Guest guest Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 Over 100 years ago Dr. Henry Lindlahr found that violating the tumor, activated the cancer. He drew a silk thread across a tumor and it became malignant. Of course he bacame an outcast. Also: The breast cancer cycle: Mammograms cause the original tumor. Biopsy causes the one tumor to become cancerous. Chemotherapy weakens the immune system so that cancer becomes a disease of the bloodstream. www.medicine-no.com Bob [sPAM][ ] Re: Mammography Leaving a tumor alone, untouched, is very hard for some to comprehend, primarily because we have been conditioned to believe that removing the tumor removes the cancer with the added risk that some cells may remain behind thus the justification for chemotherapy. The evidence, however, clearly does not support that idea and many oncologists are backing away from post operative chemo due to a more inquisitive patient base and the ease of which controversial studies are falling into the hands of the consumer due to the internet. Patients are beginning to question everything as they should. Doctor Bell, way back in 1913 made some brilliant observations about the characteristics he found in common with cancer and its re- emergence after surgery. The American cancer doctor Eli G. went so far as to say that the surgical extirpation of a malignant tumor constituted a criminal assault upon the patient and he railed at whom he considered unethical physicians who recommended a surgical solution. It was common knowledge that surgery only caused the tumors to return and when they did so, usually with a vengeance. One chapter in his book was especially disturbing in the male attitude depicted at a medical convention he attended where it became starkley obvious that far too many doctors had a cavalier attitude towards women. > > I'm interested in the advancing technology that can, hopefully, > determine if a tumor has the ability to become metastatic. As some > cancer has the ability to spread, and other cancer does not. I think it > is one more part of the puzzle. It will greatly help people determine > if they should leave well enough alone or not. > SNIP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 On Mon, 5 May 2008 17:31:51 -0400, " Bob Catalano " <bobcatalano@...> said: > Also: The breast cancer cycle: Mammograms cause the original tumor. > Biopsy causes the one tumor to become cancerous. Chemotherapy weakens > the immune system so that cancer becomes a disease of the bloodstream. > www.medicine-no.com > > Bob Hi Bob, What about all those women whose breast cancers were NOT caused by Mammograms? Or all the men who have breast cancer - obviously not caused by mammograms. Mammograms do not start all cancer. I honestly don't believe they even cause most of the cancer. I know a lot of women with breast cancer who never had a mammogram. ar -- Arlyn Grant arlynsg@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 X-rays do cause cancer. That has been well documented and proven beyond doubt. The problem is that the time period from exposure to tumor development can be decades. Dr. Gofman's research left no stone unturned. He was instrumental in getting the government to ban chest X-rays for TB detection. Very detailed well documented follow ups lasting a span of nearly 50 years reveals the strong patterns between medical X-rays and the increase in cancers. He also noted that the A- bomb exposures were not nearly as dangerous as is concentrated X-rays in close proximity to live tissues. The official position of the government Nuclear Regulatory Commission is that there is no safe level of ionizing radiation. > > > On Mon, 5 May 2008 17:31:51 -0400, " Bob Catalano " <bobcatalano@...> > said: > > Also: The breast cancer cycle: Mammograms cause the original tumor. > > Biopsy causes the one tumor to become cancerous. Chemotherapy weakens > > the immune system so that cancer becomes a disease of the bloodstream. > > www.medicine-no.com > > > > Bob > > Hi Bob, > > What about all those women whose breast cancers were NOT caused by > Mammograms? Or all the men who have breast cancer - obviously not > caused by mammograms. Mammograms do not start all cancer. I honestly > don't believe they even cause most of the cancer. I know a lot of women > with breast cancer who never had a mammogram. > > ar > -- > Arlyn Grant > arlynsg@... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 This group starts to sound like a broken record with all the same people just restating their same positions. It seems that many cannot look outside the box. Again, no one is saying radiation doesn't cause cancer. But folks want to blame mammography for causing breast cancer, yet we, those who have breast cancer, are saying that the mammograms didn't cause it. So yes, Comdyne, and all the others...we all know radiation causes cancer. But we also know that mammography can detect cancer before it gets to a higher stage. Whether or not that saves the patient has nothing to do with mammograms, but with the make-up of the cancer and the person who has it. We also know a whole lot of women who have/had breast cancer who can say, with absolute certainty, that mammography didn't cause it. -- Arlyn Grant arlynsg@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.