Michael Douglas & Suzanne Somers
Very interesting article on Michael Douglas, according to this as those of us who took the chemo route I have brain damage, kidney damage, heart damage the list goes on.
http://www.NaturalNews.com/030274_Suzanne_Somers_Michael_Douglas.html
This guy isn't selling the alternative route very well at all, John23 does a better job!
Comments
-
This is disgraceful !
Michael Douglas is still on chemo! This girl not ( don't know who se is ) , so who looks better?
If you go in to her page they are suggesting not even have a mammogram! as it is cancerous !
This makes a lot of damage to cancer fight !0 -
Pepe' -pepebcn said:This is disgraceful !
Michael Douglas is still on chemo! This girl not ( don't know who se is ) , so who looks better?
If you go in to her page they are suggesting not even have a mammogram! as it is cancerous !
This makes a lot of damage to cancer fight !
Re:
"they are suggesting not even have a mammogram! as it is cancerous "
There are more and more cancer specialists that are claiming the
same thing regarding mammograms, so don't blame Ms. Somers!
The carcinogenic nature of all of today's mainstream cancer therapy
is ludicrous. If it isn't absolutely necessary, why do it? That's the
newest thoughts of the medical profession, and about damned time!
Early diagnosis can be a very good thing; it might have saved me
from having an Ileostomy...... But as far as adding to one's "longevity"?
That's a topic presently being debated in the profession. It should
be realized, that stage two cancer victims have a more bleak prognosis
that stage 3 or 4. The NCI had the latest statistics regarding that!
NCI is tough to dig through, but this is essentially the explanation w/out the
statistical comparison:
Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: Prognostic and Predictive Markers
No-one enjoys their belief being criticized. It doesn't matter if it's
religion, politics, or health choices, but if we are ever to find a cure,
it will not be by burying our heads in the sand.
The actual statistics have not changed, and those that insist there have
been marked advances with chemical treatments, should take the time
to research those chemicals fully. Those that have, are usually shocked
to learn that the "new" chemicals are the same as those used years ago.
We will never see advances if we don't demand advances; being
complacent to the industry's claims, is detrimental to any improvement.
Why should they change anything, when people believe what's available
is good enough.......
"Where there is no vision, the people perish"
Stay well!
John0 -
John, Back to the MIT articleJohn23 said:Pepe' -
Re:
"they are suggesting not even have a mammogram! as it is cancerous "
There are more and more cancer specialists that are claiming the
same thing regarding mammograms, so don't blame Ms. Somers!
The carcinogenic nature of all of today's mainstream cancer therapy
is ludicrous. If it isn't absolutely necessary, why do it? That's the
newest thoughts of the medical profession, and about damned time!
Early diagnosis can be a very good thing; it might have saved me
from having an Ileostomy...... But as far as adding to one's "longevity"?
That's a topic presently being debated in the profession. It should
be realized, that stage two cancer victims have a more bleak prognosis
that stage 3 or 4. The NCI had the latest statistics regarding that!
NCI is tough to dig through, but this is essentially the explanation w/out the
statistical comparison:
Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: Prognostic and Predictive Markers
No-one enjoys their belief being criticized. It doesn't matter if it's
religion, politics, or health choices, but if we are ever to find a cure,
it will not be by burying our heads in the sand.
The actual statistics have not changed, and those that insist there have
been marked advances with chemical treatments, should take the time
to research those chemicals fully. Those that have, are usually shocked
to learn that the "new" chemicals are the same as those used years ago.
We will never see advances if we don't demand advances; being
complacent to the industry's claims, is detrimental to any improvement.
Why should they change anything, when people believe what's available
is good enough.......
"Where there is no vision, the people perish"
Stay well!
John
Not sure if you saw my question
-phil
http://csn.cancer.org/node/204768#comment-9379330 -
Hey Phil !PhillieG said:John, Back to the MIT article
Not sure if you saw my question
-phil
http://csn.cancer.org/node/204768#comment-937933
Howzitgoin'?
Re "other thread":
"John, a Question
Does chemotherapy "cause" the second cancer or is it caused
because the first cancer is not fully killed off?"
I thought that was a rhetorical question, Phil...
The chemicals used in "chemo" are all well respected as being
highly carcinogenic. That's the reason many oncologists resist
prescribing chemotherapy if there's a chance it will not work.
Good oncologists weigh the benefit vs risk, since "do no harm"
is the criteria.
Should you fear chemotherapy for it's carcinogenic risks?
