Chemo therepy a ripoff?

[Lacmeh]

Lol, Hector, I almost fell down my chair laughing out loud.
I am brainwashing people over the net, LOL.
I guess, you still try to invent mathematics new so, that your beloved Hovind isn´t wrong on his issues.
Perhaps you should actually inform yourself on your countries laws before making stupid posts. It seems, that I know these laws better than you.

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by chickenman
HEctor medina is either the one of the stupidest people alive or he's trying to be annoying intentionally, some sort of Uber-troll

I suspect the latter.

-jon

 

[LadyShea]

Originally posted by paulewog
Actually, my dad is a doc, mom is a nurse. Even before they are more into health food stuff, they knew chemo therapy killed EVERYTHING, not just the bad bacteria.

FDA? The FDA was thinking about allowing marijuana even. The FDA has allowed many drugs that are harmful... including abortion pills. Abortion pills can permanently harm ummmmm birth-organs... yet they aren't illegal.

Not everything the government allows is good at all

 

Since your family are medical professionals then you should know

1) cancer is not caused by bacteria

2) marijuana is less harmful and addictive than narcotic painkillers, and helps the nausea and appetite problems in cancer and terminal patients

3) the FDA has found no long term risks, nor an increase in infertilty, involved with the use of mifepristone and misoprostol (abortion pill)

 

[Susan]

Uber-troll

LOL! Is there a failproof "troll test" we could use to determine that?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Cancer To Iniquity
I suspect the latter.

-jon

Agreed. HM has yet to debate anything.

 

[paulewog]

1) cancer is not caused by bacteria

Good point. Either way, chemo therapy is a poison that kills pretty much everything in your body, not just cancer. Good bacteria, bad bacteria, and whatever else it can It's not like it's totally *safe* or something

2) marijuana is less harmful and addictive than narcotic painkillers, and helps the nausea and appetite problems in cancer and terminal patients

Why's it an illegal drug then? And, by the way, most painkillers are bad if taken very frequently too. In fact, I think all of them are. Morphine, for example, doctors try not to give much at all, nor for very long. Your body can start getting dependent on it ... like Marijuana or alcohol, for that matter.

3) the FDA has found no long term risks, nor an increase in infertilty, involved with the use of mifepristone and misoprostol (abortion pill)

Oh, did the FDA test it on humans for 20 years to see if it had any effects?



But, the FDA *has* taken medicines OFF their good list. Err... what happened to those?

 

[LadyShea]

Originally posted by paulewog
Good point. Either way, chemo therapy is a poison that kills pretty much everything in your body, not just cancer. Good bacteria, bad bacteria, and whatever else it can It's not like it's totally *safe* or something



Why's it an illegal drug then? And, by the way, most painkillers are bad if taken very frequently too. In fact, I think all of them are. Morphine, for example, doctors try not to give much at all, nor for very long. Your body can start getting dependent on it ... like Marijuana or alcohol, for that matter.



Oh, did the FDA test it on humans for 20 years to see if it had any effects?



But, the FDA *has* taken medicines OFF their good list. Err... what happened to those?

 

 

1. Cancer is your own body's normal cells growing abnormally (usually abnormally FAST, they are not following the body's "rules" so to speak)...liver cancers are liver cells and skin cancers are skin cells. There is no way to target one skin cell over another medically, so the chemo works by attacking all cells...the cancer cells grow faster so the hope is the cancer will be killed before the normal/good cells. No it is not "good for you" but cancer is not a foreign object that we can target...there is no way to tell a medicine "get these types of cells only"...they are regular old body parts!

 

2. Marijuana should not be illegal IMO, any more than alcohol is illegal (alcohol is actually more destructive to the human body according to studies. People have died from one night of binge drinking called acute alcohol poisoning, never has any person died of acute pot poisoning. There are many cases of alcohol related death in long term alcoholics, but no marijuana related deaths that I can find...look it up). It was criminalized due to panic and poor research. Yes, narcotic painkillers are highly addictive...but we have yet to find a good alternative for people in chronic, severe or terminal pain. I just donated a kidney 2 weeks ago...the painkillers I was given have a high incidence of dependancy, so I had to be careful. Immediately after surgery I was given morphine injections...again, there is not an alternative that works better.

