Radiation From Chemo "therapy" line removed from Chart by Big Business -

A website which presents information appears to have been got at by its sponsors.

One day a line for chemotherapy radiation was there the next day it was gone!

"As I read down the chart, things got really interesting. View the chart yourself here:
www.naturalnews.com...

• 2,000 mSv Severe radiation poisoning
bve• 4,000 mSv Extremely severe dose - survival possible
• 5,000 mSv Extremely severe radiation dose - high chance of fatality
• 6,000 mSv Usually fatal dose
• 10,000 mSv Fatal dose

And then, right there on the chart, the very next line was a huge eye-opener, because it said:

• 20,000 mSv Highly targeted dose used in cancer radiotherapy".

link:-

www.naturalnews.com...

BEFORE www.naturalnews.com...

AFTER www.informationisbeautiful.net...

The 20,000 mSv cancer radiotherapy line had been removed from the chart.

Did you see censorship?

I urge everyone to save the chart and spread it around.

This shows why corporate culture and entities with their power to censor are so dangerous.

reply to post by beckybecky


Lol I spent 5 minutes trying to understand why you were saying it was removed from Natural News lol, you might want to be clear in stating the website you are saying modified the chart. Natural news does have some follow information in their attempt to get an answer as to why this was removed and found a link to GE.

Very interesting read, it wouldnt surprise me if its all part of the Big Pharma scam thats taken over the medical industry worldwide, one of my mothers close friends is soon to be undergoing chemo'therapy'(poisioning) for cancer of the (excuse my use of phonetics) O-soff-o-guus, after reading this i would strongly advise him not to, But who am i to tell him this supposed 'cure' is a fake and will make things worse.

Its all so well orchestrated its almost like we cant do anything...

reply to post by Vanishr


GE is a very prominent provider of medical equipment. Perhaps they fear the 'economic impact' of the truth about radiation as a medical 'tool.' Maybe their days of selling biologically-destructive energy beams are numbered. Or perhaps the ability to use it medicinally is too difficult to explain to 'regular' people who just want to live with less risk.

I know, exactly, what you are saying!! My mother was Dx with Pancreatic Cancer last June. She chose to have surgery (Whipple Procedure) but refused any chemo or radiation because she has watched others literally die from those treatments!!

I believe that chemo/radiation kills more people than the actual cancer does - so does Mom. So, we back her up 100%. I, also, believe the Cancer Center is not happy because Mom refuses these treatments. As her caretaker, I support that. Since I care for her, I will make sure she does not suffer and has some good days before it is time for her to go.

I, also, believe that everyone will get some type of cancer - if they live long enough for it to form. Mom is 77. But they make a fortune with these treatments!! It is crazy ALL the people that come into the Cancer Center here. I have no reason to believe it is any different in any other Cancer Centers.

Mom just wants to live her life until her God is ready for her........and suffer as little as possible. Chemo?? Most suffer from it. So, basically, they are not making a mint off of Mom. But I still demand help from doctor if she is sick or needs something. He said ok with that and has been accomodating
.
But, on topic, I see and I understand. And, have for many years................

First off, this article is talking about radiotherapy, or treatment with radiation, and not chemotherapy, or treatment with chemicals, as your title says.

A Sievert is a measure of equivalent dose received. It's not the unit used when talking about radiotherapy, where the Gray, a unit of absorbed radiation is used. For instance, a 20 Gy dose of radiation to the gonads would be only 1.6 Sv of dose received. Also, radiotherapy is fractionated, meaning that the doses being talked about are not delivered all at once. They are broken up over a number of treatments. For instance, the 20 Gy exposure to the gonads may be broken up over 10 treatments over 2 weeks. This would be an equivalent dose of only 160 mSv per treatment.

If the chart was updated, it seems likely to be because the author was using the wrong units.

Originally posted by beckybecky
"As I read down the chart, things got really interesting. View the chart yourself here:
www.naturalnews.com...

• 2,000 mSv Severe radiation poisoning
bve• 4,000 mSv Extremely severe dose - survival possible
• 5,000 mSv Extremely severe radiation dose - high chance of fatality
• 6,000 mSv Usually fatal dose
• 10,000 mSv Fatal dose

And then, right there on the chart, the very next line was a huge eye-opener, because it said:

• 20,000 mSv Highly targeted dose used in cancer radiotherapy".

It could be misleading if presented that way, and in fact your link indeed misinterprets the significance of the number:

Okay, so wait a minute. A dose of 10,000 is fatal, yet the cancer industry uses twice that dose to "treat" cancer? I knew cancer radiation treatments were barbaric, but I never knew they were twice the amount considered absolutely fatal.

The numbers listed refer to dosages received by the entire body. So indeed to receive 20,000 mSv to the entire body would be fatal.

However the radiation is targeted at the part of the body that you WANT to have die, the cancerous part. So that's really the whole idea of the treatment, to kill the cancer cells, so you want it to be fatal to the cancer cells. It probably kills some nearby healthy cells too but if they target the radiation carefully it won't be too many, but certainly the treatment can have side effects.

