body, </span><span>the amount of Oxygen in that Red Blood Cell can be diminished depending on the Acid atmosphere it is traveling through.</span><span> Did you know that </span><span>advanced Cancer </span><span>Patients are usually 1000 times more acidic than a healthy human being?</span><span>

This low oxygen atmosphere is the perfect breeding ground for Cancer and may be the very reason why advanced Cancer Patients rarely recover.
</span><span>This Acid Atmosphere as well as other factors like Chemotherapy can cause a condition called Cachexia</span><span> which causes the Cancer patient to lose their appetite and stop eating. It is documented that many </span><span>Cancer Patients die from Malnutrition as a result of this condition not from the Cancer itself.
</span>
<span>
</span><span>So, if a Cancer patient is already Acidic & if Acid drives out the oxygen causing an anaerobic atmosphere that Cancer loves</span><span>, how much sense does it make </span><span>to take Chemotherapy that will kill more of your oxygen carrying Red Blood Cells? </span><span>By a matter of deduction and the use of common sense once again, </span><span>wouldn't that create an even more anaerobic atmosphere and provide an even more desirable situation for Cancer to wreak havoc?</span>
<span>
</span><span>CHEMOTHERAPY SPILL</span><span>
Must be treated as a Toxic Bio-Hazard
</span>
<span></span>
<table width="100%" border="0"><tr><td width="54%"><span>When any chemotherapeutic drug is spilled in the hospital or anywhere en route, it is classified as a major biohazard, </span><span>requiring the specialists to come and clean it up with their space-suits and all their strictly regulated protocols.


Yet this same agent is going to be put into the human body and is expected to cure it of disease?
</span></td><td width="46%"><img height="436" alt="chemospill1_225.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/images/ ... l1_225.jpg" width="214" border="2"></td></tr></table>
<table width="20%" border="0"><tr><td width="100%"> </td></tr></table>
<span>Do you really want this in your body?</span><span>
</span><span>What's wrong with this picture?</span><span>
<img height="270" alt="chemo_spill.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/images/chemo_spill.jpg" width="360" border="2">
</span><span>Picture of Chemotherpy Spilled on a Patients Hand</span>
<span>Above is a</span><span> reduced-size rendering of the burning and scarring resulting of a spill of chemotherapy onto the bare hand.</span><span> Is it any wonder that people are worried about what might be happening to their insides as chemotherapy is intravenously fed into the body? </span><span>Is it any wonder that chemotherapy nurses wear protective gloves?</span>

<table width="77%" border="1" bgcolor="#ffffff"><tr><td width="100%">
<span>And, is it any wonder that </span><span>a high percentage of </span><span>oncologists refuse</span><span> to submit to the treatments</span><span> they advocate for their patients?</span>
</td></tr></table>
<span>McGill University: story of Oncolgists
refusing Chemo for themselves
</span>
<span>
</span><span>Click Here</span>



<span>Chemo drugs are some of the most toxic substances ever designed to go into a human body, their effects are very serious, and are often the direct cause of death.</span>

<span>Like the case of </span><span>Jackie Onassis,</span><span> who underwent chemo for one of the rare diseases in which it generally has some beneficial results: non-Hodgkins lymphoma. </span><span>She went into the hospital on Friday and was dead by Tuesday.
</span>
<span></span>
<table width="100%" border="0"><tr><td width="33%"> </td><td width="33%"> </td><td width="34%"> </td></tr><tr><td width="33%"> </td><td width="33%"> </td><td width="34%"> </td></tr></table>
<span>Do you really think your Doctor believes
Chemotherapy is what you need?
</span><span>
</span>
<span>In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a questionnaire to 118 doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. </span><span>More than three quarters of them recruited patients and carried out trials of toxic drugs for lung cancer.</span><span></span><span>They were asked to imagine that they themselves had cancer,</span><span> and were asked which of six current trials they themselves would choose. In the survey of </span><span>79 oncologists,</span><span></span><span>64 said they would not consent to treatment with Cisplatin,</span><span> a common chemotherapy drug,</span><span> while 58 oncologists said they would reject all the current trials being carried out by their establishment.</span><span>



</span><span>Why would Oncologists refuse Chemo?</span><span>
</span><span>The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its
unacceptable degree of toxicity.
</span>
<span>
Philip Day, Cancer: Why Were Still Dying to Know the Truth
</span>

