Do You Want To Know What We Did To Beat Cancer?

[golden]

@Kina,

What is it *exactly* that you feel is wrong with the story of diagnoses and follow up?

Remember, this is the UK. Here one does not receice proper nutritional advice - perhaps how to eat soft food if one has mouth sores or trouble eating adter the chemo...you get the children here being advised to drink the coca cola etc. For the calories.

Thats not really the type of radical healing nutrition that people are using though.

 

[Undisclosed]

@golden -- it all leads me to think misdiagnosis for many reasons.

I have quite a few relatives who live in the UK, some have been successfully treated for Cancer and they did receive proper nutritional advice, proper diagnosis, proper treatment, and proper follow-up.

Sometimes our view of medics becomes skewed if we have had bad experiences and we look for proof that the whole system is bad. There are good and bad things about the NHS. Not all doctors are evil and give poor quality care. Not all nurses are uncaring and give poor quality care. My niece is a doctor in the NHS and she is fantastic. My sister was a most excellent nurse within the NHS.

Radical healing nutrition for Cancer is something that should be considered as dangerous and these people who offer it as a replacement for chemotherapy are likely contributing to many deaths out of sheer ignorance of cancer. One would hope these people are offering nutritional advice and emphasizing working with the oncologist. Millions of people have gone into remission via chemo, sadly I have read about many more deaths than successes when alternative therapies are chosen over medical ones.

Some of the tragedies can be found here.

 

[golden]

@golden -- it all leads me to think misdiagnosis for many reasons.

I have quite a few relatives who live in the UK, some have been successfully treated for Cancer and they did receive proper nutritional advice, proper diagnosis, proper treatment, and proper follow-up.

Sometimes our view of medics becomes skewed if we have had bad experiences and we look for proof that the whole system is bad. There are good and bad things about the NHS. Not all doctors are evil and give poor quality care. Not all nurses are uncaring and give poor quality care. My niece is a doctor in the NHS and she is fantastic. My sister was a most excellent nurse within the NHS.

Radical healing nutrition for Cancer is something that should be considered as dangerous and these people who offer it as a replacement for chemotherapy are likely contributing to many deaths out of sheer ignorance of cancer. One would hope these people are offering nutritional advice and emphasizing working with the oncologist. Millions of people have gone into remission via chemo, sadly I have read about many more deaths than successes when alternative therapies are chosen over medical ones.

Some of the tragedies can be found here.

so what is it *exactly* you feel has been wrong with Sues diagnoses, prognosis and follow-up?

Thanks

 

[Kati]

The idea that "all biopsies cause cancer"is wrong.

But I was reminded of the case of ovarian cancers have a higher risk of spreading if a cyst containing cancerous fluid bursts and spread in the peritoneum. Gynecologists surgeons are aware of that risk when they remove intact cysts and take extra care to isolate the cyst and prevent spillage.

That risks is much reduced in the case of solid tumors, and the advantages of classifying the tissue into tumor pathology (undifferentiated, breast, colon, melanoma, etc), whether the tumor is a primary or a metastasis, then how many lymph nodes are affected is what is guiding oncologists in what treatment, definitely surpasses the risks of spreading cancer. in my 10 years oncology nursing practice, never have I heard ' this person got a worse prognosis because of the biopsy'.

Biopsies is what made the field of oncology what it is today, saving lives and increasing the likelihood of long-term survival.

 

[Kati]

@golden -- it all leads me to think misdiagnosis for many reasons.

I have quite a few relatives who live in the UK, some have been successfully treated for Cancer and they did receive proper nutritional advice, proper diagnosis, proper treatment, and proper follow-up.

Sometimes our view of medics becomes skewed if we have had bad experiences and we look for proof that the whole system is bad. There are good and bad things about the NHS. Not all doctors are evil and give poor quality care. Not all nurses are uncaring and give poor quality care. My niece is a doctor in the NHS and she is fantastic. My sister was a most excellent nurse within the NHS.

