Study accidentally exposes chemotherapy as fraud - tumors grow faster after chemo!

reply to post by NeoVain


My mom got diagnosed with breast cancer last year. She has just finished chemo and radiation and is back to physical therapy, except now she's lost her vision mostly and has type 2 diabetes(she drinks a lot of diet soda though so I'm not sure she wouldn't have already gotten diabetes.) This article scares me because so many people have posted of deaths and my mommy isn't looking very well these days compared to before chemo and because it confirms my fears of chemo. I tried to get her to go all natural like how I've heard they do in Canada, but she refused.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
I do not believe that a cure for cancer will be hidden away because theres money to be made in failing treatments. It makes NO SENSE at all. Because if money was the important factor they would just charge as much for the cure as they get from all the ineffective treatment before you die.


That way they get the same cash and keep you alive to charge you for other treatments at a later time..

edit on 25-1-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

The truth is indeed hard to swallow for some. But even your logic is flawed: If they had the cure to cancer for cheap but would sell it expensive in order to get the same profits as a long-term chemo therapy yields, someone else would offer the cure cheaper. It´s called competition, just look at China.

You have to think outside the box to realize the truth sometimes, but it certainly does not help to stubbornly cling to a mindset of denial, like you seem to do. Deny ignorance.

That has been the experience of all my relatives on chemo. Afterwards, their immunes were shot and cancer came back with a vengeance.

It seems this is a hideous way to murder via torture serving dark side agendas, and generate enormous money for big pharma, in addition make the depopulation proponents very happy.

It doesn't matter whether you belive it or not. What I said above is *FACT*

How do YOU know it's the treatment that is working through any of the cancers history? YOU don't, at best it is a blind faith in a doctors word backed up with what you simply see on the surface.

Survival rates have increased because we diagnose more and more cellular dysfunctions as cancer and treat whether treatment is necessary or not.

96% of all cases of all cancers are self limiting. We just don't tell YOU guys that. We want your business.

Originally posted by missterror
reply to post by NeoVain

 

My mom got diagnosed with breast cancer last year. She has just finished chemo and radiation and is back to physical therapy, except now she's lost her vision mostly and has type 2 diabetes(she drinks a lot of diet soda though so I'm not sure she wouldn't have already gotten diabetes.) This article scares me because so many people have posted of deaths and my mommy isn't looking very well these days compared to before chemo and because it confirms my fears of chemo. I tried to get her to go all natural like how I've heard they do in Canada, but she refused.

You are not the only one scared of the truth of the matter, i imagine anyone that is undergoing Chemo-Therapy treatment or know someone that does are hopeful it will work and yield positive results and therefore will try to deny such a story as this as "fake" or "untrue".

Even if it is true.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


The treatments are much more cost effective for the cures than for their current chemo, radiation and drugs.

It involves frequency. And some nutrients found in common things, as well.

reply to post by Labrat3162

96% of all cases of all cancers are self limiting. We just don't tell YOU guys that. We want your business.

Just to clarify, this means they are non-fatal or just will cure themselves/stop growing after awhile and be no real danger to the patient if left untreated, right?

reply to post by woogleuk


The Alternative is little or no side effects.
-
www.youtube.com...

I had two kinds of breast cancer, one was agressive. I had a tiny hard lump and a much bigger mass. Had chemo before and after surgery which shrunk the mass down to nothing or almost nothing, and then radiation.

I am now cancer free.

reply to post by XLR8R


You forgot death, agonising lights out death.

Chemotherapy may not be perfect, but if it saves lives, then the side effects are surely worth it?

Not all chemo therapy is the same and neither are cancer cells. My brother would be dead today if not for chemo thearpy. He is now going through a procedure to remove the finale tumors that are in his liver after having dicovered he had cancer at stage 4 in multiple organs that are all now gone aftr starting chemo. I am sure some treatments hurt some people have specific types of cancer cells but it is wrong to tell people chemo is fraud.

Thank you OP for bringing this to our attention. I just did a google search and this isn't the only article that suggests the massive reproduction of cancer cells after the chemo kills it off. It almost appears as if the cancer cells play "possum" then comes back with a vengeance!

Cancer is not something that is gender or race orientated, we all produce cancer cells everyday, thanks to our immune system we can fight back, that is why our immune system is so important, that is one of the reasons chemo is so dangerous it damage the body ability to fight back after treatment for a long time, sometimes for ever causing some people to die later on with chemo related problems.

While others just recover their immune system fast and have not complications.

In todays environment our immune system is bombarded with all kind of dangers and when it gets overloaded that is when cancer proliferates this is happening now too often, making cancer now almost an epidemic.

Sad but truth, that is why anybody from strong to weak can get cancer this days it doesn't matter, cancer is always present.