<span>Because of the problem of nausea and vomiting caused by cancer itself as well as many chemotherapy agents and/or radiation therapy, </span><span>many cancer patients develop anorexia - the loss of appetite or desire to eat. </span><span>This situation is not good at all because it can lead to a condition known as cancer </span><span>"cachexia" - a wasting syndrome characterized by weakness and a noticeable continuous loss of weight, fat, and muscle. </span><span>A high percentage</span><span> of cancer patients actually die of malnutrition </span><span>rather than their disease itself.</span>

<span>
</span>
<span><img height="210" alt="ernest_wynder.gif" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/images/ ... wynder.gif" width="178" border="4"></span><span>
</span><span>Dr. Wynders' Bio</span>

<span>Chemotherapy expert</span><span> Ernst Wynder, former professor at Sloan-Kettering Hospital and recipient of a medal from the American Cancer Association,</span><span> wrote this warning to professor Gearin-Tosh about advising a close friend to avoid chemotherapy!</span>
<span>"If your friend touches chemotherapy, he's a goner."</span><span>

</span>
<table width="50%" border="0"><tr><td width="100%"> </td></tr></table><span>
</span><span>"GREED IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL"</span>
<span></span>

<span>Chemotherapy Report</span><span>
Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little good? Well for one thing, drug companies provide huge economic incentives.
</span><span>In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994 that figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion.</span><span> This relentless increase in chemotherapy use was accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths."</span>

<span></span> 

<span>Edit:  ( http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/truth_chemo.html )</span>
Last edited by SSRIAdmin on August 2nd, 2009, 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 7:01 pm

August 2nd, 2009, 1:57 pm #6

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... ments.html
"Exposing tumours to oxygen 'improves cancer treatments' Exposing tumours to oxygen can make radiotherapy significantly more effective in destroying cancer, research has indicated.  
By Matthew Moore
Published: 7:00AM BST <strong>01 Aug 2009</strong>

Experiments on mice have shown that cancer cells can be "softened up" before treatment by <strong>boosting the supply of oxygen</strong>.

University of Oxford researchers have successfully trialled the pioneering technique on human patients and say that it could bring hope to thousands of people who thought their cancers were untreatable.

"We have discovered a new way of overcoming the major reason most cancers become resistant to treatment with radiation or chemotherapy," said Professor Gillies McKenna of the university's Gray Institute for Radiation Oncology & Biology.

"Early results from a trial of clinical patients with advanced pancreatic cancer suggest that this method can <strong>greatly improve the outcome in this disease, which is very difficult to treat</strong>.

"<strong>Clinicians in Oxford are pressing on to expand their trials to include patients with lung, cervical and rectal cancer, and they hope to begin adding patients to new trials later this year</strong>."

He told the Daily Express: "If successful, these methods could bring new hope to patients with some of the most difficult to treat cancers."

In new research published today in the Cancer Research journal, mice were treated with drugs that improved the stability of oxygen-bringing blood vessels in tumours.

Scientists had <strong>previously</strong> focused on <strong>cutting blood supply to tumours to starve them of nutrients</strong>."


<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... .html"></a>
<em>"...University of Oxford researchers have successfully trialled the pioneering technique on human patients and say that it could bring hope to thousands of people who thought their cancers were untreatable.</em>

<em>"We have discovered a new way of overcoming the major reason most cancers become resistant to treatment with radiation or chemotherapy," said Professor Gillies McKenna of the university's Gray Institute for Radiation Oncology & Biology..."</em>

<em></em> 

ALL TRUTH PASSES THROUGH THREE STAGES: FIRST IT IS RIDICULED. SECOND, IT IS VIOLENTLY OPPOSED. THIRD, IT IS ACCEPTED AS BEING SELF-EVIDENT. SCHOPENHAUER

As to Stage 1:  Nowadays ridicule is often given by accusations of quackery...

http://www.<strong>quackwatch.com</strong>/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/oxygen.html <h2></h2>
<strong>Oxygenation Therapy:
Unproven Treatments for Cancer and AIDS</strong>
</h4>
By Saul Green, Ph.D.

