Re: Chemo Does Not Cure - Often It Inflicts Damage and Spreads Cancer

April 17, 2009

" It has been estimated " is not a good research statement. Who estimated? When?

How? Why? Where?

I was told that my 5 year chances after removal of a stage III C colon tumor

was about 40%. I was told that 5FU and leucovorin would raise that to 60%, and

that the addition of oxaliplatin would raise it to 75%.

So I opted for chemo because the doctors told me it would give me a 35% better

chance at 5 year survival... (More below)

> Statistically, it has been estimated that the five year success rate

> from chemo is only about 3% (meaning only about 3% more patients who

> opted for chemo survived at least five years than did those who opted

> to not undergo chemo).

I was also told that if the cancer did not re-occur after 5 years, that I was

basically cured, and that it would never come back.

Now, was I flat out lied to? First, the chemo did NOT get rid of my cancer --

it made cancer appear all over where no cancer had existed before. Second, the

chemo almost killed me itself. Damned close. Third, the chemo did do permanent

damage to me, and even if the cancer was completely gone, I would have remained

significantly impaired.

April 17, 2009

Jim -

I am about to head out for the weekend (or part of it anyway) and do not have

the time to look up the exact sources, but you have surely seen them before over

in the other forum.

One is Dr. Ralph Moss (who gave a figure of 3%) and another was the Australian

study which gave a figure closer to only 2%.

As to the question of whether you were lied to or not - of course you were lied

to. Lies, big money, corruption and insurance are what keeps the almost $400

Billion mainstream cancer industry from collapsing.

Have a good weekend, my friend!

Tony

>

> " It has been estimated " is not a good research statement. Who estimated?

When? How? Why? Where?

>

> I was told that my 5 year chances after removal of a stage III C colon tumor

was about 40%. I was told that 5FU and leucovorin would raise that to 60%, and

that the addition of oxaliplatin would raise it to 75%.

>

> So I opted for chemo because the doctors told me it would give me a 35% better

chance at 5 year survival... (More below)

>

> > Statistically, it has been estimated that the five year success rate

> > from chemo is only about 3% (meaning only about 3% more patients who

> > opted for chemo survived at least five years than did those who opted

> > to not undergo chemo).

>

> I was also told that if the cancer did not re-occur after 5 years, that I was

basically cured, and that it would never come back.

>

> Now, was I flat out lied to? First, the chemo did NOT get rid of my cancer --

it made cancer appear all over where no cancer had existed before. Second, the

chemo almost killed me itself. Damned close. Third, the chemo did do permanent

damage to me, and even if the cancer was completely gone, I would have remained

significantly impaired.

>

April 17, 2009

Chemo success rate :

German News Magazine " Der Spiegel " - 04.10.2004

(Der Spiegel is the equivalent in Germany to Times Magazine)

TOXIC TREATMENT WITHOUT EFFECT

Severely ill patients suffering from cancer (lung, breast, prostate, or

intestinal tumors) are being treated with increasingly complex and costly

cytotoxic agents. An epidemiologist has recently analyzed survival rates, and

his findings indicate that, despite alleged positive outcomes, patients do not

live any longer.

[Please click on this link to read the rest of the article.]

http://www.jmbblog.com/chemotherapy-cancer-part-2/

==========================================================

Also see : Can You Trust Chemotherapy to Cure Your Cancer?

http://www.jmbblog.com/chemotherapy-cure-cancer/

April 17, 2009

Jim, I was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2000, stage 3, as you know.

I was told that with chemo I had a 30% chance of no recurrence. (Note they

said " recurrence " but I HEARD " cure " ). To a cancer patient just about any

good percentage makes them feel better and it was the same with me until I

really began to think about it. When turning around the onco's words it

meant that I had a 70% change of recurrence with chemo! What most

oncologists mean in their terminology is not what patients actually " hear " ,

and the docs know this. In many circles this would amount to very

questionable marketing tactics.

I also had a month (4 treatments) of 5FU, Leucovorin and Camptosar

(irinotecan) in what I was told was a " double-whammy cocktail " . Took one

month of the cocktail and ended up in the hospital with SEVERE dehydration

and every side-effect imaginable! Stopped because there was no way that I

could do six months of " preventative " chemo. Yes, that's what they called

it " preventative " . Something " preventative " that actually makes one that

sick. Why do we believe things like this?

