Re: Cat Scan and chest x-ray radiation exposure

June 4, 2010

Just to be clear about . He is extremely knowledgeable and he is not

using conventional treatment because of " someone's experience " or because

someone promoted it. In fact, he has said that he is aware of some of the

chances that are taken when using certain chemotherapies. 99% of people do not

have the knowledge that he has and when doing conventional treatment rely on

what the doctor says as gospel.

Being a naturopath, I do not like most pharmaceutical, but that doesnâ€™t mean

they should never be used. does promote a lot of effective alternatives

and he does not like the antics of conventional cancer treatment any more than

most on this list.

It is *not* about poo-pooing all traditional cancer treatments, but about

" warning " about what effects they can really have on the body. It is or should

be about " promoting " natural and non-toxic ways to deal with cancer.

Be Well

Dr.L

-----Original Message-----

Just to be clear, ar, there most certainly are posters on this forum who promote

conventional cancer protocols/medicines. V. Gammill for one and used it for his

own cancer which of course was his right but just as we should not poo poo all

traditional cancer treatments we should also not discourage all alternatives

either.

JFYI

Sandy

June 4, 2010

As for no posts promoting Conventional medicine or Diagnostic tools, On the

contrary, I have been a member of this list since 2002 and there have been

subtle 'approvals' of swinging to Conventional not outright posts but those

comments that keep popping up. Most of the time they 'slip' through because

people are too busy in life to address every comment that arrives in our

mail-boxes. Honest discussion, is one thing but people frightened, searching,

do not need the " experiences " that fly in the face of the general consensus

because of subtle. The problem with 'Experiences' is that these experiences

may have no bearing on one's condition. People get well, or don't, in spite of

what they do and one's experience should be explained that way not as a 'proven'

result.

Some people, understanding the problems that reading comprehension, or the lack

of it can cause, color their comments accordingly and try not to endorse a

particular Conventional form of treatment or diagnosis. Loretta is perceptive

in this area and I try my best to understand what others are saying and

endorsing. Loretta is not the first person, nor am I, that have become

concerned because of the obvious. We all understand that from time to time all

of us write things that can be taken more than one way and it is good when

someone points that out. Fortunately not too many people give that apparent

'push

An example of endorsing, even Alternative tools, such as IPT can be over done.

While most might agree it has a place in therapy, most aware people understand

it is but a tool and more importantly, needs to be done by people that know what

they are doing. However there are some that would make this the Alternative

treatment of choice and pretty much preach it that way because of their personal

experience.

Perhaps the " tuning " of perceptions should be more a 'turning' of how some of

us might " push " what we believe has helped us especially if this supposed help

was Conventional because we really do not know whether or not what we are

pushing, really happened. Actually the same applies to Alternative except, and

it is a big 'except'. The list was formed and is still supposed to be

Alternative. Some of our members flirt with other lists, we know that but they

need to leave thoughts of conventional practices where they belong. It is

different when a practitioner reports how and when the use of conventional

practices might help and another when we endorse or appear to endorse something

because of our " experiences " .

Let us all examine what we write before pushing the 'send' button.

Joe C.

From: arlynsg

Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 5:53 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Cat Scan and chest x-ray radiation exposure

Dr. Loretta,

I have not read a single post on here that promotes conventional medicine. If

you perceive that honest discussion about experience is the same as promoting a

specific type of treatment, then your perception needs to be tuned a little

better.

ar

>

> When I first joined this group, it was not even about complimentary medicine

> although those that chose that route were fine to be here but they did not

> or were not allowed to continually advertise mammograms, scans, x-rays, etc.

> No one really discussed chemo and I guess it was because people who came

> here had found out that chemo/radiation are usually not effective for very

> long. As I indicated in my last post, I certainly agree everyone is

> absolutely responsible for their own health and their choices. What they are

> searching for is honest information and knowledge. However, it gets

> confusing when we see posts that seemingly promote mammograms, habitual

> conventional scans and x-rays, etc.

>

> If someone perceives that a post is being judgmental then possibly the post

> has hit a nerve with them....maybe even something that needs to be worked-on

> in their life. It is difficult to be " challenged " through email. We cannot

> always successfully read " intention " into most email so it really becomes

> the reader's responsibility as to " how " the post is read. If I've had a

> difficult day, I will read posts much differently than if my day has gone

> well. Or if a post hits a nerve, I can usually read it the next day deciding

> to give the poster the benefit of the doubt and then realize that my first

> " reading " was incorrect. If someone is not posting because of fear then

> they are allowing fear to control them.