Sure, but you also have to do what any good oncologist does,
and weigh the risks against the benefits. If you have a tumor,
and that tumor is about to grow into a critical area, you have to
stop it as quickly as possible. Chemo or radiation is the fastest
way to do that.
On the other hand..... if you're told that cancer "may be" throughout
your body, it just might be a better choice to use an alternative
option, rather than to chance needless exposure to what was
never designed to kill random cancer cells.
There are options and more options.... But staying as healthy
as possible in spite of cancer, is the best option!
Be well!
John0 -
John :John23 said:Pepe' -
Re:
"they are suggesting not even have a mammogram! as it is cancerous "
There are more and more cancer specialists that are claiming the
same thing regarding mammograms, so don't blame Ms. Somers!
The carcinogenic nature of all of today's mainstream cancer therapy
is ludicrous. If it isn't absolutely necessary, why do it? That's the
newest thoughts of the medical profession, and about damned time!
Early diagnosis can be a very good thing; it might have saved me
from having an Ileostomy...... But as far as adding to one's "longevity"?
That's a topic presently being debated in the profession. It should
be realized, that stage two cancer victims have a more bleak prognosis
that stage 3 or 4. The NCI had the latest statistics regarding that!
NCI is tough to dig through, but this is essentially the explanation w/out the
statistical comparison:
Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: Prognostic and Predictive Markers
No-one enjoys their belief being criticized. It doesn't matter if it's
religion, politics, or health choices, but if we are ever to find a cure,
it will not be by burying our heads in the sand.
The actual statistics have not changed, and those that insist there have
been marked advances with chemical treatments, should take the time
to research those chemicals fully. Those that have, are usually shocked
to learn that the "new" chemicals are the same as those used years ago.
We will never see advances if we don't demand advances; being
complacent to the industry's claims, is detrimental to any improvement.
Why should they change anything, when people believe what's available
is good enough.......
"Where there is no vision, the people perish"
Stay well!
John
I agree with you in so many things ,actually I have not had post chemo after my first surgery and probaly not going to do it after my second unless some body proofs me that it works ( onc recognize me that this is a patient choice as there are not evidences in the stats and so) BUT I have a reccourence recently , 1small liver met and a few lymph nodes affected so..not surgery in that moment... I started with folfiri and just 5 rounds after
lynph nodes and liver tumor have desapear !Do you know any other drug or alternative medicine , capable to do that? l know you are not as radical as they are and never would suggest not to do chemo as first instance treatment!.And concerning to mammograms, is there other way to prevent breast cancer?What would happened to the millions of woman early diagnosed until today? sage 4 ? dead ? and we are talking about millions!.Just let me explain you a funny-sad story. A few months ago my onc and his team where talking when l was there, I ask them about and the show me a medical magazine it announced the dead of a lady, a British one ( I think ) she was a famous Ritter she had just one book but very successful ,the name I don't remember but was something like "anything can be cured if you want" she was defending any treatment but not drugs to cure everything . More than that she was a tough enemy of any western medicine,my onc say that book ,that he perfectly knew, had killed hundreds of people, as she defended to cure cancer with the power of the mind......., well the funny part of all this is..she died of.......CANCER!.Well l mean I still believe chemo is the most effective treatment to STOP cancer with no doubt!,despite I think that other medicines like chinese can help too, specially to prevent.
Just have a big hug!0 -
Pepe' -pepebcn said:John :
I agree with you in so many things ,actually I have not had post chemo after my first surgery and probaly not going to do it after my second unless some body proofs me that it works ( onc recognize me that this is a patient choice as there are not evidences in the stats and so) BUT I have a reccourence recently , 1small liver met and a few lymph nodes affected so..not surgery in that moment... I started with folfiri and just 5 rounds after
lynph nodes and liver tumor have desapear !Do you know any other drug or alternative medicine , capable to do that? l know you are not as radical as they are and never would suggest not to do chemo as first instance treatment!.And concerning to mammograms, is there other way to prevent breast cancer?What would happened to the millions of woman early diagnosed until today? sage 4 ? dead ? and we are talking about millions!.Just let me explain you a funny-sad story. A few months ago my onc and his team where talking when l was there, I ask them about and the show me a medical magazine it announced the dead of a lady, a British one ( I think ) she was a famous Ritter she had just one book but very successful ,the name I don't remember but was something like "anything can be cured if you want" she was defending any treatment but not drugs to cure everything . More than that she was a tough enemy of any western medicine,my onc say that book ,that he perfectly knew, had killed hundreds of people, as she defended to cure cancer with the power of the mind......., well the funny part of all this is..she died of.......CANCER!.Well l mean I still believe chemo is the most effective treatment to STOP cancer with no doubt!,despite I think that other medicines like chinese can help too, specially to prevent.
