First Nations Girl chooses traditional medicine over chemo

originally posted by: Murgatroid
Chemo has a 97% fatality rate...

When 91% of oncologists will not even use it on themselves, something is VERY obviously wrong with the picture here.

Will oncologists submit to chemotherapy if they are diagnosed? Well, in 1986, McGill Cancer Center in Montreal, one of the largest and most esteemed cancer treatment centers in the world, surveyed 64 oncologists to see how they would personally respond to a diagnosis of cancer.

The results will blow your mind. Are you sitting down? Of the 64 oncologists surveyed, 58 said that... ALL chemotherapy programs were unacceptable to them and their family members due to the fact that the drugs dont work and are toxic to ones system! That's right, 91% of oncologists will not take chemo!!

Jeff Rense interview Ty Bollinger

“Ty, isn't chemotherapy a proven scientific treatment?”

The answer is YES, it is! It has been scientifically proven to fatally poison several hundred thousand people each and every year. Did you know that the overall success rate for most cancers treated with the chemotherapy is a paltry 3%? In other words . . .

“Chemo has a 97% fatality rate”...

The sad fact is that chemo is not only legal, but it is readily accepted by most oncologists as one of the best treatments for cancer. At least that's what the typical oncologist tells the cancer patient....

But in 1986, McGill Cancer Center in Montreal, one of the largest and most esteemed cancer treatment centers in the world, surveyed 64 oncologists to see how they would personally respond to a diagnosis of cancer. The results will blow your mind. Are you sitting down? Of the 64 oncologists surveyed, 58 said that...

“ALL chemotherapy programs were unacceptable to them and their family members due to the fact that the drugs don’t work and are toxic!”

That means that 91% of the oncologists surveyed would not submit themselves to the same protocols that they prescribe to their patients! Is it just me, or does this seem hypocritical to you? I believe that this is not only hypocritical, but it borders on being criminal! They know that chemo will kill more patients than it will help, but they continue to tell their patients that it is their "best treatment option." What a damnable lie!

Chemo Fatalities

Both of those links go to a "buy my book" website and a youtube video from the "buy my book" website. Neither showed any original data from the alleged survey in Canada and zero showed anything to back up that claim.

Snake oil pitch site.

a reply to: Shepard64

can someone please send that family my thread on

RADIATION AND CANCER you don't have to die, I didn't

it is a thread in Gray Area

Poor girl will die and they will imprison the parents.

We gotta help them.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
Chemo has a 97% fatality rate...

Might that be better expressed as '97% of people requiring chemo as a cancer treatment die'? I dispute your stats anyway, but at least express them in an honest fashion.

As to the thread...tough call, given that they are First Nations people. Where I would support the Children's Aid swooping a child from Jehovah's Witnesses for denying him/her some urgent medical treatment, I think here I'd have to take into account an Aboriginal right to take a traditional path. I'd say that it would be up to an Elder to make the call on whether or not the child was being coerced, or capable of making a fully informed decision.

Oh, and this is not a thread about the effectiveness of various cancer treatments...it's more about the rights of Indigenous peoples in modern society, so let's tuck away the Essiac, eh?

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Murgatroid
Chemo has a 97% fatality rate...

Might that be better expressed as '97% of people requiring chemo as a cancer treatment die'? I dispute your stats anyway, but at least express them in an honest fashion.

As to the thread...tough call, given that they are First Nations people. Where I would support the Children's Aid swooping a child from Jehovah's Witnesses for denying a child some urgent medical treatment, I think here I'd have to take into account an Aboriginal right to take a traditional path. I'd say that it would be up to an Elder to make the call on whether or not the child was being coerced, or capable of making a fully informed decision.

Oh, and this is not a thread about the effectiveness of various cancer treatments...it's more about the rights of Indigenous peoples in modern society, so let's tuck away the Essiac, eh?

You are quite right. I'm a firm believer in individual autonomy and if this is the choice of the girl and the family, it is the choice of the girl and the family.