The cornerstone of oxygenation therapy is the presumption that human disease, including cancer, is caused by a deficit of tissue oxygen. According to proponents, hypoxia results in anaerobic fermentation, a loss of capacity for oxidative detoxification of toxins and metabolic products, and failure of immune killing of invading bacteria and viruses. To restore ability to carry out these functions, oxygenation promoters propose using chemicals they claim will release oxygen in tissue or act as germicides in vivo. Some of the claims are based on the concepts of William F. Koch (1885-1962) [1] and Otto Warburg (1883-1970) [2].
<h4>History of Oxygen Therapies..."
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 7:01 pm

August 2nd, 2009, 11:56 pm #7

 

 


<span><img height="215" alt="ralph_moss.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/Doctors ... h_moss.jpg" width="146" border="2"></span><span>
</span><span>Ralph Moss, PhD, </span><span>
</span>
<span>former Director of Information for Sloan Kettering Cancer Research Center</span><span>
Chemotherapy is basically ineffective in the vast majority of cases in which it is given
</span>
<span>, the exceptions being </span><span>acute lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, nonseminomatous testicular cancer,</span><span> as well as </span><span>a few very rare forms of cancer, including choriocarcinoma, Wilm's tumor, and retinoblastoma.</span><span>


<img height="170" alt="epsteinsam.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/Doctors ... einsam.jpg" width="130" border="3">
</span><span>Samuel S. Epstein</span><span>
</span><span>Dr. Epstein Bio</span><span>
</span><span>Congressional Record, Sept. 9, 1987</span><span>
</span><span>Chemotherapy and radiation </span><span>can increase the risk of developing a
second cancer by up to 100 times,
</span>
<span></span><span>according to Dr. Samuel S. Epstein.</span>
<span>



<img height="194" alt="chemical_society_300.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/Doctors ... ty_300.jpg" width="300" border="3">
</span><span>Alan C Nixon, PhD</span><span>
</span>
<span>former president of the American Chemical Society
</span><span>...as a chemist trained to interpret data, </span><span>it is incomprehensible to me</span><span> that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that </span><span>chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.</span><span>



<img height="225" alt="m_shapiro.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/Doctors ... hapiro.jpg" width="220" border="3">
</span><span>Dr. Martin Shapiro UCLA</span><span>
</span><span>"Cancer researchers, medical journals, and the popular media all have contributed to a situation in which many people with </span><span>common malignancies are being treated with drugs not known to be effective."</span><span>



<img height="310" alt="candace-pert_250.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/Doctors ... rt_250.jpg" width="250" border="2">
</span><span>Dr. Candace Pert,</span><span></span><span>
Georgetown University School of Medicine
</span><span>Except for two forms of cancer, chemotherapy does not cure.
</span><span>It tortures and may shorten life -- no one can tell from the available data.</span>
<span>



<img height="225" alt="juergen_buche.gif" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/Doctors ... _buche.gif" width="225" border="2">
</span><span>Dr. Jürgen Buche, Preventorium Institute</span><span>
</span><span>...chemotherapy is curative in very few cancers </span><span>- testicular, Hodgkin's, choriocarcinoma, childhood leukemia. </span><span>In most common solid tumors - </span><span>lung, colon, breast, etc. - chemotherapy is </span><span>NOT</span><span> curative.</span><span>

</span><span>
</span>
<span><img height="150" alt="thumb-tom-dao_200.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/Doctors ... ao_200.jpg" width="150" border="2"></span><span>
</span>
<span>Thomas Dao</span><span>
</span><span>MD New England Journal of Medicine </span><span>
Mar 1975 292 p 707
</span><span>Despite widespread use of chemotherapies, breast
cancer mortality has not changed in the last 70 years.
</span>
<span>




</span><span>Albert Braverman MD </span><span>
1991 Lancet 1991 337 p 901
</span>
<span>
"Medical Oncology in the 90s"
</span><span>Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure.</span><span></span><span>Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy.</span><span></span><span>Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers</span><span>. </span><span>This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.




</span>
<span><img height="215" alt="ralph_moss.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/Doctors ... h_moss.jpg" width="146" border="2"></span>

<span>Ralph Moss, PhD</span><span>
former Director of Information for Sloan Kettering Cancer Research Center
</span><span>Question: </span><span>"How in the world, Dr Moss, can [chemotherapy] be considered a standard cure, when it works for 2-4 [percent of cancer patients], and very specific ones?</span><span>

</span><span>Answer:</span><span> We are dealing with an industry.</span><span> It is not supported by the facts. </span><span>The way that it is done is this. The drugs are tested in test tubes, and they look for things that will kill cells. After you have found something that kills cells, cancer cells, cell lines which are very abnormal non-typical sort of growths, maybe a new life form almost, then you put it into animals. </span><span>Then if it kills the cancers before it kills the animals, and shrinks the tumours, you consider you have an active agent.