>

> I do believe that " some " of the concerns on this group are with the

> moderators. For one thing they are secretive in that most members have no

> idea who the moderators are.....I had to finally ask. And because, since

> most don't know who the moderators are, the members have no idea if the

> moderators are participating or not. It helps to have the " presence " of the

> moderators. And the moderators should certainly be knowledgeable about and

> totally supportive of alternative/natural medicine. There should be no

> guessing of their intent or what they believe.

>

> I don't believe that anyone indicated that conventional medicine posts

> should be denied. However, the poster should absolutely be reminded what

> this list is about and the focus. On most forums that is the moderator's

> job. When a thread is started and someone jumps in promoting things that

> can be harmful then I do believe it should be brought to the attention of

> the group. Not having success with alternative medicine does not mean that

> conventional medicine should be the next choice; yet that is where a lot of

> people tend to run. There are all sorts of reasons that people don't have

> success with alternative medicine and a high-percentage of the time it is

> the patient's misunderstanding of protocol, practitioner who is not familiar

> with natural cancer protocols, not doing protocol militantly, not doing it

> long enough to allow the body to heal or not understanding " how " the body

> heals, reading " experts " on the internet that say alternative medicine

> doesn't work or is quackery, extensive previous use of conventional

> medicine, negativity from family members, no support base, etc.

>

> Most cancer patients are looking for survival. They want to get well and

> live. I understand that....I walked that path and had those exact feelings.

> However, future health must be looked at also when determining how to get

> well. How sad to be cured only to develop another cancer that is directly

> related to the toxicity of the first treatment. Conventional medicine

> doesn't warn patients about this possibility and sometimes neither do

> alternative practitioners. They work with " symptom relief " only and thus if

> there are no symptoms then one must be cured. Or on the other hand lab

> results and scans are relied on very heavily and thus a patient's entire

> emotional outlook is affected by what a piece of paper says. Labs, x-rays,

> scans -- all diagnostic testing is fallible and we need to understand that

> from the get-go. True, it may be all we have as far as measurement but it

> needs to be understood that false positives and false negatives do happen

> and biopsies, x-rays and scans can be read incorrectly. They tend to go up

> and go down leaving the person on an emotionally roller-coaster.

>

> Diet (raw or otherwise) alone almost never cures cancer (notice that I used

> the word " almost " ). Being " honor bound " to tell people not to rely solely

> on a raw food/vegetarian diet is fine; however, many times it has sounded

> like all alternatives are " suspect. " I am constantly amazed at those who

> have taken full responsibility and put together their own protocol and are

> getting great results! It's a lot of WORK to heal. Many people don't want to

> make necessary changes -- they want a protocol that is not an inconvenience

> so they can continue to live the lifestyle that made them sick in the first

> place. They are patted on the head by conventional medicine who tells them

> that the cancer they have has absolutely nothing to do with their actions or

> lifestyle. Honestly, that is a lie, but it's easy to believe because it lets

> the patient off the hook.

>

> I don't think anyone has indicated that alternative medicine works 100% of

> the time but certainly conventional medicine doesn't work but maybe even

> 3-6% of the time. That DOES need to be made clear. An " alternative

> lifestyle " and a well thought-out " alternative cancer protocol " are two

> extremely different things. I did so many modalities (which I was willing

> to do) that sometimes I even forget which ones I did. A very highly

> respected practitioner once told me that up to 85% of those with cancer do

> not have what it takes to get well. Hmmm....at first I thought that

> statement was just a " believable " excuse as to why some don't get well;

> however, I completely understand now. I have heard every excuse and whine

> under the sun as to " why " something can or cannot be accomplished while

> doing a natural protocol. I've had clients who want me to completely

> rewrite a protocol so they can fit it into their lifestyle/schedule.

> Instead of " what do I need to do to get well? " I hear " I just can't do

> that....is there another way? " What they are saying is " I will NOT do what

> it takes to get well. My current lifestyle is more important than my

> health. " More than anything, this is the reason people don't get well.

> They would rather go get chemo for 1-hour weekly or take a chemo pill than

> change the lifestyle that got them sick. I understand people don't like to

> hear this, but it is the truth. And, yes, absolutely it is THEIR choice.

>

> As was said, type of treatment is the cancer patient's choice. The example

> of the lady with breast cancer that " believed " (the important word) in her

> ND is not the best example. We don't know if she had chosen otherwise that

> she would have gotten well or even had extra time. What we do know is that

> she " believed " in her ND....this was HER choice. This is America and even

> though our health freedoms are on-the-line we still have a choice about our

> own treatment (for the most part). It's not ours to judge other's choices.