 

3. RU486 (as the abortion pill was called in Europe) is one of the most tested drugs currently on the market (extensive clinical trials starting in 1982)...simply because it was legal elsewhere for years befor the US FDA trialed it here and okayed it. You are the one who made the assertion that it caused damage to the reproductive organs, it is your responsibility to prove your assertion...what trials or medical studies can you cite which back up your claim of long term damage?

 

4. What specific medicines are you referring to? Yes, if a drug is found out to have previously unknown severe or fatal side effects, the FDA will pull it....that's what the FDA does. Heck, that's what science does...continues to monitor/test/observe in order to get the whole picture and make corrections or changes when warranted.

 

[LadyShea]

bump...Paulewog...care to refute?

If not I think you owe people an apology. What if someone listened to your opinion and decided not to follow established medical treatment based on it? They could prolong their illness, live in unbearable pain, or die for lack of treatment?

 

[seebs]

Here's the thing. Chemo therapy has problems. However, if you have a thousand people with cancer of the sort chemo works on, and five hundred of them take chemo therapy, and five hundred of them don't, the chances are that more of the ones doing chemo will survive. It's not ideal, but it's better than nothing, and it can keep being improved.

As to marijuana: My best guess, given the history, is that it's illegal because hemp was a threat to cotton, and people just sort of got out of control. It looks to be less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, and I suspect that decriminalizing marijauna would have no significant effects other than reducing dramatically the number of people in prison.

Would *I* smoke marijuana? Not likely, unless (as noted) I was on medication such that it would help me.

Marijuana might well have saved my father's life; he died of complications from diabetes, but in concrete terms, a big part of the problem was that he couldn't keep food down most of the time because of the medication he was on. THC has been shown to alleviate that problem in many patients; the extra strength might have been enough for him to pull through.

But remember, folks, a few dead people here and there, and a lot of curious college kids in prison, is no price at all to pay for safety from the Demon Weed. *sigh*.

 

[paulewog]

1. Cancer is your own body's normal cells growing abnormally (usually abnormally FAST, they are not following the body's "rules" so to speak)...

Right. DNA is messed up and it reproduces cancer cells isntead of normal cells, as well as reproducing faster than normal. I think that's what I read in my biology book anyways

liver cancers are liver cells and skin cancers are skin cells. There is no way to target one skin cell over another medically, so the chemo works by attacking all cells...the cancer cells grow faster so the hope is the cancer will be killed before the normal/ good cells. No it is not "good for you" but cancer is not a foreign object that we can target...there is no way to tell a medicine "get these types of cells only"...they are regular old body parts!

Well, your body can tell a bad cell from a good one, and it CAN fight off cancer.

2. Marijuana should not be illegal IMO, any more than alcohol is illegal (alcohol is actually more destructive to the human body according to studies.

I would support prohibition on both of them

People have died from one night of binge drinking called acute alcohol poisoning, never has any person died of acute pot poisoning.

No, but I suppose people have died from jumping off bridges because they thought they were a bird or something. =P I don't think marijuana dose that, but I'm not sure. Still, it's a drug, and I do not think it should be legal. MAYBE for medicine, but even then, since it's so strongly addicting.... morphine too, but I don't hear about many people smoking morphine, hehe.

There are many cases of alcohol related death in long term alcoholics, but no marijuana related deaths that I can find...look it up).

Marijuana DOES lead to other drugs. I forgot the statistic, but most "druggies" started with Marijuana. It's so available.

It was criminalized due to panic and poor research. Yes, narcotic painkillers are highly addictive...but we have yet to find a good alternative for people in chronic, severe or terminal pain. I just donated a kidney 2 weeks ago...the painkillers I was given have a high incidence of dependancy, so I had to be careful. Immediately after surgery I was given morphine injections...again, there is not an alternative that works better.

Agreed. In cases like that, I'm all for morphine, more or less. But I'm sure the doctors tried to get you off of it as soon as possible? For good reason...