Originally posted by Night Star
I had two kinds of breast cancer, one was agressive. I had a tiny hard lump and a much bigger mass. Had chemo before and after surgery which shrunk the mass down to nothing or almost nothing, and then radiation.

I am now cancer free.

How long ago was this? less than 4 years ago?

From what i understand, the problem with Chemo is that the cancer, even if "cured" by it, will resurface a few years later only this time, it will be more resistant to further treatments as well as be more agressive/faster spreading.

Thats basically what the article in my OP says, anyway. That is the the purpose of the entire thread.

reply to post by Labrat3162

*FACT* There is no clinical evidence to support the claim that conventional methods of treatment of cancer are of any benefit to the patient.

Really? I should try that sometime.

*FACT* Unicorn farts cure cancer

Originally posted by NeoVain

Originally posted by Night Star
I had two kinds of breast cancer, one was agressive. I had a tiny hard lump and a much bigger mass. Had chemo before and after surgery which shrunk the mass down to nothing or almost nothing, and then radiation.

I am now cancer free.

How long ago was this? less than 4 years ago?

From what i understand, the problem with Chemo is that the cancer, even if "cured" by it, will resurface a few years later only this time, it will be more resistant to further treatments as well as be more agressive/faster spreading.

Thats basically what the article in my OP says, anyway. That is the the purpose of the entire thread.

Not really, to be "cured" you have to be cancer free for an extended period of time.

my husband, mr research didn't even get the chance to do chemo. He was always so healthy, the healthest of eveyone in our age group. we never smoked cigs or did drugs, he would have a glass of beer after work. he was always normal weight (walked home from the train regularly) and walked up 4 flights of stairs like it was nothing for the first appointment.


they thought he had a kidney stone but nothing showed on the scan so they did another one with the injected dye, he had a tiny spot on his kidney, surgery was planned for the of the first week of dec. the kidney and 1 lymphnode would be removed(if the lymph was clear no cheom or other treatment would be needed .(we were assured this was not life threatening) sudden pain incereased he ended up in the hospital and needed a stent so the urine would drain.

surgery was moved up to the end of nov. kidney and ureter removed. He looked so good afterwards. They
kept saying they got everything they could see, no cancer cells in the blood or urine. went in for the follow up, got the staples out. didn't know if mr research would need chemo or not, Told us to follow up with the oncologist,

the day we were to see the oncologist started out with that horrible school shooting in conneticut, then we saw the oncologist, let this be a lesson to you, they pass the buck to the oncologist, they get to tell you whats really going on

stage 4, no cure maybe chemo in 6 weeks but he needs to gain some weight first, I was so stunned, nobody prepared us for this. He died about 4 weeks later, the cancer had spread everywhere really fast.

they said this cancer is not genetic, but oocupational, that because his parents smoked in the '50's this caused him to have cancer now....all the parents of that generation smoked (have you seen the crazy cigarette ads from back then) are we all going to get cancer???

life is not fair and this can happen to the healthest, everything seems fine and then everything changes in an instant.

My husband wanted to be a organ donor and was signed up to do so, I didn't think he could donate anything, but they said his corneas would still be good and we could give the gift of sight to 2 people! something good to come out of this tragedy.

Originally posted by RandyBragg

Originally posted by NeoVain

Originally posted by Night Star
I had two kinds of breast cancer, one was agressive. I had a tiny hard lump and a much bigger mass. Had chemo before and after surgery which shrunk the mass down to nothing or almost nothing, and then radiation.

I am now cancer free.

How long ago was this? less than 4 years ago?

From what i understand, the problem with Chemo is that the cancer, even if "cured" by it, will resurface a few years later only this time, it will be more resistant to further treatments as well as be more agressive/faster spreading.

Thats basically what the article in my OP says, anyway. That is the the purpose of the entire thread.

Not really, to be "cured" you have to be cancer free for an extended period of time.

That is how it was with my second wife. She was cancer free for almost four years after surgery, chemo and radiation before it came back with a vengeance. When that happens it is almost always worse the second time around as the surviving cancer cells, like germs that survived antibiotics, are more able to resist treatment.

reply to post by research100


One of my best friends had a similar experience. He thought he might have a little kidney infection or maybe a small stone so he went to see his doctor. It turns out that he had such an aggressive form of cancer that he was gone in less than two weeks from the diagnosis. It was so sudden and fast growing that he never had a chance to have any type of therapy.

Kinda makes one glad to still be here and in reasonably good health. But you just never know when the grim reaper will come for you.

reply to post by RandyBragg


It took my father cancer to come back 13 year later. He was never told that he was cured after treatment just that his cancer was in recession.