</span>
<span>You then put it into people, and go through the 3 phases the FDA prescribes for this,</span><span> and basically if you can shrink the tumour 50% or more for 28 days you have got the FDA's definition of an active drug.</span><span> That is called a response rate, so you have a response.. Quite a bit [different from a cure] because when you look to see if there is any life prolongation from taking this treatment what you find is all kinds of hocus pocus and song and dance about the disease free survival, and this and that. </span><span>In the end there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumour and extending the life of the patient.</span><span> [Or that there is a correlation between looking at a cancer cell in a test tube and the tumour in someone's body.] </span><span>What happens as you grow those cells in cell lines they become very weird. Hundreds and hundreds of generations later they don't even look like normal human cancer cells.</span><span> They are things that grow under glass, immortal cells, unlike normal cancer cells. </span><span>So much cancer research is very questionable because it is based on this cell line research.</span>

<span>
</span><span>CHEMOTHERAPY:
AN UNPROVEN PROCEDURE
</span><span>"a scientific wasteland"</span>


<span>How can that be true of the main cancer treatment in the U.S.? Fact is, </span><span>no solid scientific studies or clinical trials prove chemotherapy's effectiveness,</span><span> except in a small percentage of very rare types of cancer. For solid tumors of adults, the vast majority of cancer, or anything that has metastasized, chemotherapy just doesn't work.</span>

<img height="294" alt="dr_ulrich_abel_text_350.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/images/ ... xt_350.jpg" width="350" border="4">

<span>
</span><span>A German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic, Dr. Ulrich Abel has done a comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done.</span><span></span><span>His conclusions should be read by anyone who is about to embark on the Chemo Express. To make sure he had reviewed everything ever published on chemotherapy, </span><span>Abel sent letters to over 350 medical centers around the world asking them to send him anything they had published on the subject. </span><span>Abel researched thousands of articles: </span><span>it is unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about chemotherapy than he.</span><span>

The analysis took him several years, but the results are astounding:
</span><span>Abel found that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy was "appalling" because there was simply no scientific evidence available anywhere that chemotherapy can "extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers."</span><span> Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely can improve the quality of life. </span><span>He describes chemotherapy as </span><span>"a scientific wasteland" </span><span>and states that at least 80 percent of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless,</span><span> and is akin to the "emperor's new clothes" - neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on chemotherapy even though there is no scientific evidence that it works! -
</span><span>Lancet 10 Aug 91</span>

<span>No mainstream media even mentioned this
comprehensive study: it was totally buried.
</span>
<span>



</span><span>Tell Your Oncologists
to argue with these Results!
</span>
<span><img height="200" alt="dr_ulrich_abel_text_350.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/images/ ... xt_350.jpg" width="250" border="4"></span>

<span>In an especially dramatic table</span><span>, Dr. Abel displays the
</span><span>results of chemotherapy</span><span>
</span><span>in patients with various types of cancers, </span>
<span>as the improvement
of survival rates, compared to untreated patients. This table shows:
</span>

<table width="93%" border="2" bgcolor="#ffffff"><tr><td width="100%"><span>* </span><span>Colorectal cancer</span><span>:</span><span></span><span>no evidence survival is improved. </span><span>

*
</span><span>Gastric cancer</span><span>: </span><span>no clear evidence. </span><span>

*
</span><span>Pancreatic cancer</span><span>: </span><span>Study completely negative. Longer survival in control (untreated) group.</span><span>

*
</span><span>Bladder</span><span></span><span>cancer</span><span>: </span><span>no clinical trial done. </span><span>

*
</span><span>Breast cancer</span><span>: </span><span>No direct evidence that chemotherapy prolongs survival; its use is "ethically questionable."</span><span> (That is particularly newsworthy, since all breast cancer patients, before or after surgery, are given chemotherapy drugs.)