Radical healing nutrition for Cancer is something that should be considered as dangerous and these people who offer it as a replacement for chemotherapy are likely contributing to many deaths out of sheer ignorance of cancer. One would hope these people are offering nutritional advice and emphasizing working with the oncologist. Millions of people have gone into remission via chemo, sadly I have read about many more deaths than successes when alternative therapies are chosen over medical ones.

Some of the tragedies can be found here.

That website that is quoted above is quite telling of people that have been harmed or misled or who's bank account has been ransacked by alternative therapies and alternative beliefs. A few examples that jump to my eyes are chelation, 'alternative dentistry', detox, ozone and holistic medicine.

The cancer field is just one example where we see exactly what happens when appropriate treatment is delayed. Morbidity and mortality are much increased.

 

[Undisclosed]

so what is it *exactly* you feel has been wrong with Sues diagnoses, prognosis and follow-up?

Thanks

I have reread their story and I don't believe it because if it were true she would be dead. I am not going to waste my time typing out the many reasons I have because really it should be obvious.

This is common practice re: making money from illness

Write out a personal story designed to get sympathy.
Say that you have done thousands of hours of research so you seem an authority on the subject.
Make sure that western medicine is portrayed as evil and toxic.
Then say you were cured through some alternative therapy -- like diet.
Do not provide any proof of your statements other than anecdotal statements.

All of this is done to make money -- sell a book, a product etc.

If one is going to make fantastical claims, one is required to provide proof. I always cast a critical and sceptical eye on stories like this in the absence of proof and the presence of the usual practices used to make money.

How did a 2 1/2 inch "tumour" simply shrivel up and disappear without chemo, radiation etc?
If the nutritional support was so effective, why didn't the growths on the pancreas go away?
If Sue's situation was so dire that nothing could be done, why did she refuse a biopsy because it had a small chance of spreading the cancer?

When you consider the reality of what is being said here, this means that two people (real people) out of every hundred cancer patients (if you are willing to believe these quoted statistics) will have their cancer spread further around the body through a biopsy.

A biopsy can also save patients -- diagnoses whether benign/malignant, dictates treatment. This man is spreading dangerous ideas.

Further information from an oncologist confirmed privately to me that tumours in this location of the liver were usually of the most aggressive type, and statistically the prognosis was unlikely survivability. This would often happen quite quickly too, due to the tumour compressing the vital tubes of the liver which in turn would prevent the liver from functioning to detoxify the body.

If the 'tumour' was compressing the 'vital tubes' to her liver then wouldn't the liver be malfunctioning which would result in jaundice, ascites, itchy skin, nausea, and loss of appetite to name a few. He spoke of a very 'aggressive' cancer that really didn't seem to get worse while she treated herself with healthy food.

Even if the story is true, they are spreading some very dangerous information that is based on personal experience. Cancer patients are unique and therefore treatment is tailored to their own needs based on type and severity, location, etc. Of course, using nutritional support during treatment can be helpful. What is not helpful is saying "I cured my cancer via nutrition and therefore so can you" when all we know about cancer dictates that eating right is not going to cure you.

 

[golden]

The idea that "all biopsies cause cancer"is wrong.

But I was reminded of the case of ovarian cancers have a higher risk of spreading if a cyst containing cancerous fluid bursts and spread in the peritoneum. Gynecologists surgeons are aware of that risk when they remove intact cysts and take extra care to isolate the cyst and prevent spillage.

That risks is much reduced in the case of solid tumors, and the advantages of classifying the tissue into tumor pathology (undifferentiated, breast, colon, melanoma, etc), whether the tumor is a primary or a metastasis, then how many lymph nodes are affected is what is guiding oncologists in what treatment, definitely surpasses the risks of spreading cancer. in my 10 years oncology nursing practice, never have I heard ' this person got a worse prognosis because of the biopsy'.

l.