If you're trying to kill cancer cells, and you give them a dosage that's not fatal, that won't kill them, That would be pretty stupid, right? So of course you have to give them a fatal dose to kill them, that's just common sense, something which the author of that naturalnews article is lacking when they say:

The cancer industry, after all, doesn't want people knowing the simple truth that cancer radiotherapy involves a fatal dose of radiation.

The implication being that it's fatal to the person getting treatment when it's not. In reality, it's fatal to the cancer cells, and that's a good thing, right?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


you do realize radiation causes cancer?

also the 10000 figure is a lot less then the actual of 30000 to 80000 millisieverts.

chemotherapy drugs have cancer as a side effect? e.g tamoxifan.

chemo has very poor success rate .less then 5% over 5 years which is within the margin of error.

the lancet medical once reported more people of chemo then the actual cancer.

Originally posted by beckybecky
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

you do realize radiation causes cancer?

I am a former radiation worker who was licensed to handle radioactive materials, and I wore a radiation badge to monitor my exposure. Yes, I'm well aware of the increased risk of cancer, and no, radiation doesn't cause cancer because even though I was exposed to more radiation than the average person, I don't have cancer. It increases the risk of cancer, it doesn't cause it. There's a difference. More info here:
www.phyast.pitt.edu...

chemotherapy drugs have cancer as a side effect? e.g tamoxifan.

chemo has very poor success rate .less then 5% over 5 years which is within the margin of error.

You're confusing chemotherapy with radiotherapy and I notice you haven't corrected the title yet:

Originally posted by nataylor
First off, this article is talking about radiotherapy, or treatment with radiation, and not chemotherapy, or treatment with chemicals, as your title says.

natataylor is right, they are two different things.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Until now, residents have been advised to leave the area around the plant, which has been leaking radioactivity into the atmosphere and the sea after being damaged in the March 11 earthquake and tsunami. Anyone approaching the zone has been informed by emergency teams in protective clothing of the dangers of continuing their journey.

But from midnight, no one will be allowed in. Japan: area around Fukushima declared a no-go zone

You should the backward japanese that then......"It increases the risk of cancer, it doesn't cause it".

and send a message to the families of the ones who are dying from radiation just tell them "It increases the risk of cancer, it doesn't cause it"

They will be so relieved with your superior knowledge.

OK.

we believe you.

Tell the japanese that.

Originally posted by beckybecky
You should the backward japanese that then......"It increases the risk of cancer, it doesn't cause it".

and send a message to the families of the ones who are dying from radiation just tell them "It increases the risk of cancer, it doesn't cause it"

Who is dying from radiation in Japan? Not one person yet that I'm aware of, though I'm sure some of the nuclear plant workers will eventually contract cancer. Some of them are getting unacceptably high doses of radiation. However even with those high doses, I don't expect all of them to get cancer, some will and some won't.

I do indeed think the Japanese were backward to ignore all of the markers planted all over the area showing the tsunami could reach heights of 127 feet inland, yet they built such low tsunami walls around the nuclear plant, and built so many homes in the tsunami prone areas.

www.nytimes.com...

That does warrant the label you gave them of "backwards" but stupidly building in dangerous areas is done in many countries, not just Japan.

However their evacuation seems appropriate. They ordered that to lower the cancer risk to acceptable levels. I can offer them advice about how to build safer nuclear plants and houses at higher elevations in the future to avoid the tsunami risk. But I have no suggestions for improvement over their current evacuation plan around Fukushima.

So have you figured out the difference between chemotherapy and radiotherapy yet?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by beckybecky
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

you do realize radiation causes cancer?

I am a former radiation worker who was licensed to handle radioactive materials, and I wore a radiation badge to monitor my exposure. Yes, I'm well aware of the increased risk of cancer, and no, radiation doesn't cause cancer because even though I was exposed to more radiation than the average person, I don't have cancer.

Obviously a "radiation worker" is not qualified in radiation safety. If you had studied radiation safety prior to handling radioactive materials, as I did, you would know that radiation causes DNA and cellular mutations, and cancer is one of the most common outcomes of such mutations. Also, you would know from case studies of nuclear accidents, such as Chernobyl, that cancers developed over a period of time after the exposure due primarily to radiative particulate in food sources. You would also know that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) states that there is "no safe level of ionizing radiation." Finally, the NRC also states that the lethal full-body dose is actually about half (4-5000 mSv) of what was posted. www.nrc.gov...

It increases the risk of cancer, it doesn't cause it. There's a difference. More info here:
www.phyast.pitt.edu...

Had you actually read your own link, you would have caught this vital fact: "however, chemotherapy, which also causes cancer, is an important complication here. There is information on patients treated with radiation for cancer of the ovaries, breast, and other organs who survived to develop other cancers from that radiation." I rest my case with your own source.

chemotherapy drugs have cancer as a side effect? e.g tamoxifan.

chemo has very poor success rate .less then 5% over 5 years which is within the margin of error.

You're confusing chemotherapy with radiotherapy and I notice you haven't corrected the title yet:

Originally posted by nataylor
First off, this article is talking about radiotherapy, or treatment with radiation, and not chemotherapy, or treatment with chemicals, as your title says.

natataylor is right, they are two different things.