Just have a big hug!
Re:
"I started with folfiri and just 5 rounds after lynph nodes and liver tumor
have desapear ! Do you know any other drug or alternative medicine ,
capable to do that?"
Well actually Pepe', there are a number of medicinal herbs that
manage to shut off what a cancer cell needs to survive. I listed
some of those on the "blog".
While waiting to pay for some supplies at the Asian supplier,
I talked with a Vietnamese fellow that told me about members
of his church that used some of the same herbs to take care of
their cancer. The stories were similar to others I've heard through
the years.... All good.
One of the "suspicious spots" on my lung magically disappeared,
and so far there are no other signs that they say were there before
I took the herbs.
Is that "proof" of anything? No... I could be just a very lucky
individual, just as my physicians explained it. I guess those in
the stories I heard, were just pretty damned lucky as well?
Perhaps... Stranger things have happened.
The idea that very toxic chemicals are necessary to kill a cancer
cell is preposterous. But that's what they have most of us believing.
The truth is, that if they knew how to target cancer cells specifically,
they could use almost anything to kill the cell. Instead, all they
can do, is bombard our entire body with poison, in an effort to
kill cancer cells. It's a bit like using a nuclear bomb on your front
lawn to kill some crabgrass.
The fact that there are so many cancer victims that are managing
to survive without having taken very much chemotherapy, is outstanding.
The new studies are now indicating that "too much" chemotherapy
is bad, and less can do so much more. There are two threads dealing
with that very issue, right here on the forum.
Our body needs some time to heal; some time to rebuild itself to fight
the remainder of cancer cells after a round of chemo. If we weaken our
body too much, there's simply not enough energy left to fight anything.
If chemo weakens us so much, that a common cold can be fatal, how
can our body possibly fight cancer?
You know me well enough to know that I don't "hate" chemotherapy.
It certainly has it's merits.. When used properly, it can take care of
problems that can't be touched as quickly otherwise.
Can herbs do that? I believe some can, yes. Not as quickly perhaps,
but I have met enough people that have used it to their advantage, to be
satisfied with the concept.
We win battles by knowing our enemy, and not relying on only one
path in and out of the war zone.
"An open mind doesn't always equate to an empty head".
Wishing you good health, my friend!
John0 -
How Ridiculous
It's comparing apples and cinder-blocks. Douglas is IN treatment NOW, Somers is not. They have two different types of cancer which also makes a difference. Who looks better? This person who was in a car accident 5 years ago or this one who was just run over last week? Who would you rather be?
SEE! So there!
This is the type of advertising that gives alternative routes a bad name. It's like a infomercial that you might see in the wee hours. I have yet to see a site that promotes alternative treatments that is even close to convincing. I really would love to see a forum similar to this one that has stories of people who have gone alternative routes and how they have had success with them. I do not mean one that is loaded with advertisements for various "cures". I mean real-life stories.
I will say that Somers has nicer thighs thanks to her thigh-master.0 -
Went, read, copied:
Disclaimer:"The quote here does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management:"
"I don't disagree with the theory of your article but this is BS to use photos and compare them at far different stages of their cancer treatment/recovery. Why didn't you choose a photo of Ms. Sommers while in her natural treatment rather than in recovery, heavy make up and likely retouched?"
From Kathi: The danger here is that someone will read this, not take into account anything other than the horror stories, and die from lack of necessary treatment...
BUT it's a GREAT boost for sales of Ms. Somer's book....I followed the link...she has quite the entrepreneurial spirit...even has a 'somerssweet' instead of 'artifical sweeteners'...WOW!
I used the approach of adding herbal/natural treatments along WITH traditional treatments by my oncologist. She didn't disagree that hopefully there will be a milder way to treat cancer in the future, but for now, it's the best out there (please, John, don't just take this out of context and comment on this one sentence...sigh...).
I beat the odds. 37 percent survival rate. I had faith in my treatments (both traditional and not so). If not for the treatments/surveilance during my first cancer (radiation completely eliminated my rectal tumor), my second cancer (stage II breast) would never have been found in time, and I would have died.
Re: Ms. Somers: http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-human-condition/2009/10/23/breaking-health-author-suzanne-somers-mostly-wrong-about-science-medicine.html
AND, upon further review, Ms. Somers told Larry King in an interview, that she had surgery and radiation for her breast cancer, a tradition treatment for breast cancer, which, in an early stage such as hers, is the only recommended treatment....she refused adjuvant therapy of chemo to decrease her odds of reoccurance, also a personal choice for we breast cancer survivors...