*
</span><span>Ovarian cancer</span><span>: </span><span>no direct evidence. </span><span>

*
</span><span>Cervix and uterus</span><span>: </span><span>No improved survival. </span><span>

*
</span><span>Head and neck</span><span>: </span><span>no survival benefit but occasional shrinkage of tumors.</span></td></tr></table><table width="20%" border="0"><tr><td width="100%"> </td></tr></table>

<a></a>

<span>What does HIV & Chemotherapy
have in common?
</span>
<span>

</span><span>They both destroy White Blood Cells!</span>

<span>This destruction of </span><span>WHITE BLOOD CELLS</span><span> is very much like what happens to HIV patients who are initially diagnosed as being HIV positive. Over time, the </span><span>HIV virus destroys CD4 cells</span><span></span><span>(Look at Hypothetical Example below)</span><span> which are </span><span>WHITE BLOOD CELLS</span><span> called </span><span>"Helper Cells"</span><span>. These </span><span>CD4 white blood cells are our first line of defense against any foreign invader and protect us from many different types of diseases and ailments like pneumonia, the common cold, the flu and on and on and on.
</span>
<span>
You will notice in the
</span><span>HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE</span><span> below, that when an HIV patient's </span><span>CD4 count reaches 200</span><span>, </span><span>the patient is diagnosed as having AIDS.</span><span> It is at this point when a person can become vulnerable to over 30 different types of diseases. </span><span>Their immune system no longer has the ability to fight off these diseases that normally would not cause them any problem.</span>

<span>(Hypothetical Example)</span><span>
</span><span>Progression of HIV & the destruction of
CD4 White Blood Cells
</span>


<table width="40%" border="0"><tr><td width="25%">
<img height="401" alt="body_pic.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/images/body_pic.jpg" width="281" border="2"><span>
</span><span>Healthy adults usually have CD4 counts of
1000 or more per cubic millimeter of blood
</span>

</td><td width="21%">
<span>




Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec
</span>

</td><td width="24%">
<span>HEALTHY
Patient
</span>
<span>

</span><span>HIV </span><span>Negative</span><span>
1000

986

1022

1009

980

1102

1050

980

1021

893

977

1007
</span>
</td><td width="30%">
<span>
</span><span>HIV/AIDS
</span>
<span>
HIV
</span>
<span>Positive</span><span>
1000

932

872

792

716

623

542

439

356

263

</span><span>200-AIDS

53
</span>

</td></tr></table><table width="466" border="0"><tr><td colspan="3"><span>*</span><span>AIDS is diagnosed when the </span><span>CD4 cell count drops below</span><span> 200 cells per cubic millimeter of blood.</span></td></tr></table><span>.</span><span>
</span><span>*</span><span>This is why Doctors have to keep an eye on each </span><span>Chemotherapy Patient's White Blood Count </span><span>because they know that </span><span>if they keep giving the patient Chemotherapy </span><span>they will eventually </span><span>create the same condition that AIDS Patients die from.</span>
<span>


</span><span>1. Chemotherapy kills WHITE BLOOD CELLS.</span>

<span>After reading this information, </span><span>one quickly realizes when Chemotherapy kills your White Blood Cells it is a Step by Step destruction of an already compromised immune system, one White Blood Cell at a time.</span><span> Did you know that studies have been done that indicate that </span><span>over 60% of Cancer patients</span><span>, who take Chemotherapy, die from opportunistic illnesses like pneumonia, the common cold, etc. instead of the Cancer intself.</span><span></span><span>Why? They have no immune system left to fight anything.</span>



<span>2. </span><span>Chemotherapy kills RED BLOOD CELLS.</span>

<span>Red Blood Cells are your </span><span>oxygen carriers.</span><span> In the section called </span><span>WHAT YOU MUST KNOW</span><span>, you will find a section that discusses </span><span>ACIDOSIS</span><span>.</span><span> This section explains how important it is to have a balanced PH. Did you know all Cancer patients have 2 things in common irregardless of the type of Cancer they have? </span><span>They are highly acidic and anemic which causes a myriad of health problems.</span><span> Acid drives out Oxygen and creates an anaerobic atmosphere that Cancer & other degenerative diseases love and thrive in.

