Device destroys cancer in fifteen minutes

This is truly amazing news ! Hopefully this actually makes it's way in, and isn't suppressed or made to expensive for the average person to afford...

reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel


The efficacy of this is not proven. See below:


San Diego Gamma Knife Center

Re: NY Times article: www.nytimes.com...

Response from Kenneth Ott, MD, and David Hodgens, MD

January 4, 2011
Editor
New York Times
Dear Sirs:

Thank you for the excellent article pointing out the risks associated with radiosurgery performed on equipment that is not dedicated to that purpose, and that is often a hybrid created with one company’s hardware driven by another company’s software, and then purchased by administrators that want to compete on the cheap.

As the Medical Directors of the San Diego Gamma Knife Center, the potential for exactly the type of complication described in the article is what compelled us, in 1994, to demand a treatment unit dedicated solely to brain radiosurgery, and we have operated a modern Gamma Knife Center in the San Diego area ever since, performing more than 3,000 procedures.

Radiosurgery is strong medicine. We have seen it do wondrous good, but it has the potential to do life and limb threatening harm. It is scalpel in the hands of some, or a dangerous, sharp knife in the hands of others. As this technique has evolved outside the brain over the past twenty-five years, we have continued to advocate the use of dedicated equipment, and thus use a CyberKnife unit for extra-cranial radiosurgery. With equipment, staff, and physicians dedicated to doing only one thing, the risk of human error, lapse of oversight, or incompatible computer technologies is either eliminated or greatly reduced, and the treatment is inherently safer, and in our opinion, more effective for the patient.

Your article illuminates a real problem in our field, and should push our colleagues in radiosurgery (before they are pushed by regulatory bodies) to have second thoughts about performing radiosurgery using what amount to modified, hybridized linear accelerators, and to consider doing what is ultimately best for patients—the utilization of dedicated radiosurgical devices like the Gamma Knife and CyberKnife.

Yours Sincerely,

Kenneth H. Ott M.D. David W. Hodgens, M.D.

December 28, 2010

reply to post by AnnunakiRageTheChosenPeop


It is very good treatment. The efficiacy of chemotherapy is greatly questioned. My relatives died with that treatment, did their immune systems in.

The whole idea of so many negative posts seem to me that Obama care does not want to invest in this, would rather you morgaged every last penny you had in an effort to stay alive in the last frew months/weeks before dying, and relieving this bloodine focus on overpopulation, and at the same time, does not want people to find cures for this disease anyway.

Cancer makes these annanuki's a lot of bucks!

reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel

If this is successful, I see it fading into background noise, an orchestrated vanishing act. Years later, we'll be looking back, asking ourselvs, "Wasn't there some kind of special 'radiation gun' that could specifically target tumors?"

The reason? CANCER IS TOO PROFITABLE FOR BIG PHARMA AND THE MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS TO CURE. Once cancer is cured, a LOT of rich people are out of a job.

Cancer treatment = hundreds of BILLIONS of $$$.

I feel sorry for the researchers in the past who have discovered cures, most of them natural and appearing in nature. Those people have... vanished. The lucky ones were probably paid-off. The unlucky ones who weren't "vanished" were ridiculed and thrown into jail for making false (charlatan-like) claims.

Originally posted by AnnunakiRageTheChosenPeop
reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel

 

The efficacy of this is not proven. See below:


San Diego Gamma Knife Center

Re: NY Times article: www.nytimes.com...

Response from Kenneth Ott, MD, and David Hodgens, MD

January 4, 2011
Editor
New York Times
Dear Sirs:

Thank you for the excellent article pointing out the risks associated with radiosurgery performed on equipment that is not dedicated to that purpose, and that is often a hybrid created with one company’s hardware driven by another company’s software, and then purchased by administrators that want to compete on the cheap.

As the Medical Directors of the San Diego Gamma Knife Center, the potential for exactly the type of complication described in the article is what compelled us, in 1994, to demand a treatment unit dedicated solely to brain radiosurgery, and we have operated a modern Gamma Knife Center in the San Diego area ever since, performing more than 3,000 procedures.

Radiosurgery is strong medicine. We have seen it do wondrous good, but it has the potential to do life and limb threatening harm. It is scalpel in the hands of some, or a dangerous, sharp knife in the hands of others. As this technique has evolved outside the brain over the past twenty-five years, we have continued to advocate the use of dedicated equipment, and thus use a CyberKnife unit for extra-cranial radiosurgery. With equipment, staff, and physicians dedicated to doing only one thing, the risk of human error, lapse of oversight, or incompatible computer technologies is either eliminated or greatly reduced, and the treatment is inherently safer, and in our opinion, more effective for the patient.

Your article illuminates a real problem in our field, and should push our colleagues in radiosurgery (before they are pushed by regulatory bodies) to have second thoughts about performing radiosurgery using what amount to modified, hybridized linear accelerators, and to consider doing what is ultimately best for patients—the utilization of dedicated radiosurgical devices like the Gamma Knife and CyberKnife.

Yours Sincerely,

Kenneth H. Ott M.D. David W. Hodgens, M.D.