From another site: http://www.imaginis.com/breast-health-news/suzanne-somers-tries-alternative-therapy-to-treat-breast-cancer-studies-show-she-146-s-not-alone-dat
"Fifty-four year old Somers told talk show host Larry King that she had undergone breast cancer surgery (lumpectomy) and radiation therapy. She has now opted to take injections of the mistletoe extract Iscador in place of chemotherapy, against the recommendation of her doctors (although she recently told Today Show host Katie Couric that she may re-consider having chemotherapy at a later date)."
My mama always says: "If it's too good to be true, it probably is".
Hugs from under the mistletoe plant, Kathi
BTW, Taxol, a potent chemotherapy used commonly in breast cancer treatment (I had this), is the needles of the Taxis bush, all natural, but poisonous. Just like parts of the mistletoe plant....hummm....Just because it's natural, doesn't mean it's not as poisonous as a synthetic compound.0 -
Right kathi All poissons use to be natural from plantsKathiM said:Went, read, copied:
Disclaimer:"The quote here does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management:"
"I don't disagree with the theory of your article but this is BS to use photos and compare them at far different stages of their cancer treatment/recovery. Why didn't you choose a photo of Ms. Sommers while in her natural treatment rather than in recovery, heavy make up and likely retouched?"
From Kathi: The danger here is that someone will read this, not take into account anything other than the horror stories, and die from lack of necessary treatment...
BUT it's a GREAT boost for sales of Ms. Somer's book....I followed the link...she has quite the entrepreneurial spirit...even has a 'somerssweet' instead of 'artifical sweeteners'...WOW!
I used the approach of adding herbal/natural treatments along WITH traditional treatments by my oncologist. She didn't disagree that hopefully there will be a milder way to treat cancer in the future, but for now, it's the best out there (please, John, don't just take this out of context and comment on this one sentence...sigh...).
I beat the odds. 37 percent survival rate. I had faith in my treatments (both traditional and not so). If not for the treatments/surveilance during my first cancer (radiation completely eliminated my rectal tumor), my second cancer (stage II breast) would never have been found in time, and I would have died.
Re: Ms. Somers: http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-human-condition/2009/10/23/breaking-health-author-suzanne-somers-mostly-wrong-about-science-medicine.html
AND, upon further review, Ms. Somers told Larry King in an interview, that she had surgery and radiation for her breast cancer, a tradition treatment for breast cancer, which, in an early stage such as hers, is the only recommended treatment....she refused adjuvant therapy of chemo to decrease her odds of reoccurance, also a personal choice for we breast cancer survivors...
From another site: http://www.imaginis.com/breast-health-news/suzanne-somers-tries-alternative-therapy-to-treat-breast-cancer-studies-show-she-146-s-not-alone-dat
"Fifty-four year old Somers told talk show host Larry King that she had undergone breast cancer surgery (lumpectomy) and radiation therapy. She has now opted to take injections of the mistletoe extract Iscador in place of chemotherapy, against the recommendation of her doctors (although she recently told Today Show host Katie Couric that she may re-consider having chemotherapy at a later date)."
My mama always says: "If it's too good to be true, it probably is".
Hugs from under the mistletoe plant, Kathi
BTW, Taxol, a potent chemotherapy used commonly in breast cancer treatment (I had this), is the needles of the Taxis bush, all natural, but poisonous. Just like parts of the mistletoe plant....hummm....Just because it's natural, doesn't mean it's not as poisonous as a synthetic compound.
minerals or animals! not need to be chemically treated!
Hugss!0 -
Disdainful + Misleading
Sonia,
Thanks for bringing this article to our attention. To my knowledge, Suzanne Somer's treatment was many years ago and was breast cancer; Michael Douglas is currently in treatment for throat cancer. How can anyone compare their photos? I think it is despicable to say he looks like he is dying. Has anyone else seen photos of Lance Armstrong after his treatment? He did not look the greatest, but look at him now. This article seemed to me to be short on facts and long on fear tactics.0 -
Somers is dangerous
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2244
One need wonder no more. Right there, in Chapter 1 of her book, is a highly plausible, highly likely explanation for why Somers became as ill as she did from coccidioidomycosis:
Day 5. Dr. Oncologist comes into my room. Now, you would think he’d say, “Well, sometimes it’s good to be wrong.” Or “Isn’t it great that you don’t have cancer?” But no. He walks in, doesn’t sit down, just looks at me and says angrily, “Well, you should have told me you were on steroids.”