The reason, many Cancer patients are Anemic, is because
</span><span>Acid drives out the Oxygen found in a Red Blood Cell.</span><span> As that Red Blood Cell</span><span>(full of Oxygen)</span><span> travels from the Heart to the rest of the body, </span><span>the amount of Oxygen in that Red Blood Cell can be diminished depending on the Acid atmosphere it is traveling through.</span><span> Did you know that </span><span>advanced Cancer </span><span>Patients are usually 1000 times more acidic than a healthy human being?</span><span>

This low oxygen atmosphere is the perfect breeding ground for Cancer and may be the very reason why advanced Cancer Patients rarely recover.
</span><span>This Acid Atmosphere as well as other factors like Chemotherapy can cause a condition called Cachexia</span><span> which causes the Cancer patient to lose their appetite and stop eating. It is documented that many </span><span>Cancer Patients die from Malnutrition as a result of this condition not from the Cancer itself.
</span>
<span>
</span><span>So, if a Cancer patient is already Acidic & if Acid drives out the oxygen causing an anaerobic atmosphere that Cancer loves</span><span>, how much sense does it make </span><span>to take Chemotherapy that will kill more of your oxygen carrying Red Blood Cells? </span><span>By a matter of deduction and the use of common sense once again, </span><span>wouldn't that create an even more anaerobic atmosphere and provide an even more desirable situation for Cancer to wreak havoc?</span>
<span>
</span><span>CHEMOTHERAPY SPILL</span><span>
Must be treated as a Toxic Bio-Hazard
</span>
<span></span>
<table width="100%" border="0"><tr><td width="54%"><span>When any chemotherapeutic drug is spilled in the hospital or anywhere en route, it is classified as a major biohazard, </span><span>requiring the specialists to come and clean it up with their space-suits and all their strictly regulated protocols.


Yet this same agent is going to be put into the human body and is expected to cure it of disease?
</span></td><td width="46%"><img height="436" alt="chemospill1_225.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/images/ ... l1_225.jpg" width="214" border="2"></td></tr></table>
<table width="20%" border="0"><tr><td width="100%"> </td></tr></table>
<span>Do you really want this in your body?</span><span>
</span><span>What's wrong with this picture?</span><span>
<img height="270" alt="chemo_spill.jpg" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/images/chemo_spill.jpg" width="360" border="2">
</span><span>Picture of Chemotherpy Spilled on a Patients Hand</span>
<span>Above is a</span><span> reduced-size rendering of the burning and scarring resulting of a spill of chemotherapy onto the bare hand.</span><span> Is it any wonder that people are worried about what might be happening to their insides as chemotherapy is intravenously fed into the body? </span><span>Is it any wonder that chemotherapy nurses wear protective gloves?</span>

<table width="77%" border="1" bgcolor="#ffffff"><tr><td width="100%">
<span>And, is it any wonder that </span><span>a high percentage of </span><span>oncologists refuse</span><span> to submit to the treatments</span><span> they advocate for their patients?</span>
</td></tr></table>
<span>McGill University: story of Oncolgists
refusing Chemo for themselves
</span>
<span>
</span><span>Click Here</span>



<span>Chemo drugs are some of the most toxic substances ever designed to go into a human body, their effects are very serious, and are often the direct cause of death.</span>

<span>Like the case of </span><span>Jackie Onassis,</span><span> who underwent chemo for one of the rare diseases in which it generally has some beneficial results: non-Hodgkins lymphoma. </span><span>She went into the hospital on Friday and was dead by Tuesday.
</span>
<span></span>
<table width="100%" border="0"><tr><td width="33%"> </td><td width="33%"> </td><td width="34%"> </td></tr><tr><td width="33%"> </td><td width="33%"> </td><td width="34%"> </td></tr></table>
<span>Do you really think your Doctor believes
Chemotherapy is what you need?
</span><span>
</span>
<span>In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a questionnaire to 118 doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. </span><span>More than three quarters of them recruited patients and carried out trials of toxic drugs for lung cancer.</span><span></span><span>They were asked to imagine that they themselves had cancer,</span><span> and were asked which of six current trials they themselves would choose. In the survey of </span><span>79 oncologists,</span><span></span><span>64 said they would not consent to treatment with Cisplatin,</span><span> a common chemotherapy drug,</span><span> while 58 oncologists said they would reject all the current trials being carried out by their establishment.</span><span>



</span><span>Why would Oncologists refuse Chemo?</span><span>
</span><span>The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its
unacceptable degree of toxicity.
</span>
<span>
Philip Day, Cancer: Why Were Still Dying to Know the Truth
</span>