3. RU486 (as the abortion pill was called in Europe) is one of the most tested drugs currently on the market (extensive clinical trials starting in 1982)...simply because it was legal elsewhere for years befor the US FDA trialed it here and okayed it. You are the one who made the assertion that it caused damage to the reproductive organs, it is your responsibility to prove your assertion...what trials or medical studies can you cite which back up your claim of long term damage?

None since I haven't researched that. I heard that from my mom... I don't know where she got it from, but I would suspect World Magazine and perhaps something from the "Crisis Pregnancy Care Center" and stuff like that. She is very anti-abortion/pro-life (as am I, obviously), among other "right wing wacko" things like that, like the rest of my family. hehe

pquote]4. What specific medicines are you referring to? Yes, if a drug is found out to have previously unknown severe or fatal side effects, the FDA will pull it....that's what the FDA does.[/quote]

Exactly. So, just because the FDA says "ok" to it doesn't mean it doesn't have problems. That was merely my point.

Also, the FDA will legalize certain meds even though they DO have problems. For example, the one mentioned in this post a lot, morphine. It's highly addictives, and docs know it, and they have to use caution when using it. But it is a legal medication, even with that problem. I'm not saying it should be illegal, but pointing out that the FDA makes mistakes, and legalizes things even though they DO have side effects...

Heck, that's what science does...continues to monitor/test/observe in order to get the whole picture and make corrections or changes when warranted.

I wish evolutionists tried that monitor/test/observe method. =D But yes... however, in the meantime, should we really allow a new drug to be passed out before makign EXTENSIVE tests on it? I don't mean a two month lab rat test, either. That's not very extensive.

It's hard to test these things for long term problems. For example, before they released RU486 (which is a very odd name, standing for "Are you for 86"... I forgot what 86 was though), did they know if it would have any longterm side effects on humans? How COULD they know unless they tested it with some humans for 50 years?

So it's really kinda iffy. With that kidn of testing, we'd never have any new meds. Which may or may not be a good thing, depending on how you look at it =D

 

[LadyShea]

The RU is the initials of the pharmecuetical company that developed the drug, Roussel-Uclaf, this "Are You For..." nonsense is either urban legend or propoganda.

I wanted your response as I felt your family's medical background added more weight with uninformed posters. You are entitled to your opinion and I enjoy reading your thoughts...I would ask that you state that these are OPINIONS if you do not have compelling  data or facts to back up yor claims.

 

[Lacmeh]

Paulewog, why do you refuse to educate yourself?

Cancer is a result of a gene defect in the cells. It is in principle human´s dream. Cancer cells are immortal and can duplicate endlessly.
Usually a human cell dies after a certain amount of reproduction. If the mechanism is flawed, and that happens often, those celsl usually get destroyed by the immune system. Every one has countless of cancer cells in them in a normal life. Some sort of imbalance or stress or external influence hinders the immune system on locking on the cancer cell, thus the cancer cell multiplicates and the immune system is not strong enough to wipe it out. This is the cancer, the doctors can detect and with some success heal.
Well no one smokes morphine, the same with heroine. Different drug, different mechanism of absorption. Smoking marijuana is needed for thedrug to be absorbed, it doesn´t work for morphine or heroine.
The morphine you get for pain medication is not the morphine a junkie shoots into his system. The morphine, doctors prescribe has been modified a lot. To dampen the addictiveness, to enhance the effect of pain suppression and so on.