I am flabbergasted. I don’t know what to say to him; I am so stunned by his lack of compassion that I just stare at him. I am not on steroids. I would never take steroids. But because he is stuck in old thinking and so out of touch with new medicine, he has no clue and doesn’t understand cortisol replacement as part of the menopausal experience.
I don’t know where to begin with him. He’s too arrogant to listen to a “stupid actress,” anyway. So much of his attitude with me has been the unsaid but definite “So you think all your ‘alternatives’ are going to help you now, missy?”
Why steroids would have anything to do with being misdiagnosed with full-body cancer, I can’t guess. But we still don’t know what has gone wrong in my body. We still have to find out what caused me to end up in the ER.
(Emphasis mine.)
It’s incredibly hard at this point not to go even beyond Mark Crislip-grade acid sarcasm at the arrogance of ignorance on display. Here we have a woman who is apparently taking cortisol as part of her “bioidentical hormone” cocktail, and this woman does not know that each and every one of those estrogens she is taking is a steroid hormone. More importantly, Somers apparently does not know that cortisol is a corticosteroid (“cortico,” get it?), the very same kind of steroid that is routinely used by us evil reductionist practitioners of “Western medicine” as an anti-inflammatory and immunsuppressant. When used that way by us evil pharma shills, cortisol is known as hydrocortisone, which is–gasp!–a pharmaceutical concoction! It’s also “bioidentical,” too, proving once more that “bioidentical” does not mean “risk-free.” Indeed, hydrocortisone is often included as one of the drugs in immunusuppressive protocols used to prevent the rejection of organ transplants. Given that Somers has said that she takes enough “bioidentical” estrogens to recreate the hormonal milieu of a woman in her 20s (in other words, far more estrogens than a 63 year old woman would ever have or need), it’s not beyond the pale to wonder whether she similarly takes a significant dose of hydrocortisone (sorry, cortisol) as part of her brew of “bioidenticals,” particularly in light of her having fallen seriously ill due to an organism that usually causes mild disease in immunocompetent hosts. Yes, valley fever can sometimes be a bad disease in immunocompetent hosts, but being immunocompromised for whatever reason is still a significant risk factor for disseminated disease or the reactivation of quiescent disease.0 -
Celebrity bashing....Buckwirth said:Somers is dangerous
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2244
One need wonder no more. Right there, in Chapter 1 of her book, is a highly plausible, highly likely explanation for why Somers became as ill as she did from coccidioidomycosis:
Day 5. Dr. Oncologist comes into my room. Now, you would think he’d say, “Well, sometimes it’s good to be wrong.” Or “Isn’t it great that you don’t have cancer?” But no. He walks in, doesn’t sit down, just looks at me and says angrily, “Well, you should have told me you were on steroids.”
I am flabbergasted. I don’t know what to say to him; I am so stunned by his lack of compassion that I just stare at him. I am not on steroids. I would never take steroids. But because he is stuck in old thinking and so out of touch with new medicine, he has no clue and doesn’t understand cortisol replacement as part of the menopausal experience.
I don’t know where to begin with him. He’s too arrogant to listen to a “stupid actress,” anyway. So much of his attitude with me has been the unsaid but definite “So you think all your ‘alternatives’ are going to help you now, missy?”
Why steroids would have anything to do with being misdiagnosed with full-body cancer, I can’t guess. But we still don’t know what has gone wrong in my body. We still have to find out what caused me to end up in the ER.
(Emphasis mine.)
It’s incredibly hard at this point not to go even beyond Mark Crislip-grade acid sarcasm at the arrogance of ignorance on display. Here we have a woman who is apparently taking cortisol as part of her “bioidentical hormone” cocktail, and this woman does not know that each and every one of those estrogens she is taking is a steroid hormone. More importantly, Somers apparently does not know that cortisol is a corticosteroid (“cortico,” get it?), the very same kind of steroid that is routinely used by us evil reductionist practitioners of “Western medicine” as an anti-inflammatory and immunsuppressant. When used that way by us evil pharma shills, cortisol is known as hydrocortisone, which is–gasp!–a pharmaceutical concoction! It’s also “bioidentical,” too, proving once more that “bioidentical” does not mean “risk-free.” Indeed, hydrocortisone is often included as one of the drugs in immunusuppressive protocols used to prevent the rejection of organ transplants. Given that Somers has said that she takes enough “bioidentical” estrogens to recreate the hormonal milieu of a woman in her 20s (in other words, far more estrogens than a 63 year old woman would ever have or need), it’s not beyond the pale to wonder whether she similarly takes a significant dose of hydrocortisone (sorry, cortisol) as part of her brew of “bioidenticals,” particularly in light of her having fallen seriously ill due to an organism that usually causes mild disease in immunocompetent hosts. Yes, valley fever can sometimes be a bad disease in immunocompetent hosts, but being immunocompromised for whatever reason is still a significant risk factor for disseminated disease or the reactivation of quiescent disease.