Your statement 'all biopsies cause cancer is wrong'

Does not equate to the topic of discussion: Biopsies Spread Cancer - which is correct.

You will have never have said: The biopsy Spread Cancer - it will just be that....'i am sorry, the Cancer has spread'.


In the case here of Sue and Robert, this is their decision making process on biopsies (it is in the link i provided a few posts above cancer active):

" The Oncologist we saw at the hospital recommended performing biopsies of the stomach, liver and pancreas which we expressed our reluctance to allow.

Through research, my understanding was that there were ‘significant risks’ of metastasis (cancer spreading) when a tumour is punctured and cut into during a biopsy. The oncologists reply was that; yes there were risks but that it was a negligible two percent risk, which in his opinion was quite acceptable.

I simply could not rationalise this two percent figure with the knowledge that I had gained about the nature of cancer, as it just did not sit right in my mind. My understanding was that the body builds a natural defence membrane around the cancer and if this is breached (such as in a biopsy or highly pressurized compression procedures used in the breast cancer screening process) then cancer cells are able to leach out and spread (metastasise) through the blood stream or the lymphatic system to other locations in the body.

The Oncologist seemed to be somewhat unsettled about our questioning and our decision not to authorise the biopsies of the tumours.

When you consider the reality of what is being said here, this means that two people (real people) out of every hundred cancer patients (if you are willing to believe these quoted statistics) will have their cancer spread further around the body through a biopsy.


Further information from an oncologist confirmed privately to me that tumours in this location of the liver were usually of the most aggressive type, and statistically the prognosis was unlikely survivability. This would often happen quite quickly too, due to the tumour compressing the vital tubes of the liver which in turn would prevent the liver from functioning to detoxify the body. These were extremely scary times and particularly traumatic for my wife, as we contemplated making our first steps implementing alternative approaches to fighting the cancer."

 

[Hip]

Through research, my understanding was that there were ‘significant risks’ of metastasis (cancer spreading) when a tumour is punctured and cut into during a biopsy. The oncologists reply was that; yes there were risks but that it was a negligible two percent risk, which in his opinion was quite acceptable.

I simply could not rationalise this two percent figure with the knowledge that I had gained about the nature of cancer, as it just did not sit right in my mind.

Would you have any references to studies that 2% of cancer biopsies lead to metastasis. When I searched for studies, I could not find any ones which gave such precise figures.

 

[Undisclosed]

I was also wondering where this number came from. Maybe an extrapolation -- 2 percent of people who get a biopsy get metastasis but you can't know if the cancer had spread before the biopsy, you can't know if a biopsy caused the resulting metastasis as it could have happened later and independently.

 

[Kati]

Your statement 'all biopsies cause cancer is wrong'

Does not equate to the topic of discussion: Biopsies Spread Cancer - which is correct.

You will have never have said: The biopsy Spread Cancer - it will just be that....'i am sorry, the Cancer has spread'.


In the case here of Sue and Robert, this is their decision making process on biopsies (it is in the link i provided a few posts above cancer active):

" The Oncologist we saw at the hospital recommended performing biopsies of the stomach, liver and pancreas which we expressed our reluctance to allow.

Through research, my understanding was that there were ‘significant risks’ of metastasis (cancer spreading) when a tumour is punctured and cut into during a biopsy. The oncologists reply was that; yes there were risks but that it was a negligible two percent risk, which in his opinion was quite acceptable.

I simply could not rationalise this two percent figure with the knowledge that I had gained about the nature of cancer, as it just did not sit right in my mind. My understanding was that the body builds a natural defence membrane around the cancer and if this is breached (such as in a biopsy or highly pressurized compression procedures used in the breast cancer screening process) then cancer cells are able to leach out and spread (metastasise) through the blood stream or the lymphatic system to other locations in the body.

