Re: Cervical cancer

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Peter Moran, Apr 28, 2004.

  1. Peter Moran

    Peter Moran Guest

    "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > You should find out what is the most effective treatment for your

    condition,
    > then be wondering why you have a cervix! *sorry couldn't resist*
    > When and if the condition tends to cancer, in which case it becomes
    > incurable in mainstream,


    Why this, Anth? You should know by now that the cure rate of cervical
    cancer (i.e. established cancer) is quite high if it is found before it has
    spread beyond the cervix, which it should mostly be if women are paying
    attention..

    It is an alt, trait to think of cancer as "cancer". It is actually a myriad
    of different types, stages and grades. It is mainly metastatic cancer that
    is difficult to treat, and cures are now being obtained with certain
    examples of that such as lymphoma, testicular cancer and most childhood
    cancers..

    >then you start looking for treatments that might
    > help, with shreds of evidence behind them.
    > As for the incurable case , Personally I would go for full on Gerson,
    > proteolytic enzymes and vitamin A emulsion, and just to piss my doctor off
    > some Laetrile added in also.


    Have you tried the full Gerson regime, Anth? I suspect it only seems as
    though you are living longer, from all reports. All those coffee enemata!!

    Peter Moran
    > Anth
     
    Tags:


  2. Anth

    Anth Guest

    "Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]orks.com.au...
    >
    > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > You should find out what is the most effective treatment for your

    > condition,
    > > then be wondering why you have a cervix! *sorry couldn't resist*
    > > When and if the condition tends to cancer, in which case it becomes
    > > incurable in mainstream,

    >
    > Why this, Anth? You should know by now that the cure rate of cervical
    > cancer (i.e. established cancer) is quite high if it is found before it

    has
    > spread beyond the cervix, which it should mostly be if women are paying
    > attention..


    Yeah but it can and does become incurable under mainstream, in which case
    you will be offered palliative care, which personally would not take.
    I would fight to survive.
    For instance if I had inoperable cancer, took Coley's, reduced this down to
    operable, then I could resort back to mainstream for help.

    > It is an alt, trait to think of cancer as "cancer". It is actually a

    myriad
    > of different types, stages and grades. It is mainly metastatic cancer

    that
    > is difficult to treat, and cures are now being obtained with certain
    > examples of that such as lymphoma, testicular cancer and most childhood
    > cancers..


    Of course yes I am aware some different grades of cancer and how this
    effects the prognosis.

    > >then you start looking for treatments that might
    > > help, with shreds of evidence behind them.
    > > As for the incurable case , Personally I would go for full on Gerson,
    > > proteolytic enzymes and vitamin A emulsion, and just to piss my doctor

    off
    > > some Laetrile added in also.

    >
    > Have you tried the full Gerson regime, Anth? I suspect it only seems as
    > though you are living longer, from all reports. All those coffee

    enemata!!

    Actually I've tried Gerson (without the enemas) and I do now consume juices
    on a regular basis - Gerson was a very boring and time consuming chore to
    say the least but I hacked it.
    I also started taking vitamin c and my borderline blood pressure took a nose
    dive to textbook perfect. As a whole I don't feel any different and I am a
    little fatter.
    I have also spoken to people who are on the Gerson diet and have been for
    many years.
    One woman I spoke to had debulking (surgery) for stage III ovarian cancer
    and and alive and well on Gerson many years after her diagonosis.
    (Of course you would say that she was probably cured by surgery etc)

    Why did the Gerson study at the OASIS have so many survivors in stage 1,2,3
    melanoma?

    > Peter Moran


    Anth
     
  3. Peter Moran

    Peter Moran Guest

    "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:D[email protected]
    > "Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >

    news:[email protected]orks.com.au...
    > >
    > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > > > You should find out what is the most effective treatment for your

    > > condition,
    > > > then be wondering why you have a cervix! *sorry couldn't resist*
    > > > When and if the condition tends to cancer, in which case it becomes
    > > > incurable in mainstream,

    > >
    > > Why this, Anth? You should know by now that the cure rate of cervical
    > > cancer (i.e. established cancer) is quite high if it is found before it

    > has
    > > spread beyond the cervix, which it should mostly be if women are paying
    > > attention..

    >
    > Yeah but it can and does become incurable under mainstream, in which case
    > you will be offered palliative care, which personally would not take.




    > I would fight to survive.
    > For instance if I had inoperable cancer, took Coley's, reduced this down

    to
    > operable, then I could resort back to mainstream for help.
    >
    > > It is an alt, trait to think of cancer as "cancer". It is actually a

    > myriad
    > > of different types, stages and grades. It is mainly metastatic cancer

    > that
    > > is difficult to treat, and cures are now being obtained with certain
    > > examples of that such as lymphoma, testicular cancer and most childhood
    > > cancers..

    >
    > Of course yes I am aware some different grades of cancer and how this
    > effects the prognosis.
    >
    > > >then you start looking for treatments that might
    > > > help, with shreds of evidence behind them.
    > > > As for the incurable case , Personally I would go for full on Gerson,
    > > > proteolytic enzymes and vitamin A emulsion, and just to piss my doctor

    > off
    > > > some Laetrile added in also.

    > >
    > > Have you tried the full Gerson regime, Anth? I suspect it only seems as
    > > though you are living longer, from all reports. All those coffee

    > enemata!!
    >
    > Actually I've tried Gerson (without the enemas) and I do now consume

    juices
    > on a regular basis - Gerson was a very boring and time consuming chore to
    > say the least but I hacked it.
    > I also started taking vitamin c and my borderline blood pressure took a

    nose
    > dive to textbook perfect. As a whole I don't feel any different and I am a
    > little fatter.
    > I have also spoken to people who are on the Gerson diet and have been for
    > many years.
    > One woman I spoke to had debulking (surgery) for stage III ovarian cancer
    > and and alive and well on Gerson many years after her diagonosis.
    > (Of course you would say that she was probably cured by surgery etc)
    >
    > Why did the Gerson study at the OASIS have so many survivors in stage

    1,2,3
    > melanoma?


    1. They included small numbers of level 1 and some early level 2 melanomata
    which have an excellent prognosis with simple excision. Bad decision, as
    it calls into question the rigour with which staging has been performed.

    2. Their follow-up was poor. From memory about a fifth of their patients
    were lost to follow-up. If most of the lost patieints died that would
    completely change their figures.

    3. The numbers in most groups are too small to be statistically significant.

    4. If you take out eleven survivors who had excellent prognoses the results
    don't look that good when there were no survivors in over eighty patients
    with more advanced stages of melanoma.

    4. They chose melanoma because they thought their results were quite good
    with that. I don't think they are particularly good.

    Retrospective studies like this are always unconvincing. They should
    concentrate on producing a series of patients with measurable cancer who
    show a measurable rate of clear cut cancer remission. Too high a hurdle?
    Bullshit. That is what their testimonials promise to cancer patients.


    Peter Moran




    >
    > > Peter Moran

    >
    > Anth
    >
    >
     
Loading...