Star for you.

a reply to: Danbones

Either you're being intellectually dishonest or you're so credulous in your acceptance of anti-medical propaganda that you didn't even bother to do some basic fact checking:

The first one is easily dismissed, but you’ll see it a lot anyway. It’s frequently cited in articles with titles like 75% of MDs Refuse Chemotherapy Themselves and the claim will go something like this:

Several full-time scientists at the McGill Cancer Center sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used – while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy. (Source: Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)

Wow! This sounds really damning, doesn’t it? What hypocrites those oncologists are! Right?

Wrong.

It turns out that this survey is over 25 years old and was about a specific kind of chemotherapy, cisplatin for non-small cell lung cancer, which was a new therapy at the time and didn’t have a lot of evidence for it. As Anaximperator describes, a followup survey was conducted in 1997 at a session on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical practice guidelines. Participants were asked to respond to the same question regarding chemotherapy:

You are a 60-year-old oncologist with non-small-cell lung cancer, one liver metastasis, and bone metastases.

Your performance status is 1. Would you take chemotherapy? Yes or no?

The results? Let Anaximperator tell the tale:

The overall results of the 1997 follow-up survey show that 64.5% would now take chemotherapy – which is almost a doubling from 34% to 64.5% of those willing to have chemotherapy and radiotherapy and a quadrupling from 17% to 64.5% of those who would take chemotherapy alone.

Anaximperator adds:

The study from 1991, “Oncologists vary in their willingness to undertake anti-cancer therapies,” pertains to many kinds of cancer and cancer stages, from early stage to terminal, as well as to experimental therapies. It shows percentages as high as 98% of doctors willing to undergo chemotherapy, while the remaining 2 % were uncertain, and none answered “definitely no” or “probably no” to chemotherapy.

Should another survey be conducted today, there’s a good chance the results would be even higher in favour of chemotherapy, given that over the years chemotherapy has shown enhanced clinical benefit and less side effects.

Indeed. One should also note that this question was constructed such that the clinical presentation of the cancer was incurable. Participants were presented with a scenario in which they are diagnosed with stage IV metastatic disease, a situation where opting for palliative care rather than aggressive treatment often makes sense, which makes the results even more striking. Also, I know from personal experience that it is not true that oncologists tend to turn down chemotherapy, even for advanced disease. having known oncologists who developed various cancers and underwent standard-of-care chemotherapy. Indeed, just this week, I was saddened to learn that an oncologist I used to know at my old job recently developed cancer and is currently undergoing chemotherapy. He’s also lost all his hair, just like many of his patients. In the end, this particular ploy serves two purposes. First, it implies that oncologists are hypocrites who don’t believe that the treatments they are giving patients are worthwhile. Second, it feeds into the conspiracy theories beloved of quacks with the implication that oncologists are hiding something about chemotherapy effectiveness. They’re not.

www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Both of those links go to a "buy my book" website and a youtube video from the "buy my book" website.

He gives the ebook away for free as well to those who cannot afford it.

If I were not 100% SURE of the information I posted I would never have put it out there.

The facts are out there, but you will NEVER get them from the medical cartel and yes I DO realize you are an MD BTW.

"The medical industry is no longer to be trusted. We have a Medical Inquisition. The Rockefellers took it over way back and warped a lot of it. Our doctors are brainwashed. The Rockefellers are dedicated to population reduction and are using the medical industry to do it."

Confessions of a Medical Heretic

"The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government position in an African nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these depopulation
interests." The Medical Mafia

We have a grand experiment going on right now across the population. It is an experiment to see how long the American public will put up with Big Pharma lies, propaganda and scientific fraud while popping prescription drugs. Nearly everything that conventional medicine is telling you is fiction.

This is what passes for "science" in the world of Big Pharma. But the Emperor has no clothes. Under the mask of science, there's nothing but fraud and profiteering at the core.

Why Pharmaceutical Drugs Do Not Work

Early in the 20th Century, Rockefeller and Carnegie created a medical monopoly by financing 1640 medical schools with pharmacology, leading to the "ethical" drug pushing that has been in practice ever since, because these families owned or indirectly controlled most of the drug companies.

In the dark ages we had the "witches" (mostly females), who were burnt at the stake for practicing alternative treatment in form of herbs and old wisdom. Today the "witches" still exist, but now they call themselves homeopaths, naturopaths and practitioners of alternative medicine. Yet they are still as hunted as they were in the Dark Ages. Why?