> Even though she died, she was doing what SHE thought best. We all have that

> choice and " what ifs " can absolute make you crazy.....if we live our lives

> with constant " what ifs " then we live in fear and fear paralyzes.

>

> Of course, we must be smart -- absolutely. There is no ONE cure-all for

> cancer (that is allowed on the market, anyway) -- not in conventional

> medicine and not in alternative medicine. So many times people are looking

> for THE pill, THE modality, THE supplement, THE practitioner, THE clinic,

> etc. that will cure them....this is the thinking of conventional medicine --

> here, take this pill. That is why I tell people to get both sides of the

> coin -- natural and conventional. Do your own research and don't blindly

> accept what anyone has to say without researching. However, I also suggest

> specific questions that they ask of conventional medicine because

> conventional medicine has a language of their own, when it comes to cancer

> treatment, that lay people do not always understand. Once people understand

> this then hopefully a good decision can be made. But, it's the people that

> sit across from me at stage IV and had had 50 rounds of chemo and radiated

> to within an inch of their life and say " I wish I would have known the truth

> about conventional medicine or Why didn't my doctor tell me that the

> treatment was only palliative? " that causes me to sigh. You see....they

> read a " forum " or listened to an aunt or uncle or family member or

> co-worker, etc. that knew of so-in-so who did chemotherapy/radiation and did

> quite well. We automatically assume that " quite well " means cured but that

> is almost never the case. What exactly does " quite well " mean? Does it mean

> they were cured? Does it mean they live in their easy chair in front of the

> TV? Does it mean they were given 3 more months or 5 years? What was/is

> their quality of life? When doing chemo one quickly realizes that quality

> of life IS important. Much of chemotherapy gives one NO quality of life and

> they endure this " treatment time " often to find out it has not worked and

> that their immune system is shot.

>

> As far as the " forum description paragraph " , the entire paragraph is talking

> about alternative medicine. The individual experience is more along

> alternative medicine or possibly why conventional didn't help or maybe did

> help but now alternative medicine is being considered. It is not about

> people coming on here and promoting conventional medicine. Or, if it is,

> then forum members need to know because that it not what it used to be and

> again, if things have changed then the list needs to be made aware. That's

> only fair.

>

> Personal experience is very important, but it is always anecdotal. Again,

> new members sharing an experience about conventional medicine one might (if

> one is praising it) be acceptable, I guess, but I don't think we should be

> praising conventional medicine treatment especially since results are

> usually dismal, at best. This group's purpose is not to convince, condone

> or sway someone toward conventional medicine or so I thought, anyway. I'm

> sure there are many forums that do just that and very effectively.

>

> Again, the intent of this email is concern and not attack. I know how

> difficult it is to moderate because I have been a moderator for ten years on

> a list that is not health related. But I do know that boundaries must be

> set otherwise you do get scammers and people who have agendas other than the

> purpose of the group. The moderators really need to be visible and they

> need to be the ones to " set the tone " and yes " moderate experience "

> otherwise it becomes a free-for-all and focus is lost. That is when

> knowledgeable people decide not to post. Certainly this forum is really

> needed but either the purpose paragraph needs to be re-written or the

> threads need to be focused on alternative medicine.

>

> Be Well

> Dr.L

>

> [ ] Re: Cat Scan and chest x-ray radiation exposure

>

> Dr. L,

>

> Since you directly addressed me in your post, I will respond.

>

> Many people come to this group because they want to learn more about

> alternative medicine, or, learn about complimentary medicine.

>

> The problems you see in this group have nothing to do with the moderators.

> If there were more people writing about alternative medicine then you would

> see those posts. Here's the deal - we have people asking questions and not

> too many people qualified to answer. Again, not the fault of the

> moderators. If you want to see more posts about alternative medicine, then

> we need to figure out how to get people to write those posts.

>

> As to the problem with blogs stealing our posts not being addressed, Well,

> I tried. I suggested we change the way people join the group which would

> help the moderators keep out spammers and bloggers, but that was voted down.

>

> I have heard through private email from a few on the list who have said they

> feel uncomfortable with posting here. First, because of the bloggers (I

> think all the bloggers are gone now, but I'm not sure), and second because

> the tone of the list feels unfriendly. They are afraid that if they post

> something unpopular, they will be hit with anger or unkind responses.

>

> So, what I see is a dying list. 3,500 members afraid to post, or having

> nothing to add, or, simply because many are spammers. Meanwhile, the ten or

> so of us who do post regularly are stuck repeating ourselves endlessly. We

> really don't have much new to add, either. Meanwhile, new people who come

> here to ask questions are supposed to have their posts denied because they

> may mention conventional treatment.