<span>Because of the problem of nausea and vomiting caused by cancer itself as well as many chemotherapy agents and/or radiation therapy, </span><span>many cancer patients develop anorexia - the loss of appetite or desire to eat. </span><span>This situation is not good at all because it can lead to a condition known as cancer </span><span>"cachexia" - a wasting syndrome characterized by weakness and a noticeable continuous loss of weight, fat, and muscle. </span><span>A high percentage</span><span> of cancer patients actually die of malnutrition </span><span>rather than their disease itself.</span>

<span>
</span>
<span><img height="210" alt="ernest_wynder.gif" src="http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/images/ ... wynder.gif" width="178" border="4"></span><span>
</span><span>Dr. Wynders' Bio</span>

<span>Chemotherapy expert</span><span> Ernst Wynder, former professor at Sloan-Kettering Hospital and recipient of a medal from the American Cancer Association,</span><span> wrote this warning to professor Gearin-Tosh about advising a close friend to avoid chemotherapy!</span>
<span>"If your friend touches chemotherapy, he's a goner."</span><span>

</span>
<table width="50%" border="0"><tr><td width="100%"> </td></tr></table><span>
</span><span>"GREED IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL"</span>
<span></span>

<span>Chemotherapy Report</span><span>
Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little good? Well for one thing, drug companies provide huge economic incentives.
</span><span>In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994 that figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion.</span><span> This relentless increase in chemotherapy use was accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths."</span>

<span></span> 

<span>Edit:  ( http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/truth_chemo.html )</span>
http://www.starthealthylife.com/page296.htm
"...FACTS ABOUT CHEMOTHERAPY
The cancers from which most people die the big killers like breast, colon, and lung cancer generally do not respond to chemotherapy. Chemotherapy has only a limited effectiveness against any tumor that is large or has spread; its successes are generally with small, very early tumors. Several studies indicate that chemotherapy has no survival value in breast cancer.17


<table width="75%" align="center" border="1" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1"><tr><td><strong>Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. The fact has been documented for over a decade.... Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemotherapy than without it.18</strong>

Dr. Alan Levin, Professor of Immunology, University of California Medical School, 1987
</td></tr></table>
Dr. John Cairns says that chemotherapy at most prevents perhaps 2% or 3% of the cancer deaths each year. If 19 you have been diagnosed with cancer, find out if your type will be hurt or helped by chemotherapy. (See Resources)

Ulrich Abel, Ph.D., of West Germany, did a comprehensive study on chemotherapy. In 1990 he wrote, There is no evidence for the vast majority of cancers that treatment with these drugs exerts any positive influence on survival or quality of life in patients with advanced disease. He stated that <em>although chemotherapy does shrink tumors initially in many patients, unfortunately this did not prolong survival because the cancer usually returned, often more aggressively than at first.</em> In Abels poll of hundreds of cancer doctors worldwide, he discovered that <strong>many oncologists would not take chemotherapy themselves if they had cancer.</strong> Publicity about Abels research was completely suppressed in the U.S. (So much for freedom of speech in the media.)

Dr. Levin, at a national conference on medical abuses, said: Practicing physicians are intimidated into using regimes <em>which they know do not work.</em> One of the most glaring examples is chemotherapy, which does not work for the majority of cancers. Despite the fact that <em>most physicians agree that chemotherapy is largely ineffective</em>, they are coerced into using it by special interest groups which have vested interest in the profits of the drug industry. (More 20 on that, later.)

In the meantime, chemotherapy continues, despite the fact that <strong>ALL chemotherapy drugs are toxic, and many are themselves carcinogenic.</strong>

Where is the logic in using cancer-causing drugs to fight cancer? Where is the logic in suppressing the bodys mechanism for fighting disease the immune system in order to fight disease? According to statistics about treatment results, there IS no logic. It doesnt work.


<table width="75%" align="center" border="1" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1"><tr><td><strong>The proven methods of toxic chemotherapy, carcinogenic radiotherapy </strong>[radiation]<strong> and surgery are a failure for the majority of patients. The death rates from the six major killer cancers cancers of the lung, colon, breast, prostate, pancreas, and ovary have either stayed the same or increased during the past sixty years.</strong>21 </td></tr></table>
The overall, age-adjusted cancer death rate has RISEN by 5% since the war on cancer began, and this is despite earlier detection.<font size="1">22</font>

Before you agree to chemotherapy, surgery or radiation, contact some of the consumer groups listed at the end of this report. Get some second opinions about the effectiveness of these choices for your specific kind of cancer.