" It is estimated is " not meant to be an official research statement because

no one in the US will research conventional cancer treatment without a bias

or in a way that most people would understand. Who should research it? The

FDA, the pharmaceutical companies, the oncologists? Could we even trust any

such research? Not likely. Even if one could find someone who was

unbiased, who would pay for it? It's just too much of a " cash cow " for

many, many companies and corporations.

Here in Houston, on several recent Saturday & Sunday afternoons, MD

has aired programs marketing their success in the " fight " against cancer. I

think there is or will be a series of six programs. The son of a well-known

local newscaster, who was treated by MD and died of cancer last

year, is the emcee. I can remember (it hasn't been too long ago) when one

with cancer either had to " know someone " at MD or their doctor had

to know a doctor affiliated with MD in order to actually get in for

treatment. Now, as with pharmaceutical drugs being marketed every five

minutes on evening TV, MD uses a lot of money to market their

wares. Why do they need to do this? Are they losing money?

The program can be viewed at

http://www.click2houston.com/mdanderson/index.html

There was actually a study done in Australia that showed much of the same

statistics that the journal, Clinical Oncology, showed in 2004.

http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/chemotherapy-effectiveness.htm

l

Yes, in my opinion, you were lied to. There is always a chance of cancer

coming back. The 5-year mark is just that " a mark " yet it is made to look

like the " end all " in cancer treatment. I have seen people who have had a

recurrence at 5 years and 1 month. Yet, MD would say there were

successfully treated. We have to make this all about chancing the lifestyle

that allowed cancer to happen and then always stay in " prevention mode. "

It's about living healthy and realizing that most lifestyles promoted today

are NOT healthy. No one is safe from cancer and statistics predict that 1

in 2 or 3 (depending on who you read) will get a cancer diagnosis at some

time during their lifetime. However, staying in prevention mode through

healthy lifestyle, emotions and environment is likely the best defense we

have right now.

Be Well

Loretta

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

" It has been estimated " is not a good research statement. Who estimated?

When? How? Why? Where?

I was told that my 5 year chances after removal of a stage III C colon tumor

was about 40%. I was told that 5FU and leucovorin would raise that to 60%,

and that the addition of oxaliplatin would raise it to 75%.

So I opted for chemo because the doctors told me it would give me a 35%

better chance at 5 year survival... (More below)

> Statistically, it has been estimated that the five year success rate

> from chemo is only about 3% (meaning only about 3% more patients who

> opted for chemo survived at least five years than did those who opted

> to not undergo chemo).

I was also told that if the cancer did not re-occur after 5 years, that I

was basically cured, and that it would never come back.

Now, was I flat out lied to? First, the chemo did NOT get rid of my cancer

-- it made cancer appear all over where no cancer had existed before.

Second, the chemo almost killed me itself. Damned close. Third, the chemo

did do permanent damage to me, and even if the cancer was completely gone, I

would have remained significantly impaired.

April 17, 2009

How can I find a link to read this acutal paper?

~Amber

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

As reported at the 27th Annual San Breast Cancer

<http://www.curezone.com/c/?http://curezone.com/faq/c.asp?a=4,92,637>

Symposium, Dec 2004, (abstract 6014), German investigators from

Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena, have shown that taxol (the " gold

standard of chemo " ) causes a massive release of cells into circulation.

April 17, 2009

Tony:

In 1994, I was given six months to live after a large tumor had destroyed my

sterum. Basically, the tumor was holding my chest wall together. I was put on

Adriamycin, 5FU and maybe something else, which I don't remember. My tumor

actually grew 30% on this stuff. My best friend and cancer buddy Ronda was

diagnosed near the same time with Stage II breast cancer and put on Adriamycin

by my oncologist, who I had referred her to. She died of the chemotherapy with

the side effects causing CHF---congestive heart failure.

Now, the same oncologist switched me to Taxol to see if we could get some

results from this. Previously, I had been very careful not to mix natural herbs

with the chemo, so I didn't interfere with the chemo. When the tumor grew 30%

and then I began taking the Taxol, I took a ton of natural herbs, cleanses (i.e.