Because in these areas the real cures can be found. If you think like Rockefeller you realize that these "witches" are some of his worst enemies, because they halt the genocide of the world population and decrease the income of the Drug Cartels, which are controlled by the Illuminati.

Illuminati News :: The Witch Hunt on Alternative Medicine

Evidently the people doing this have never been through Chemo. I know many people who went through Chemo hell and a few of them just quit going. They said that the medicine was killing them, which it was. Just as much as the cancer was. They did not even try an alternative though, they just accepted that they would die. They believed only in the doctors, they did not even give nature a chance. But they could not live with the side effects so they quit all treatments.

Now, since this person tried the chemo, and evidently it wasn't working, she should be able to choose her own healthcare. Does the healthcare industry control the courts already? Have they taken over the world? It appears the people in the judicial system do not understand how big a scam that healthcare can be. Chemo kills as many people as it saves, it destroys organs and nerve cells, including brain cells. It should be a person's choice if they want to get treated with Chemo.

I will not take Chemo until I try to eradicate the cancer first by using various system I have learned about. The basis of some of the drugs used to fight cancer. I have incorporated some of this into my life to fight it when it is small. Now, hopefully I will not get cancer. Nobody will ever talk me into doing something that I do not think I need anymore. If I decide I can't beat it on my own, I will seek a doctor or someone who knows the complete science about it. All medicines have bases that can be hacked.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
“I believe that Modern Medicine’s treatments for disease . . . are more dangerous than the diseases they are designed to treat. I believe that more than ninety percent of Modern Medicine could disappear from the face of the earth – doctors, hospitals, drugs, and equipment – and the effect on our health would be immediate and beneficial . .
"Confessions of a Medical Heretic" Dr. Robert Mendelsohn

Well, there's some cutting edge pre-1988 observation.
I feel pretty well-served by the medical profession...and I would readily consult my doctors over any other option.

a reply to: Danbones

in a survey by an american paper 75 % of oncologists said they would not take chemo if it was them - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wow that's crazy! I did not know that, thanks.

Sadly, my younger brother died of Cancer. He choose to take the Chemo route and although in high spirits at the time, soon disintegrated very rapidly over 2 months. My father done extensive research on Chemo and came to the conclusion that the Chemo made him feel better but he experienced death from inside out, in other words, he new, after 6 weeks it was killing him more....he just new. However it was to late as the damage was now done.

My father, who was diagnosed with Cancer 18 months a go learned from this and took an alternative, yet controversial route and took matters into his own hands, and indeed life. He started taking a certain oil that is not allowed to be talked about on ATS [which is a shame really, deny ignorance my arse, that saying is a conspiracy in and off itself] and when he went to the doctors a few weeks back the Cancer was almost gone.

You do the maths.

If I get Cancer you can sure as hell believe I will take my fathers route.

a reply to: Spiro

What oil? can't talk about it here? If that is true than this site is not what I thought it was and is run by the very people I am against. Private message me please, this is very concerning.

originally posted by: Shepard64
a reply to: Spiro

What oil? can't talk about it here? If that is true than this site is not what I thought it was and is run by the very people I am against. Private message me please, this is very concerning.

PM'd you!

originally posted by: Spiro
If I get Cancer you can sure as hell believe I will take my fathers route.

The truth of the matter is that you will not know until either you...or someone in your care, like your child...hear those words "You've got cancer." If you are told that chemo represents your best odds of survival...you gonna take a pass? Further...chemo doesn't kill people, cancer does. Punkt. You have a lot more ATS members who have been cured of cancer through standard medical means than by alternative.

But, that is not what the thread is all about. It is about an Aboriginal child choosing to undertake traditional medicine when chemo proves to be too tough. Fair. Is this the same as a fundamentalist Christian couple refusing medical treatment for their child and choosing instead to 'pray the illness away'. That's the debate I see here...and one which is not being addressed.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Spiro
If I get Cancer you can sure as hell believe I will take my fathers route.

The truth of the matter is that you will not know until either you...or someone in your care, like your child...hear those words "You've got cancer." If you are told that chemo represents your best odds of survival...you gonna take a pass? Further...chemo doesn't kill people, cancer does. Punkt. You have a lot more ATS members who have been cured of cancer through standard medical means than by alternative.