<table width="75%" align="center" border="1" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1"><tr><td><em>As each technological advance entered medical practice, we found ourselves paying an increasing price of unexpected side effects. Most technological cures for cancer, for example, were found to be carcinogenic themselves. Because such unexpected side effects have required additional technological fixes, we now find ourselves in a spiral in which technological applications are piled one atop another, with no end in sight, and no cure for the patient. The chemical-mechanistic paradigm* has failed, and a medical revolution has begun.... Many physicians are reexamining and applying therapeutic techniques that were previously discarded as unscientific by academic medicine. The use of foods, herbs, meditation, and acupuncture are only a few examples. This radical change in medical practice is deeply rooted in ancient concepts of life, energy, and medicine, and it includes a reaffirmation of the innate healing ability of living things.23</em>

* This idea states that people are machines: if a part breaks, you fix that part. The paradigm does not take into account the rest of the body, or the effects of lifestyle, mind, emotions and spirit on health.
</td></tr></table>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACS: American Cancer Society      NCI: National Cancer Institute
FDA: U.S. Food & Drug Administration       AMA: American Medical Association"


 

<em>May your sleep be restful Gail.  xx</em>
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 7:01 pm

August 3rd, 2009, 12:21 am #8


But the mantra is as always:  its not the drugs, its the disease...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7722626.stm


<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr><td colspan="2">Doctors 'rely on chemo too much' </td></tr><tr><td><table width="226" align="right" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr><td><img height="170" alt="Patient having chemotherapy" src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4 ... _chemo.jpg" width="226" border="0"> Some 80,000 patients undergo chemotherapy each year</td></tr></table>
Doctors are being urged to re-think their approach to giving chemotherapy during care at the end of life.

A review of <strong>600 cancer patients who died within 30 days of treatment </strong>found that in more than a quarter of cases it actually hastened or caused death.

The report by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death said doctors should consider reducing doses or not using chemotherapy at all.

England's cancer tsar Professor Mike Richards said he was "very concerned".

The group of patients the independent group was looking at represents 2% of the 80,000 people who receive chemotherapy each year.


<table width="231" align="right" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="5"><img height="1" alt="" src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif" width="5" border="0"></td><td><img height="13" alt="" src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img ... ote_rb.gif" width="24" border="0"> This report provides very disturbing information about the safety of treatment for incurable cancer <img height="13" alt="" src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img ... ote_rb.gif" width="23" border="0">
Professor Jane Maher, of Macmillan Cancer Support</td></tr></table>
They were all severely-ill patients for which the chemotherapy was mostly being used to manage their condition rather than in an attempt to cure the cancer.

After examining case notes, the group said that 35% of patients received good care.

But it found that in <strong>27% of cases it hastened or caused death - the toxic nature of the treatment can lead to a range of problems, the most serious of which is an infection called neutropenic sepsis</strong>.

Report co-author Dr Diana Mort said doctors should be more "<strong>cautious in prescribing chemotherapy for very sick patients</strong>".

And she added: "The process of consent may require more than one discussion.

"Patients must be made aware of the risks and side-effect of chemotherapy as well as the potential benefits."

Transfer arrangements

The report also criticised the facilities made available to patients with nearly half being admitted to general medicine wards during the last 30 days of life rather than a specialist cancer unit.

The authors recommended where hospitals did not have specialist units they should put in place transfer arrangements to centres that did.

Professor Jane Maher, chief medical officer at Macmillan Cancer Support, said: "This report provides very disturbing information about the safety of treatment for incurable cancer.

"It shows that doctors and nurses need to be much better at helping patients understand the pros and cons of such powerful treatments in the last year of life."

Professor Richards said he was "very concerned".

"I am asking all chemotherapy service providers to consider these reports urgently and to reassess their own services immediately against the measures we have set nationally."

But Dr Peter Clark, of the Royal College of Physicians, said while lessons could be learnt it was important to remember that chemotherapy carried "substantial short and long-term benefit" for the majority who undergo the treatment."
</td></tr></table>
Quote
Like
Share