Dr. Hulda , etc.). Within six weeks the tumor was completely gone. That

tumor had even began to grow around the heart. I followed up the Taxol treatment

with a stem cell transplant and radiation. Now it is fifteen years later.

So, what to make of this? Cancer is a crap shoot. When you make blanket

statements that Chemo Does Not Cure, you are missing the mark on some of us who

have actually been helped by Chemo. The strident voices on both sides of the

fence---whether it is alternative or mainstream--should open their eyes to the

fact that cancer is a complex disease and sometimes no one really knows what

works to put folks in remission. No one is going to be cured of cancer, because

eventually all of us will die one day of something.

I am grateful for the fifteen years that Taxol (and the herbs) have given me.

dquixote1217 wrote:

HTML clipboard

Chemo Does Not Cure - Often It Inflicts Damage and Spreads

Cancer

by Tony Isaacs

For years now, many of us who advocate natural health and natural

approaches to beating cancer have warned against the dangers and the

ineffectiveness of chemotherapy. The following report illustrates how

chemo actually spreads cancer cells, as well as points out how little

we are being told about the dangers of chemo:

As reported at the 27th Annual San Breast Cancer

<http://www.curezone .com/c/?http: //curezone. com/faq/c. asp?a=4,92, 637>

Symposium, Dec 2004, (abstract 6014), German investigators from

Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena, have shown that taxol (the " gold

standard of chemo " ) causes a massive release of cells into circulation.

Such a release of cancer cells would result in extensive metastasis

months or even years later, long after the chemo would be suspected as

the cause of the spread of the cancer. This little know horror of

conventional cancer treatment needs to be spread far and wide, but it

is not even listed in the side effects of taxol.

As has oft been stated, chemo does not cure cancer - it merely attempts

to eliminate the tumors and cancer cells that are symptoms of the

underlying causes of cancer, and does so with little success and great

risks. In some instances it may appear to eliminate tumors and cancer

cell masses, though most often it merely destroys some of the cancer

cells. In the process, it often inflicts a very high price.

Besides spreading cancer cells, chemo inflicts serious and perhaps

irreversible damage to the immune system, the body's natural first line

of defense against cancer and other illness - thus paving the way for

the remaining cancer cells or future cancers to overwhelm a body that

is even less able to beat the cancer that got past the immune system in

the first place.

Chemo also frequently results in serious and even fatal damage to major

organs are also damaged, particularly the liver - which as cancer

pioneer Max Gerson observed is always impaired to begin in those who

get cancer. The heart is also frequently seriously damaged.

The end result is that chemo kills more patients than it " cures " .....

April 18, 2009

It is very well established that the so-called 'cure rate' using Chemo is very

small. With all that is admitted as having happened to people as the direct

result of chemotherapy, how can credit be given to any of its use? If just a

few people are helped, and that is always questionable, but more are harmed, how

can one justify its use?

In fact, the 'establishment' is admitting that there are " spontaneous

remissions " that they cannot account for, remissions that take place without any

treatment. Additionally we find strong evidence that often, people survive

longer with no treatment compared to Chemotherapy.

This is an Alternative List and by and large the list members have rightfully

come to the conclusion that Chemotherapy does not work and worse, inflicts

great damage. For all that one knows, neither the herbs nor the Taxol were a

benefit. How would one know?

How do list members come to the conclusion above? First hand experience and

the admissions by more sincere physicians and researchers that report a good

measure of truth and input from some of our knowledgeable list members.

Each time I see the drug 5fu mentioned I remember Ralph Moss, in one of his

books saying, " I heard two Oncologists joking about 5fu as being " Five Feet

Under " . We all know the saying, " The treatment was a success but the patient

died " and I actually heard that, with my own ears, while in a Military Hospital

more than 50 years ago.

While I have urged members to be non-argumentative, the thrust of this list is

not to 'bless' chemotherapy but to further Alternative methods. There are

lists out there that one can find all of the information they want regarding

what most of us believe is damaging and failed treatments..........chemotherapy

and radiation. The War On Cancer, as constantly thrown at us, is a failure.

Can you imagine the success rate if but a fraction of the billions of dollars

wasted on these horrors were directed towards Alternative measures?

No, instead they spend millions on the oppression of those working in the

Alternative field

and it works because even members of this list, for example, have quoted

QuackWatch as their source of information. Conventional Medicine may be the

nations biggest criminal enterprise closely matching our Banking system.