You have absolutely no clue, through how much studeise and testing a drug must go, till it is allowed to be used regularly on humans.
Scientist finds stuff, that may be relevant for medicinal purposes. First thing is, this stuff gets patented. (Patent protects for 25 years) First thing is, it has to be produced in meaningful quantities and first testing on animals on how it works, for what it works and side effects. That is done usually for 3 to 5 years. If it proves top be efficient with less side effects than an existing drug, or with better efficacy than an existing drug, it hits the preclinical R&D. More studies are made, under the GLP regulation to prove, that it is more efficient than an existing drug or has less severe side effects than an existing drug. Studies about harmful, less harmful side effects, of efficacy and dosis must be made. That will be for another 4 or 5 years. Then, if the studies prove all this, the studies are reviewed by FDA. IF the FDA concludes with the results, the next stage may be done. Studies must be planned under the GCP norm on human patients. Study plan msut be submitted to the ethic committee. The ethic committeee decides, if teh study may go on as planned, or not. Then the first set of clinical trials begins. First on very few patients, after the results are evaluated, next phase with more patients, but only of the ethic committee allows. Phase 3 is the last phase of clinical trials with even more patients, wit the allowance of the ethic committee. Time frame for this is 5 years. So before the drug is allowed to be produced in large quantities, it has to go through numerous trials and 15 years of it.
Then only then, when the FDA reviews all teh data again (Remember FDA reviews the data from each study, that isd made under GxP regs) and find its results ok, then the drug may go under production. For to be able to produce under GMP regulations, it will take another 3 to 5 years.
So from stuff,t hat may be helpful, to full blown drug, it goes through 20 years of testing and regulationary observance. And costs 500 million dollars, nowadays probably 700 to 800 million dollars. So please tell me, that any corporation will take the slightest risk in losing approx 700 million dollars, because of bad data

Why it is a mistake to legalize drugs with aside effects? Well, we can forbid any drug with side effects, thus having no drugs then.
The question is not, does the drug have side effets, the question is, does teh drugs side effects outweight the positive effects of the drug. A medication, that attacks all celsl within the body, with the most reproductive killed off first to inhibit a cold would be out of question, but the sdame medication to kill off cancer cells is quite within the acceptabel side effects for the positive side.

I live in Europe. We have a similar system of how legalisation on how a drug must be developed. And RU486 was/is being prescribed here and no severe adverse effects are found. The claim is eing made by people,who don´t aggree with abortion. Because with the pill, the women don´t need to go to abortion clinics and through the massed protestesters, which make her feel more miserable. It makes abortion more private and that´s the real danger for them.
The system works quite well in prohibiting from entering harmful drugs into the market.
You have to be quite delusional to believe, that there are safe drugs. No drug developed from any company can be safe. It can only heal or prevent the targeted illness with hte least possible side effects. It is a matter of the illness to be cured, as which side effects are acceptable. For a cure for AIDS other side effects are acceptale as for curing a simple cold.

 

[paulewog]

what's the '486' for. It's a type of computer, but I kinda doubt that's it

Yes, I know about the side effects, every drug has them. Benedryl has a side effect, it amkes you sleepy However, it seems as though people sometimes think that the durgs we have today are somehow magical. Take a medicine and you're fine and you can keep on eating and doing whatever you want.

And yes, I completely agree that there are no safe drugs, but I think a LOT of people are of the opinion that if ad octor says to take it, it must be alright and completely safe and no worries about it, when in reality, you should to trake as few, if any, drugs as possible.

Cancer is immortal? Then, er, how in the world does our body, as well as chemo therapy, kill it

Dr. Lorraine Day, M.D., has a lot of information on this sort of things, and she does have a website. Dr. Sherry (Sherri?) Rogers, also.

 

[Lacmeh]

Paulewog, each cell has a built in die effect. After a certain amopunt of splits, it can no longer and then it dies. Cancer cells are normal cells, that don´t have this built in die mechanism. Therefore the "mother" and daughter" cell can reproduce endlessly. With immortal I meant of course no aging process. They can still be kille dlike any other cell from that type.
Chemotherapy inhibits cell splitting. The fastest growing cells ( cancer cells and others) are affected first by this. Therefore it stops the production of new cells and gives the immune system time to attack the already formed ones. A new (or not so new) approach is to attack the nutrition system of cancer cells.

AS for drug prescription, one has to trust the doctor for giving the right ones and the dosis. For instance, if you take antibiotica and don´t take them as long as the doctor says, even after your infection is gone, chances are, that you produce bacteria, that are immune to this sort of antibioticum in the future.

So related to the topic of the thread, why would then chemotherapy be a ripoff? Do you have any data proving the countless studies, that have been made on each chemotherapy medication and dosis wrong? If so, why haven´t you informed the FDA?