Coccidioidomycosis - The Mayo Clinic estimates that half the population
in some affected areas have suffered from the disease.
Here: Info
While those of us that support any specific alternative approach to
standard medicinal practices manage to endure criticism daily from
friends and foes alike......
Any criticism of western medicine is taken as a gross insult to
intelligence and freedom of choice, and the criticizer deemed
as an incompetent, ignorant dolt.
Telling an individual that they have cancer throughout their body
when what they really have is Coccidioidomycosis, is deplorable
in a society claiming to be so far advanced in the medical sciences.
It had nothing to do with taking an immunosuppressant, and
all to do with ridiculous misdiagnosis.
Physicians aren't "Gods", they are human, and make mistakes.
(sometimes, lots of mistakes)
May great health be with you!
John0 -
Sway too OftenJohn23 said:Celebrity bashing....
Coccidioidomycosis - The Mayo Clinic estimates that half the population
in some affected areas have suffered from the disease.
Here: Info
While those of us that support any specific alternative approach to
standard medicinal practices manage to endure criticism daily from
friends and foes alike......
Any criticism of western medicine is taken as a gross insult to
intelligence and freedom of choice, and the criticizer deemed
as an incompetent, ignorant dolt.
Telling an individual that they have cancer throughout their body
when what they really have is Coccidioidomycosis, is deplorable
in a society claiming to be so far advanced in the medical sciences.
It had nothing to do with taking an immunosuppressant, and
all to do with ridiculous misdiagnosis.
Physicians aren't "Gods", they are human, and make mistakes.
(sometimes, lots of mistakes)
May great health be with you!
John
"While those of us that support any specific alternative approach to
standard medicinal practices manage to endure criticism daily from
friends and foes alike......"
It's a shame people criticize one's personal choice or would try to sway anyone to do something they felt was not right for them...yet it happens ALL the time.0 -
alternativesJohn23 said:Celebrity bashing....
Coccidioidomycosis - The Mayo Clinic estimates that half the population
in some affected areas have suffered from the disease.
Here: Info
While those of us that support any specific alternative approach to
standard medicinal practices manage to endure criticism daily from
friends and foes alike......
Any criticism of western medicine is taken as a gross insult to
intelligence and freedom of choice, and the criticizer deemed
as an incompetent, ignorant dolt.
Telling an individual that they have cancer throughout their body
when what they really have is Coccidioidomycosis, is deplorable
in a society claiming to be so far advanced in the medical sciences.
It had nothing to do with taking an immunosuppressant, and
all to do with ridiculous misdiagnosis.
Physicians aren't "Gods", they are human, and make mistakes.
(sometimes, lots of mistakes)
May great health be with you!
John
John
I don't care if you boil tree bark and eagle feathers and rub it on during a full moon. If it works for you and it kills cancer I'll help and if that or anything else works you can count on me! I just have no use for those "cured" individuals selling their books and cures as if it can be applied to everyone or it is a government conspiracy to hid the "truth" and prevent their sales. Yes, I also believe that a cure for cancer will be delayed if it affects profits. I suspect there are many in the medical profession at all levels making a buck and want to continue to do so. You seem to get upset when someone suggests that alternative methods do not work yet you give little credence for those who chose to chemo or radiation like they are mislead or uninformed etc. It is their choice and I fully accept yours and theirs. As I see it I don't care who wins the arguement as long as cancer loses. I also noticed you say "physicians aren't Gods" yet state it is deplorable in a society claiming to be so far advanced in medical science to make a mistake. Okay what society is more advance in medical treaments? What part of God works is for you? I mean if physicians aren't Gods and they make mistakes, then shouldn't it be expected that at times mistakes will be made and not get you upset abiut their deplorable mistakes? Again, I'm on the side of whatever works to kill cancer! We are all in this together aren't we?0 -
Lou -LOUSWIFT said:alternatives
John
I don't care if you boil tree bark and eagle feathers and rub it on during a full moon. If it works for you and it kills cancer I'll help and if that or anything else works you can count on me! I just have no use for those "cured" individuals selling their books and cures as if it can be applied to everyone or it is a government conspiracy to hid the "truth" and prevent their sales. Yes, I also believe that a cure for cancer will be delayed if it affects profits. I suspect there are many in the medical profession at all levels making a buck and want to continue to do so. You seem to get upset when someone suggests that alternative methods do not work yet you give little credence for those who chose to chemo or radiation like they are mislead or uninformed etc. It is their choice and I fully accept yours and theirs. As I see it I don't care who wins the arguement as long as cancer loses. I also noticed you say "physicians aren't Gods" yet state it is deplorable in a society claiming to be so far advanced in medical science to make a mistake. Okay what society is more advance in medical treaments? What part of God works is for you? I mean if physicians aren't Gods and they make mistakes, then shouldn't it be expected that at times mistakes will be made and not get you upset abiut their deplorable mistakes? Again, I'm on the side of whatever works to kill cancer! We are all in this together aren't we?