>

> I believe 100% in alternative medicine. But I also know it won't work for

> everyone or everything. I also know that there are scammers in the

> alternative world thriving on the ignorant and desperate. (Thank you

> moderators for working hard on keeping those posts out)

>

> " Alternative " lifestyles didn't work for me. I still developed a cancerous

> condition. So, I feel honorbound to tell people that if they think that

> relying on a vegetarian raw food diet will cure their cancer, then they are

> wrong. I'm not promoting conventional treatment, but hoping that people

> will continue to research and not rely on one thing to cure them. People

> need to not blindly follow ANY treatment. A woman with breast cancer, stage

> 3, decided to follow only the advice of her ND. She became a raw foodist

> and drank some tea - I'm not sure which one it was. When it became obvious

> that the cancer was spreading, she refused to sway from her ND's belief

> system. She died last month. If only she had added some more alternative

> protocols. Or, perhaps used conventional treatment in order to give her

> more time for the alternatives to work. Who knows?

>

> We have to be smart and look at our treatment options with eyes wide open.

> We need to be able to say that something isn't working and that maybe it's

> time to make changes, whatever those changes are. If someone did chemo and

> now regrets it and wants to come here to find out how to heal, they should

> be able to discuss the chemo and the best way to heal from it. And if

> someone has been doing only alternative medicine and their condition is

> worsening, they should feel comfortable in expressing this and making a

> decision to try chemo. If we censor what is allowed in this group too much,

> we run the risk of leading people astray. Yes, alternative treatments work

> for some, but not all. And, conventional treatments work for some, but not

> all.

>

> It also says in the group description that we believe in individual

> experiences. So, if someone in this group has had an individual experience

> where she regrets not having a scan to see that her cancer has spread and

> therefore not catching it earlier, well, that's important, too.

>

> In the end, much of this group is made up of individual experiences, of

> course. And each experience is as important as the next. It is certainly

> not my job to determine whose individual experience is more important than

> the next person's. They are all important.

>

> ar

>

June 4, 2010

Yes, Arlyn, I am very concerned and I do think that it matters. Why the

secrecy? When there is no known moderator " presense " then forums tend to

get off-topic very quickly and soon focus is lost. I have witnessed this

more than several times with other forums. It is tedious for moderators to

insist that members stay on topic and actually takes up a lot of time for

those who are moderators unless there are a good number of moderators. In

the long run it provides for a more informative forum and one in which the

off-topic posts don't waste people's time or promote off-topic information

that may or may not be true.

I have used the email address below several times and a couple of those

times have received one answer from you and another different answer from

another moderator.

Okay....I've voiced my concern. If it is addressed great, if not great. If

the description of this forum needs to be changed then I hope the moderators

will do that or if not then, at the very least, enforce what the current

description indicates the focus should be.

Be Well

Dr.L

[ ] Re: Cat Scan and chest x-ray radiation exposure

Dr. L,

You are very concerned about the fact that you don't know who all the

moderators are. I don't think it matters that much.

Anyone who wishes to contact the moderators may do so by sending an email to

-owner . When you do this, your email goes to all

the moderators.

ar

June 4, 2010

Loretta,

I would think that most people on this list are in agreement

with you re all the issues you address. I also tend to agree with

you. First, I do think it is nicer if the moderators wear their

colors. Who wants to look for their hand in the latticework?

" ...certainly conventional medicine doesn't work but maybe even

3-6% of the time. "

I think that this would need to be qualified. For example stage

1 ovarian cancers are 100% curable with simple surgery, but with

stage 4 they approach 0% with everything conventional medicine can

throw at it. Stage 4 is usually considered distant metastasis and

implicitly synonymous with terminal, but " terminal " is the more

accurate explicit definition. If the ovarian lesion metastasizes

only a couple of centimeters to a paraaortic node it is considered

stage 4 and terminal. Conventional treatment then (or sooner)

becomes one of palliative intent, and from our point of view, death

becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

In dealing with acute issues (pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis,

etc.) with late stage cancers, conventional medicine holds the upper

hand. What goes unsaid is that usually it is the conventional

treatment itself that has caused the acute issue. When it comes to

survivability I constantly see alternative strategies trump anything

conventional medicine has to offer. One of the brightest lines that

separate conventional medicine from alternative strategies is the

lack of any serious curative effort for late stage cancers. Perhaps

the most appalling attitude expressed by conventional practitioners

is a strong and irate recommendation against alternatives after they

admit that they themselves can offer nothing.