 

[SUNSTONE]

What about the spiritual gifts for healing, or miracles?

 

[Hector Medina]

paulewog,

You see what mean ?

Lacmeh just dosen't stop.


Hector

 

[paulewog]

Actually, I don't think the spiritual gift of healing is around anymore, but let's not start THAT discussion

/me fails to see how Hector's post has anything to do with the topic, hehe

Paulewog, each cell has a built in die effect. After a certain amopunt of splits, it can no longer and then it dies. Cancer cells are normal cells, that don´t have this built in die mechanism. Therefore the "mother" and daughter" cell can reproduce endlessly. With immortal I meant of course no aging process. They can still be kille dlike any other cell from that type.

Ok. Immortal to me = not dieing, and if you kill something, I would say it died.

Antibiotics. There ARE good bacteria, antiobiotics kill whatever they find. That's, again, another topic.... sorta, anyway, hehe.

So related to the topic of the thread, why would then chemotherapy be a ripoff? Do you have any data proving the countless studies, that have been made on each chemotherapy medication and dosis wrong? If so, why haven´t you informed the FDA?

I just mentioned two doctors, both with M.D.'s, that are pretty much completely against radiation, chemotherapy, etc... they have a LOT of articles, videos, books, etc.

 

[Lacmeh]

Pauelwog, it is one thing to be against a certain form of medication.
It is quite another thing to claim, that countless studies have been manipulated and the medical regulation observers around the world allowed this.
Claiming Chemotherapy does not work, is exactly the above mentioned.

If those doctors have data supporting their claims, the FDA or any other health care regulation authority in the world is forced to review it. having a M.D. means nothing. There are quite a few M.D.s out there, that are quacks. They have absolute nothing to back up their claims. That´s why they sell videos and books. Their claims would evaporate in scientific review, but with videos and books they can reach the medical uneducated and those are easier to manipulate.

There are certain illnesses, which have to be treated with antibiotics. No doctor does prescribe antibiottics nowadays lightly. Because each prescription could mean to generate an immune streak of bacteria.

Paulewog you wrote earlier, that you are for testing, observance and so on. Then I ask, why you choose to believe doctors, which have absolute no data to back up their claims, when the data against their claims is obvious.

 

[paulewog]

Data...

well, considering BOTH of them have had cancer, and both are still alive, and I believe both (I know Dr. Day was) were told by doctors they were going to die, and basically sent home to die..... um... that's sorta data, isn't it?

Yes, I know, antibiotics are very helpful. I am merely pointing out that you should really boost your body naturally at the same time you take antibiotics, 'cause the AB's kill all the bacteria (that's why I was thinking "bacteria" earlier, hehe), regardless of whether it is good or not.

They do have things to back up their claims. They have videos, yes, and they talk a lot in their videos, yes. But, well I've only seen one of Dr. Day's video's... but anyway, she has pictures of her tumor.

So, how else shall we test this? Give someone cancer, and have scientists watch it?

It's sorta like mercury in the dental world

Also, I am seriously wondering this, are there any documented cases of cancer back in pre-medicine days? You know, like in 1000 B.C. They didn't haev chemotherpay or anything like that. Yet their average life spans were the same. So ... where'd they get their health?

 

[LadyShea]

The average lifespan is double what is was at any point in the past. Until the advent of germ theory and antibiotics, people lived to be about 40 and about 1/3 of women died in childbirth. Really Paulewog where do you get your ideas? Even now about 1 in 14,000 women die in childbirth. Cancer is usually due to environmental factors, aging, free radicals etc. There was less cancer in the past because people didn't live long enough to get cancer.

And the 486 was just a number assigned for classification...it doesn't mean anything...it was for record keeping.

 

Here is some life span info

http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/~jrw/Papers/science.html

 

This from the Christian Broadcasting Network

<SPAN class=source>ttp://www.cbn.com/">CBN.com -</SPAN> LOS ANGELES -- Is there a maximum limit to human life span? Here in the U.S., the average human life span has grown from about 47 years old in 1900 to about 75 years old today. The oldest human being on record is 122 year old French woman, Jeanne Calment.