December 28, 2010

your NY times article link is broken.....

And the reply email only talks about the dangers of not using the proper equipment , or hardware, or combination of the two ....

there are risks with anything in life .....

i suppose the big questions are ...

does it do more harm than good?

what are the odds?

if it uses radiation, does that give potential to more cancer? the target might be destroyed but three more might pop up. just a thought

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel
reply to post by TechVampyre

 

Why would the Government do that??

This machine would save them millions if not billions in health care .. surgery times .. waiting lists etc ....

I wouldn't worry about Big Pharma either .... there will always be something new to cure and make tons of cash from.

Simple answer here, the govt doesn't care if they save a nickle or not, it's the Banks they worry about, think of the Billions the Banks have invested in facilities supporting Cancer Research, the Cancer Treatment Centers, and last but not least the highly paid Doctors and Nurses, do you think the Banks want the former to go Bankrupt? Do you think the Govt will allow the Bankers to lose this kind of money, the Bankers Rule, just follow the money trail. The only way out is to make this treatment pricey, buy off the FDA and AMA, whatever they do they're not going to allow the Bankers to take the pipe on this one.

Quantum squirrel:

Thank you for being educated!!!! I was beginning to think this forum is just full of nuts/ignorant people.

This technology is just improved cyberknife. Just because you have not heard of a treatment does not mean there is a boogie man trying to get you.

Wayne State, part of the DMC complex, in detroit is planning on building one, company I work (electrical) for is bidding the job right now as we speak. so this is happening right now.

Impressive if its for real. But like many times before ive seen new cures to cancer.
Seems cancer might be as easy to remove as some other diseases within our lifespand... Just to bad the "bad guys" is keeping things like this away from people's attention :´(

reply to post by AnnunakiRageTheChosenPeop


I remember when Cyberknife was pretty new, it hadn't been around too long when I had the treatment, and San Diego Gamma Knife felt it was not as good as the Gamma Knife, since they didn't have a CK. I guess they got one since then, probably because unlike Gamma, it's not limited to the head. It really is a futuristic treatment, feels like Star Trek...you lay on a flat board, bolted down to it by pretty much a hockey mask...you're in a room with radiation signs all over, that the techs all evacuate like they're gonna test a nuke in there with you. For about 45 minutes this giant robotic head with a staring eye circles around you, stopping and buzzing when it's delivering the radiation. It can get pretty freaky, escpecially if you get claustrophobia, or have a fear of robots. You don't feel anything, until about an hour after the treatment, the first day it felt like a hammer hit me in the head, but the 2 other days i took ibuprofen and that stopped the pain.

sounds good and all but i been on this planet long enough to know there's no such thing as a cure to a profitable disease. let's find a cure for greed first, shall we ?

Technology appears to be helpful in preventative care, if not the cure for mankind's ills. I would hope someday such medical intervention would be more cost effective for those lives who could benefit from what appears to be hope after all.

They are beginning to see that a sick society is not as profitable as they once thought. Perhaps the giant gods of finance and social engineering are beginning to recover from their delusions.

This kind of healing technology is only the tip of the iceberg.

. Cancer is caused by an overload of white cell's that attack GOOD and BAD cells. that is the problem with treating Cancer. Radiotherapy is used to treat the lowest form of cancer cells. Radiotherapy is used to treat cancer in its earliest forms. The only CURE are nano bots that can individualize bad cells from good cells.

Quoting
posted on 11-2-2011 @ 11:35 PM this post
. Cancer is caused by an overload of white cell's that attack GOOD and BAD cells. that is the problem with treating Cancer. Radiotherapy is used to treat the lowest form of cancer cells. Radiotherapy is used to treat cancer in its earliest forms. The only CURE are nano bots that can individualize bad cells from good cells.

Greetings,
I'm afraid you have little knowledge of what is really happening. You need to review the work of "Royal Rife". Search rife.org.
He developed equipment that killed cancer cells. Was tested on 14 terminal cancer patients, at UCLA, and all recovered. I've been using the technology for over 4 years. Very effective on my pneumonia, arthritis, flu, colds, etc. High tech isn't always best. It only makes big bucks for the rich.

There is a already an hemp oild medicine that people have reported to cure their cancer and other problems.

The guy behind this doesn't ask for money and even teaches how to do it in his website so I guess it can be legit, also in the facebook page there are allot of people reporting that he literally saved their loved ones.

He says he tried to spread the word in the medical community but it was immediately shut down.

Article on him by hightimes: hightimes.com...

The facebook page: www.facebook.com...

Video/documentary: www.youtube.com...

His page: phoenixtears.ca...

What do you think of this ?

reply to post by reverandrandy

Its the "15 minute" thing that gets me...does everything have to be done in 30-minutes-or-less in order to be good enough for the masses?

The fifteen-minute claim appears to be journalistic hyperbole. On the original blog page, there's a comment from a radiotherapist saying 60-90 minutes is about the time required for one intervention.

I beleive it. I've had doctors adamantly tell me that cancer and diabetes are fully curable but the system just generates too much revenue from treatments and drugs...and the drugs to help with those drugs' side effects.

Anything beats chemotherapy...