The Oncologist seemed to be somewhat unsettled about our questioning and our decision not to authorise the biopsies of the tumours.

When you consider the reality of what is being said here, this means that two people (real people) out of every hundred cancer patients (if you are willing to believe these quoted statistics) will have their cancer spread further around the body through a biopsy.


Further information from an oncologist confirmed privately to me that tumours in this location of the liver were usually of the most aggressive type, and statistically the prognosis was unlikely survivability. This would often happen quite quickly too, due to the tumour compressing the vital tubes of the liver which in turn would prevent the liver from functioning to detoxify the body. These were extremely scary times and particularly traumatic for my wife, as we contemplated making our first steps implementing alternative approaches to fighting the cancer."

i am no longer going to argue because it's pointless. However I will say this: subscibe to this mentality that biopsies are wrong, and suffer the consequences. Physicians in this case (surgeons and oncologists) are not the enemies and have only the best of intentions to treat you the very same way they'd treat their mother, with the best of medicine.

 

[golden]

Would you have any references to studies that 2% of cancer biopsies lead to metastasis. When I searched for studies, I could not find any ones which gave such precise figures.

I have been looking into Chemotherapy Fraud. Its a big black hole.

But I paused and read a few studies on biopsies, since you asked. Some are fascinating actually but not independent. And adverse events simply arent being recorded.

Here is a bit of an overview with some references to studies and some history. It suggests as many as 1 in 20 liver tumours biopsied spread cancer.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1403410/posts

i havent looked into them at all yet.

 

[Undisclosed]

What is chemotherapy fraud?

 

[Butydoc]

I have been looking into Chemotherapy Fraud. Its a big black hole.

But I paused and read a few studies on biopsies, since you asked. Some are fascinating actually but not independent. And adverse events simply arent being recorded.

Here is a bit of an overview with some references to studies and some history. It suggests as many as 1 in 20 liver tumours biopsied spread cancer.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1403410/posts

i havent looked into them at all yet.

Hi Golden,

I reviewed the article you cited. You must have a complete lack of confidence in the medical profession that you would believe a non physician when making decision as important as cancer care. Dr. Moss is a PHD with no clinical experience with allopathic cancer therapy. If I were to follow your logic, childhood leukemia would have no cures, Hodgkins Lymphoma patients would have a uniformly fatal outcome ( this group of patients have biopsies to determine the diagnosis usually followed by radiation and chemotherapy with a high rate of cure). Do you have any clinical experience to justify your position other than unfiltered internet information?

Best,
Gary

 

[Dreambirdie]

Cancer is definitely big business for the medical establishment. Even when there are clinically proven success stories with alternative medical treatments, like with Burzynski's anti-neoplastons, big pharma and the medical industry doesn't want to acknowledge those. It would seriously cut in to their profits.

I have known many people who have died doing the standard treatments--surgery and chemo and radiation. Just because you do these, it doesn't guarantee you will get better and survive.

 

[Undisclosed]

Burzynski is a really good example of a 'doctor' making money from patients with useless alternative therapies. I have been following this story for years with much disgust.

http://boingboing.net/2013/01/18/cancer-quackery-news-stanisla.html

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1546-the-burzynski-clinic.html

http://skepticalhumanities.com/2011/12/05/more-patients-whose-deaths-burzynski-has-presided-over/

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/21/yet-another-patient-wasting-money-on-burzynski/

 

[golden]

Hi Golden,

I reviewed the article you cited. You must have a complete lack of confidence in the medical profession that you would believe a non physician when making decision as important as cancer care. Dr. Moss is a PHD with no clinical experience with allopathic cancer therapy. If I were to follow your logic, childhood leukemia would have no cures, Hodgkins Lymphoma patients would have a uniformly fatal outcome ( this group of patients have biopsies to determine the diagnosis usually followed by radiation and chemotherapy with a high rate of cure). Do you have any clinical experience to justify your position other than unfiltered internet information?