My comments were in the context of Suzanne Somer's experience.
Her physician denounced her for using an alternative, and the science
periodicals supported the notion that it was her doing; her fault, that the
physicians made an error in diagnosis.
Errors in diagnosis can be fatal. To make that grave of an error,
and continue on to denounce the victim of that error, as if it is her
fault, is not excusable. Not in my opinion, anyway.
And by the way Lou... I have no "beef" with anyone that chooses
western medicine. I have a "beef" when medicine is failing that person,
and the physicians won't help the individual try a different method
for a possible cure.
Either a physician wants to help a person heal, or a physician only
wants to help his wallet heal....
To tell your patient that "there's nothing left but hospice", when there
is so much more available, is a very terrible thing to do.
To convince a patient that although the remedy may cause permanent
injury, or death, instead of providing other alternatives, or at least the
information to them, is pathetic.
Health practices are not handled that way in other countries, nor should
it be that way here.
It's the greed I despise, Lou..... not the science.
Good health to you!
John0 -
John: "Her physicianJohn23 said:Lou -
My comments were in the context of Suzanne Somer's experience.
Her physician denounced her for using an alternative, and the science
periodicals supported the notion that it was her doing; her fault, that the
physicians made an error in diagnosis.
Errors in diagnosis can be fatal. To make that grave of an error,
and continue on to denounce the victim of that error, as if it is her
fault, is not excusable. Not in my opinion, anyway.
And by the way Lou... I have no "beef" with anyone that chooses
western medicine. I have a "beef" when medicine is failing that person,
and the physicians won't help the individual try a different method
for a possible cure.
Either a physician wants to help a person heal, or a physician only
wants to help his wallet heal....
To tell your patient that "there's nothing left but hospice", when there
is so much more available, is a very terrible thing to do.
To convince a patient that although the remedy may cause permanent
injury, or death, instead of providing other alternatives, or at least the
information to them, is pathetic.
Health practices are not handled that way in other countries, nor should
it be that way here.
It's the greed I despise, Lou..... not the science.
Good health to you!
John
John: "Her physician denounced her for using an alternative, and the science
periodicals supported the notion that it was her doing; her fault, that the
physicians made an error in diagnosis."
First off John, she didn't bother to tell them she was using steroids, HER FAULT, why was then an error of diagnosis? Because the patient didn't mention she was using STEROIDS, never mind she thought they weren't steroids, it's that she didn't mention her alternative usage.
John: "Errors in diagnosis can be fatal. To make that grave of an error,
and continue on to denounce the victim of that error, as if it is her
fault, is not excusable. Not in my opinion, anyway.'
Second off John, look at the above, SHE DIDN'T TELL THEM SHE WAS ON STEROIDS!!! Don't you tell your or didn't you tell your oncologist, what you were doing instead of chemo? Hmmm?? Which means the FAULT lies entirely on HER!!!
One Blond that isn't that stupid,
Winter Marie
I don't have much time on internet, but this?
Don't defend the blond John, she's as ignorant as she portrayed on her tv series.0 -
Huh?herdizziness said:John: "Her physician
John: "Her physician denounced her for using an alternative, and the science
periodicals supported the notion that it was her doing; her fault, that the
physicians made an error in diagnosis."
First off John, she didn't bother to tell them she was using steroids, HER FAULT, why was then an error of diagnosis? Because the patient didn't mention she was using STEROIDS, never mind she thought they weren't steroids, it's that she didn't mention her alternative usage.
John: "Errors in diagnosis can be fatal. To make that grave of an error,
and continue on to denounce the victim of that error, as if it is her
fault, is not excusable. Not in my opinion, anyway.'
