Chemotherapy vs. naturopathic cancer treatments

[zengrifter]

After a cancer diagnosis:
Crucial questions to consider about
chemotherapy vs. naturopathic cancer treatments

by Mike Adams
April 26, 2007

It is widely known that an increasing number of consumers are turning to alternative medicine for treatment for diseases like cancer, depression, diabetes, heart disease and so on. What are generally not known are the circumstances under which many consumers make this switch from conventional to alternative medicine.

The truth about that is rather surprising and, perhaps, even a bit frustrating because many consumers only switch to alternative medicine after conventional medicine has failed them. That's when many people begin investigating medicinal herbs, acupuncture, or chiropractic care. It is only after they have tried everything with conventional medicine -- drugs, surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy -- that they finally realize they are not getting any healthier and need to do something different.

It is interesting how conventional medicine can so strongly motivate people to check out alternatives because most of the therapies in conventional medicine simply do not work. Even worse, they actually cause tremendous harm to patients even while promising to help them.

During conventional cancer treatment with toxic chemotherapy drugs, for example, the patients are told they are getting help. They're told they are getting better. The American Medical Association, the FDA, and all the authorities in medicine tell them they are receiving a scientifically-validated form of treatment.

What they are not being told is the chemotherapy is destroying the normal, healthy functioning of vital organs, such as the liver, heart, brain, and kidneys. Yes, it might also be shrinking a tumor, but the point here is not simply to emerge from cancer treatment with only small tumors. The point is to emerge as a healthy human being with a strong immune system and cellular balance that prevents or eliminates tumors altogether. That kind of outcome is not at all offered by conventional medicine.

...more - http://www.newstarget.com/021813.html

[zengrifter]

Death by Doctoring

Orthodox anticancer therapies have harmful if not fatal side effects,
but medical professionals continue to inflict them on their patients as a matter of course.

by Steven Ransom © 2002
Research Director

Extracted from his book "Great News on Cancer in the 21st Century", (Credence, 2002)

In summoning even the wisest of physicians to our aid, it is probable that he is relying upon a scientific 'truth', the error of which will become obvious in just a few years' time.

-- Marcel Proust
CANCER: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

Twenty-first century medicine boasts a number of treatments that are actually very dangerous to human health, none more so than for cancer. May this short report reach the many thousands of people currently undergoing conventional cancer treatment. May it also reach the many thousands of doctors, physicians, nurses and carers who every day are innocently inflicting serious harm in the name of conventional cancer care. Let the countdown begin. Let there soon be an end to...Death by Doctoring.

Every year in the United Kingdom, 200,000 people are diagnosed with cancer and 152,500 people die.1 In the United States, the annual death rate for this disease is approximately 547,000.2 These deaths are recorded as cancer deaths, but how many of these deaths are really attributable to the disease itself? How many deaths should in fact be recorded as "death by doctoring"? When we consider that conventional treatment consists almost entirely of radiation, chemotherapy and the long-term application of toxic pharmaceuticals--treatments which are all well known for their life-threatening side-effects--then the question becomes all the more legitimate. On chemotherapy, for instance, note the following:
"Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors." (Allen Levin, MD, UCSF, The Healing of Cancer, Marcus Books, 1990)

...more - http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/doctoring1.html

[zengrifter]

--------------------------------------------------------------
Research backs theory that vitamin C shrinks tumours
--------------------------------------------------------------
By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Tuesday, 28 March 2006

Three cancer patients who were given large intravenous doses over a period of several months had their lives extended and their tumours shrunk, doctors reported yesterday.

A 49-year-old man diagnosed with terminal bladder cancer in 1996 was still alive and cancer-free nine years later, having declined chemotherapy and radiotherapy in favour of regular infusions of vitamin C.

A 66-year-old woman with an aggressive lymphoma who had a "dismal prognosis" in 1995 was similarly treated and is still alive 10 years later. A 51-year-old woman with kidney cancer that spread to her lungs diagnosed in 1995 had a normal chest X-ray two years later. The findings were confirmed by pathologists. Although they do not prove the vitamin cured the cancer they do increase the "clinical plausibility" of the idea, the researchers say.

Vitamin C therapy was first promoted by Linus Pauling, the Nobel prize winner, 30 years ago. Dr Pauling's claims sparked the continuing boom in sales of vitamin C, but attempts to confirm his findings failed and high-dose vitamin C became an "alternative" therapy.

The latest study, published in the Canadian Association's Medical Journal, could trigger renewed interest in Dr Pauling's claims. Studies show that vitamin C is toxic to some cancer cells but not to normal cells. The problem has been delivering a high enough dose.

The researchers say attempts to replicate Dr Pauling's work failed because they used oral doses of the drug which is rapidly excreted. However, injections achieve blood levels 25 times higher that persist for longer. At these very high doses, the blood level of vitamin C is high enough to selectively kill cancer cells.

Several clinical trials of vitamin C therapy are about to start, including one at McGill University, Montreal, the authors say.

XXX

[aslan]

We are still at the 'bloodletting" stage in our treatment of cancer. I wonder how many more patients we kill than save? Too bad doctors are adverse to treatments that actually cure. The pharmaceutical companies don't want cures, just treatment of the symptoms enough to keep us alive and buying more drugs. I put cancer cures and waterpowered cars in the same boat--they'll fight us to the death before they'll let us have them. Where's government when you really need it? It's purely a rhetorical question.

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by aslan

We are still at the 'bloodletting" stage in our treatment of cancer. I wonder how many more patients we kill than save? Too bad doctors are adverse to treatments that actually cure. The pharmaceutical companies don't want cures, just treatment of the symptoms enough to keep us alive and buying more drugs. I put cancer cures and waterpowered cars in the same boat--they'll fight us to the death before they'll let us have them. Where's government when you really need it? It's purely a rhetorical question.

I guess thats why certain prestigius clinic studies found that V-C MAKES TUMORS STRONGER -

In a recent presentation at the American Cancer Society meeting, Dr. David Golde of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center speculated that supplemental vitamin C may be harmful to cancer patients. Dr. Golde had previously shown how vitamin C gets into and accumulates in cancer cells. Golde and others are concerned that the extra vitamin C in cancer cells may enhance their growth or protect them from the cell-killing free radicals produced by radiation and some chemotherapeutic drugs.

MORE- http://www.scienceblog.com/community...199901895.html