Best,
Gary

Hi Butydoc,

This is what Good Doctor logic looks, feels, sounds like.

I thought you may like to mull it over.

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/wiwd.htm

Best,
Golden.

 

[Dreambirdie]

Burzynski is a really good example of a 'doctor' making money from patients with useless alternative therapies. I have been following this story for years with much disgust.

http://boingboing.net/2013/01/18/cancer-quackery-news-stanisla.html

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1546-the-burzynski-clinic.html

http://skepticalhumanities.com/2011/12/05/more-patients-whose-deaths-burzynski-has-presided-over/

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/21/yet-another-patient-wasting-money-on-burzynski/

There are lots of trolls attacking Burzynski on the internet.
You obviously have a great antipathy for alternative cancer therapies, so I can see why you would be attracted to them.

 

[Dreambirdie]

June 28, 2014

"HOUSTON, June 23, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- The Burzynski Research Institute, Inc. (BRI) announced today that U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has notified the company that its partial clinical hold on its IND for Antineoplastons A10/AS2-1 Injections has been lifted. The FDA has determined that under its IND the Company may initiate its planned Phase 3 study in newly diagnosed diffuse, intrinsic, brainstem glioma. The Company is continuing discussions with the Agency in an effort to finalize additional details of the phase 3 study protocol for the potential clinical trial.

The FDA's decision to lift the clinical hold marks an important step in the development of Antineoplastons for the treatment of various forms of brain tumors in the US. At the same time, the Company is evaluating possible next steps for the Antineoplastons clinical program given the current progress and anticipated resource requirements of the ongoing program."

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...e-3-clinical-study-agreed-upon-264290071.html

 

[Dreambirdie]

On the Burzynski Patient Group there is a list of people who were treated and cured by him for various types of cancers. http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org/patient-medical-records

If I had advanced cancer, beyond stage 1, this is what I would consider. Being chemically sensitive, chemo would not be an option for me. The anti-neoplaston therapy is non-toxic (made from amino acids and peptides). The targeted gene therapy uses drugs that are specific for the kind of cancer that you have. Burzynski has both an MD and a PhD degree in biochemistry, with years of experience working with cancer patients, some of whom saw him as a last resort after conventional treatments failed.

I didn't know who he was until a few years ago, when I watched the documentary about him. It was appalling to me that the government was repeatedly trying to throw him in jail, while at the same time trying to STEAL his patent. What a slimy and abusive thing to do.

I know there are people who would opt for the usual medical treatment and that's fine with me. I would not see it as my place to argue them out of it. I am glad that that we have at least some freedom to choose the healthcare that we feel is best for us.

That's all I have to say on this topic.

 

[Hip]

Here is a bit of an overview with some references to studies and some history. It suggests as many as 1 in 20 liver tumours biopsied spread cancer.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1403410/posts

The study referred to in that link is this one, which found that in the case of invasive breast cancer, biopsies taken by fine-needle aspiration were 1.5 times more likely to result in sentinel node metastases, compared to biopsies taken by excision.

However, what the actual clinical significance of this finding is, it is hard to say without looking at a wider context. Needle biopsies may cause tumor seeding 1.5 more than excision biopsies, but given that you will be nuking these tumors with chemotherapy shortly afterwards, it may be that those tumor seeds are quickly wiped out.

Also, since the biopsy gives doctors information about the type of cancer, and thus presumably allows them to tailor the chemotherapy more appropriately, this in itself should increase the cure rate. So any negative effects from needle biopsies need to be weighed against their positive effects.

I don't know the answers to all this, because I have little knowledge about this field, but I do think that you cannot come to any conclusions using the needle biopsy tumor seeding statistics alone. You have to look at the overall picture.

In any case, it seems that a new technology has been developed that uses radiofrequency pulses to sterilise the needle track and denaturate tumour cells. So in future, needle biopsies may no longer present any risk of tumor seeding.