JC

April 19, 2009

First of all, let me congratulate you on beating cancer. That is just

wonderful! I just love it when someone beats that damned disease. And

I hate it when they don't, because in most instances they would have

been able to if only they had taken advantage of the best nature has to

offer.

Given what I posted about Taxol spreading cancer cells and leading to

further cancer down the road, I would advise that it is imperative for

you to continue with a healthy anti-cancer lifestyle to help insure

against it's return. Personally, knowing what I do, I would take small

amounts of oleander (either extract or capsule) every two or three days

as a preventive. People who do that, even those who have had cancer

they have eliminated, virtually never get cancer again.

When it comes to Taxol, it has had some successes in eliminating the

cancer symptoms (tumors) though most often it just reduces them. Even

in the successes, just the same as in all chemo drugs, it does not

address the underlying causes of the cancer and thus does not really

cure cancer. Those who survive long term do so by developing a strong

natural immune system, living a health lifestyle, and/or avoiding the

toxins and other causes that led to the cancer to begin with. I note

that you " took a ton of natural herbs, cleanses - and there is a good

chance that doing so not only helped the chemo eliminate the tumor but

also prevented some chemo damage and helped keep cancer at bay thus far.

Cancer is a crap shoot alright - though it is mostly crap when it comes

to mainstream treatment. I firmly believe that as much as 75% of all

cancer could be avoided in the first place with a health diet and

lifestyle and making sure that you get all the proper nutrients you need

in optimum amounts (iodine, vitamin D3, selenium, major and trace

minerals, etc.). When combined with preventive amounts of key cancer

fighters, such as oleander or perhaps laetrile, over 90% would likely be

prevented. Even for those who do get cancer, a nature first approach

such as the one I suggest is over 90% successful in beating cancer and

keeping it at bay. Even when the body and immune system have been

ravaged by chemo and/or radiation, one can still beat cancer the large

majority of the time - depending mostly on the stage and aggressiveness

of the cancer combined with the overall physical shape of the individual

and how much damage was caused by the mainstream treatment methods.

Beating cancer, just like avoiding cancer, is often a matter of how

dedicated and thorough one is. A lot of that is diet and lifestyle and

a lot of it is a positive and determined attitude.

All the best,

Tony

April 19, 2009

Tony,

My cancer fight is more complicated now because of having a stroke. I am

compiling a list of herbs and supplements that I am sending to both my primary

doctor and my oncologist. They are both great doctors and open-minded about

alternatives, especially my oncologist as he is a Doctor of Osteopathy. He even

gave me the Anti-Cancer Diet book to read several months back. He also gave me

books on how to meditate.

Now, here are some links for others who might have to weigh blood-thinning

herbs/foods/supplements (i.e. turmeric, IP6, etc.) with blood-clotting

herbs/foods/supplements (i.e. dark leafy vegetables that contain high levels of

Vitamin K). I am hoping that since I eat a lot of Vitamin K foods/blood

clotters, I can offset it with the blood-thinners. My doctor has taken me off of

the daily baby aspirin because it was interferring with a seratonin-uptake

medication I need to be on. I was getting unexplained brusing on my legs, even

thought my platelet count came back normal.

I noticed that on your website you caution those on Coumadin or other

blood-thinners not to take Oleander. I am going to include this supplement on

the list of herbs/supplements/foods so that my doctors are aware of what I am on

and potentially want to take. Fortunately, I am not currently on any

blood-thinners and perhaps I am over-worried about things. On the other hand, my

days of experimentation on my body are over. I am running everything thru my

docs first so that they can keep tabs on my blood levels. It took forever to get

my potassium back up to normal levels after my Cesium Chloride protocol.

I am excited about the Oleander. I think if I was to take a potential

blood-thinner, that Oleander seems to be the most promising. I would take it

before Turmeric, which is another blood-thinner. I have to be careful not to

take too many blood-thinners I think. I am still trying to figure all of this

out.

Thanks,

From: dquixote1217 <dquixote1217@...>

Subject: [ ] Re: Chemo Does Not Cure - Often It Inflicts Damage and

Spreads Cancer

Date: Sunday, April 19, 2009, 2:19 PM