But, that is not what the thread is all about. It is about an Aboriginal child choosing to undertake traditional medicine when chemo proves to be too tough. Fair. Is this the same as a fundamentalist Christian couple refusing medical treatment for their child and choosing instead to 'pray the illness away'. That's the debate I see here...and one which is not being addressed.

I have seen it ALL with my own eyes. Yes, I will now take my fathers route of medicinal over chemo. Chemo kills at an alarming rate.

And yes, this does have something to do with the content of the topic at hand.

Cheers

originally posted by: Spiro
I have seen it ALL with my own eyes. Yes, I will now take my fathers route of medicinal over chemo. Chemo kills at an alarming rate. And yes, this does have something to do with the content of the topic at hand. Cheers

With all due respect, one does not know until it comes knocking on their own door. Been there, done that. Got no t-shirt...got the tat instead. I understand your feelings, and I'm sorry for you and yours for being put through this crap.

But there are innumerable threads here that discuss allopathic vs alternative treatments. This circumstance brings a cultural element into the discussion, as I said. It bears talking about.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Spiro
I have seen it ALL with my own eyes. Yes, I will now take my fathers route of medicinal over chemo. Chemo kills at an alarming rate. And yes, this does have something to do with the content of the topic at hand. Cheers

With all due respect, one does not know until it comes knocking on their own door. Been there, done that. Got not t-shirt...got the tat instead. I understand your feelings, and I'm sorry for you and yours for being put through this crap.

But there are innumerable threads here that discuss allopathic vs alternative treatments. This circumstance brings a cultural element into the discussion, as I said. It bears talking about.

Thank you for your kind words, I greatly appreciate it indeed.

If and when it comes knocking at my door I will be well educated to know which therapy to take, and it won't be Chemo.

I hope that makes better sense?

Anyway, bedtime. Ill catch up with you in the morning

Cheers

Spiro

Their community, nation, is doing what all of us should be doing all the time. Standing up for each other. Whole communities and blocks of hundreds, thousands, looking out for each other and physically preventing tragedies from taking place.

I don't know what to say about the chemo in a situation where a child doesnt request it stop in so intelligent and lucid a manner, but I do know that when someone is having complications and taking a turn for the worse and coherently request it stop, it must stop.

Nor should that just be the doctors or government's decision.

a reply to: Shepard64

This thread has me damn near in tears.

My daughter died a few short months ago from cancer. She was 23 years old and a young mother of 2. Because she had children she fought like hell for her life.

She did every single thing the doctors suggested. She went through Chemo and Radiation which made her so sick and the radiation did lots of damage to her insides because they gave her internal radiation.

By the time we found out the cancer had metastasized she had been so sick for so long she had stopped even wanting to fight. She said she could not remember anymore being healthy, and she was tired of being so sick she couldn't leave the hospital. She spent more of her last 6 months inside a hospital room than outside, and the last 3 months she only went home for 1-1/2 weeks one time, and 3 days another.

Her cancer spreading and them allowing my daughter to die was a mercy by then.... she was done and couldn't fight anymore even without more cancer.

If this little girl in the news story wants to stop chemo - knowing full well her choices - then by God as human beings we need to let her choose for herself. Just because she is young does not mean someone / ANYONE has the right to force a child to go through such a hell against their will. If death is preferable to her... then by God leave this little one alone!

I would stand and fight for her right to say no.... I'm not a Canadian, I am American and I believe anyone should be able to stop treatment if they want to stop.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

And we do that, we consult our doctors and do what they say is best.

But what happens when someone says no more. If it were not for the fact that my daughter had two little ones she would have said no long before. This child wants to make a choice, its a very adult choice but its no one else's but hers to make... seriously.

They tried the chemo, and she couldn't handle it. She has the right, in my opinion to voice her own opinion and have her care the way she wants it.

Yes - she is young... but youth should not take away her right to say no more.

a reply to: GetHyped

Should another survey be conducted today, there’s a good chance the results would be even higher in favour of chemotherapy, given that over the years chemotherapy has shown enhanced clinical benefit and less side effects.

Mcgill?
thats not the study I quoted
and then as illustrated by the above quote
with guesswork like that you call me intellectually dishonest?