" Most cancer patients are looking for survival. "

They all profess to look for survival, but human beings are

very complex and I think it behooves all cancer patients to really

take note of conflicts in their behaviors. Loretta, as you pointed

out, too often we see cancer patients elevate habits and life style

issues above their therapies. Too often cancer can become a socially

acceptable way to die when life gets difficult.

I notice that you usually frame the discussion around the

polarization that we live with: of " conventional " vs.

" alternative/natural. " Another way to view the panoply of choices is

to refuse to recognize this artificial, and manmade distinction and

simply ask, " Is there a way I can recover my health without

unreasonably further compromising my health in the process? " The

laws and the cultural conventions don't make this approach easy. It

requires a person to take charge when maybe they've never taken

charge of anything in their lives. Unfortunately this treatment

option search is confounded by issues of insurance coverage, budget,

and quality of advice/information. Most intelligent people stumble a

few times and then find their way to natural, sensible, useful

strategies that are within their budget.

When a person is diagnosed with cancer there is nothing easier

to do than to punch up PubMed and find the prognosis for various

conventional treatments for their type, stage, and grade of

cancer. They need to then ask if this is desirable or

acceptable. They then need to look at the probable side effects of

the candidate treatment options -- are these acceptable or

doable? If not, you would think that they would be compelled to do

almost anything that makes some sort of sense and is

affordable. There is not a week that goes by that I don't see

someone fearfully but bravely march to a miserable and certain

demise. This is usually avoidable if they seriously weigh outcomes

and choose a logical and timely alternative recourse.

Loretta, thank you for your reflective post.

June 4, 2010

Loretta, about ...all true but have you considered that others may be

swayed because of V's experience or because he promotes it? I believe they will.

My problem with is he speaks in a way the lay person may have a hard

time understanding...no doubt you can but there is much he has said about

certain tests and therapies I've never heard of before...maybe if he would dumb

it down I would not have a problem. V has also said discouraging things about

the Budwig protocol in which I totally disagree with. I hope others are not

swayed away from using that very well proven alternative protocol. I realize

most posters on this forum highly respect and that is their right just

as it is mine to disagree with him...it does not mean I dislike him.

As to conventional cancer therapies...you could not pay me to use them. I said

what I did about them to be fair...sorry for any confusion on that part.

Regards,

Sandy

From: Dr. Loretta Lanphier <drlanphier@...>

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Cat Scan and chest x-ray radiation exposure

Date: Friday, June 4, 2010, 6:13 PM

Â

Just to be clear about . He is extremely knowledgeable and he is

not using conventional treatment because of " someone's experience " or because

someone promoted it. In fact, he has said that he is aware of some of the

chances that are taken when using certain chemotherapies. 99% of people do not

have the knowledge that he has and when doing conventional treatment rely on

what the doctor says as gospel.

Being a naturopath, I do not like most pharmaceutical, but that doesnâ€™t mean

they should never be used. does promote a lot of effective alternatives

and he does not like the antics of conventional cancer treatment any more than

most on this list.

It is *not* about poo-pooing all traditional cancer treatments, but about

" warning " about what effects they can really have on the body. It is or should

be about " promoting " natural and non-toxic ways to deal with cancer.

Be Well

Dr.L

-----Original Message-----

Just to be clear, ar, there most certainly are posters on this forum who promote

conventional cancer protocols/medicines. V. Gammill for one and used it for his

own cancer which of course was his right but just as we should not poo poo all

traditional cancer treatments we should also not discourage all alternatives

either.

JFYI

Sandy

June 4, 2010

I think any protocol a person with cancer uses they should have the common sense

to stop or change it if it's not working. Some of the protocols have almost

become a religion and people promoting these 'religions' won't encourage people

to change if it's not working. Neither will they accept the fact that their

protocol does not work for everyone. This is not religion, if it's not working,

stop and change, your life depends on it.

Louise

Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network.

EnvoyÃ© sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le rÃ©seau de Bell.

June 4, 2010

I have voiced my concerns as well and if the list description changes then I do

not need this list as there are enough that profess the benefits of Conventional

and not subtlety as some do on this list. This was and is an Alternative

encouraging list and should remain that way. Nobody I know has questioned

subjects that touch on Conventional ways, and never are disallowed to discuss

them from what I have seen, but just the few, very few, that occasionally

encourage it's use should remember what the list purpose was designed for. It

is obvious that moderators, being human, sometimes get busy with their own lives

and things may 'squeeze' through. It is not a big problem yet, but it could

become one if not caught early. Let's watch and before posting, examine what we

have written and then press the 'Send' button.

Joe C.

From: Dr. Loretta Lanphier

Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 7:40 PM