Second off John, look at the above, SHE DIDN'T TELL THEM SHE WAS ON STEROIDS!!! Don't you tell your or didn't you tell your oncologist, what you were doing instead of chemo? Hmmm?? Which means the FAULT lies entirely on HER!!!
One Blond that isn't that stupid,
Winter Marie
I don't have much time on internet, but this?
Don't defend the blond John, she's as ignorant as she portrayed on her tv series.
I loveya' kid, but please read the story...?
The use of Steroids doesn't cause an error to be made in the diagnosis
of "cancer throughout the body", when it was really "Coccidioidomycosis".
Coccidioidomycosis is fairly common "in the valley", and can be
very very debilitating, regardless of a compromised immune system or not.
Steroids can cause a more serious case of Coccidioidomycosis to take
hold, but it is incidental as far as a "wrong diagnosis" of that magnitude
is concerned.
As the story reads, the doctor told her she had cancer throughout her
body, and wanted to start chemo, etc.... when all she really had was
a bad case of Coccidioidomycosis. The effects of chemo would have
greatly worsened her condition, since it would have greatly worsened
the state of her immune system.
So no, it was not the "ignorant blond's" fault and assuming that,
is sheer crapola (if I may use your terminology?).
I really do loveya', ya'know?
Stay well.
John0 -
greedJohn23 said:Lou -
My comments were in the context of Suzanne Somer's experience.
Her physician denounced her for using an alternative, and the science
periodicals supported the notion that it was her doing; her fault, that the
physicians made an error in diagnosis.
Errors in diagnosis can be fatal. To make that grave of an error,
and continue on to denounce the victim of that error, as if it is her
fault, is not excusable. Not in my opinion, anyway.
And by the way Lou... I have no "beef" with anyone that chooses
western medicine. I have a "beef" when medicine is failing that person,
and the physicians won't help the individual try a different method
for a possible cure.
Either a physician wants to help a person heal, or a physician only
wants to help his wallet heal....
To tell your patient that "there's nothing left but hospice", when there
is so much more available, is a very terrible thing to do.
To convince a patient that although the remedy may cause permanent
injury, or death, instead of providing other alternatives, or at least the
information to them, is pathetic.
Health practices are not handled that way in other countries, nor should
it be that way here.
It's the greed I despise, Lou..... not the science.
Good health to you!
John
Thanks John
I think your an idealist and that is a good thing. Things should be as we want instead of how they are! But name me a profession that isn't motivated by greed. Medical tell me why we are more billing numbers then people; lawyers who do pro bono (for the public good) they want to enhance their reputations its advertising; ministers etc. doing the work of the lord by saving souls and of course their own along the way and many of them are pretty rich; police - to serve and protect the public no they get paid to protect their superiors the public doesn't matter; science- research is grant driven Global Warming grants are hot (excuse the pun)or a search for a cure for so many dieases that took a back seat to aids; politians -please Greed with a capital G!! My point is it's all greed. It doesn't matter where something is done or why. But here is the rub the nexus of the question is greed bad? Now before you think I'm jaded...I have seen selfless acts like a guy draging a person out of a burning house and not hanging around to get his face on the news; people donating organs or a couple of bucks without getting their names put on buildings; I guess I was an idealist too but now with all I have experienced I'm more a pragmatist- a seeker of truth in a world that can't seem to define what truth is. Well so much for philosophy. Keep fighting those windmills Don Quixote I mean this with respect! Good Health to you as well! Lou0
Discussion Boards
- All Discussion Boards
- 6 CSN Information
- 6 Welcome to CSN
- 121.2K Cancer specific
- 2.8K Anal Cancer
- 440 Bladder Cancer
- 306 Bone Cancers
- 1.6K Brain Cancer
- 28.4K Breast Cancer
- 391 Childhood Cancers
- 27.9K Colorectal Cancer
- 4.6K Esophageal Cancer
- 1.2K Gynecological Cancers (other than ovarian and uterine)
- 12.9K Head and Neck Cancer
- 6.3K Kidney Cancer
- 666 Leukemia
- 789 Liver Cancer
- 4.1K Lung Cancer
- 5.1K Lymphoma (Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin)
- 235 Multiple Myeloma
- 7.1K Ovarian Cancer
- 53 Pancreatic Cancer
- 486 Peritoneal Cancer
- 5.3K Prostate Cancer
- 1.2K Rare and Other Cancers
- 532 Sarcoma
- 717 Skin Cancer
- 647 Stomach Cancer
- 190 Testicular Cancer
- 1.5K Thyroid Cancer
- 5.8K Uterine/Endometrial Cancer
- 6.3K Lifestyle Discussion Boards