Jump to content

Speaker Added For This Satuday's Greater Clare Compassion Club Meeting!


Recommended Posts

Some cancers do not respond well to some chemos. Fair statement?

 

So why push chemo for that patient? I believe that to be a much more sever form of false hope.

So now you want to change the premise of the argument to justify your actions.  So now it's SOME cancers and SOME chemos?  Is that what you are pushing for?  If so then why don't you say that at the outset?

 

Again, stop being obtuse.  False hope is giving someone unreasonably bright outlooks when there is no basis for same.  Do you know of an oncologist who doesn't give a patient statistics when presenting treatment options?  If the onc tells you that similar pts with similar cancers only respond in 10% of cases then how is that false hope?  You are telling the pt the odds up front.  So you are making up false hope in your mind peanut.  Why is it I always feel like I'm spoon feeding a child when I respond to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So now you want to change the premise of the argument to justify your actions.  So now it's SOME cancers and SOME chemos?  Is that what you are pushing for?  If so then why don't you say that at the outset?

 

Again, stop being obtuse.  False hope is giving someone unreasonably bright outlooks when there is no basis for same.  Do you know of an oncologist who doesn't give a patient statistics when presenting treatment options?  If the onc tells you that similar pts with similar cancers only respond in 10% of cases then how is that false hope?  You are telling the pt the odds up front.  So you are making up false hope in your mind peanut.  Why is it I always feel like I'm spoon feeding a child when I respond to you?

 

Name one chemo that works for brain cancer, please.

 

Nothing in the current medical system works, as I understand it. That 10% is that spontaneous stuff .. 

 

If everyone know ahead of time it won't work, why suggest patients suffer from the chemo or anything modern medicine can apply?

 

False hope can be "You have a 10% chance only if  you accept this poison." See .. by LAW no one can tell the patient that their doctor is full of it.

Edited by peanutbutter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Name one chemo that works for brain cancer, please.

 

Nothing in the current medical system works, as I understand it. That 10% is that spontaneous stuff .. 

 

If everyone know ahead of time it won't work, why suggest patients suffer from the chemo or anything modern medicine can apply?

 

False hope can be "You have a 10% chance only if  you accept this poison."

As I have said to YOU specifically time and time again, I am not against using alternative medicine.  If you want to narrow the field and suggest alternatives for conditions that have no viable conventional treatment then that is fine.  Trouble is you constantly insist on treating "cancer" and not certain cancers or conditions.  And this coming from the person who opted to have a non-metastisized and very low-level (as far as danger is concerned) cancer CUT out of themselves.

 

When you dissuade people from using conventional treatments that are proven to work then you are putting people's lives in danger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's talk about that placebo stuff ..

 

For brain cancer .. since double blind studies must have taken place, what percent of brain cancer patients go into remission because of the placebo effect?

 

You folks insist such studies must be done .. so how about it? show me the data .. the study

If you're going to pay me by the hour to do your research then I'll help you out.  Otherwise do your own grunt work.

 

You live near Ann Arbor, right?  It would behoove you to spend some time in the Taubman library.

Edited by CaveatLector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you dissuade people from using conventional treatments that are proven to work then you are putting people's lives in danger.

 

Yeah .. lets talk about that "proven to work" stuff ..

 

I'd bet that "placebo" has been proven to work better than chemo for brain cancer .. I'm guessing that based on the many times folks here insisted on that double blind testing stuff.

 

I'll assume it's true that double blind tests are involved in every FDA approved drug. Including chemo drugs.

 

So please point out  how effective "placebo" is against brain cancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're going to pay me by the hour to do your research then I'll help you out.  Otherwise do your own grunt work.

 

You live near Ann Arbor, right?  It would behoove you to spend some time in the Taubman library.

 

I already posted a link for your consideration. Here .. I'll post it again for you:

 

http://naturalsociety.com/chemotherapy-makes-cancer-far-worse/

 

"

Woops! Study Accidentally Finds Chemotherapy Makes Cancer Far Worse Edited by peanutbutter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The link is to a website with an agenda.  How about you post the study itself so we can look at methodology.  Also post where the study was published and how many tiimes it was replicated.  Based on what your journalist wrote there is no way any chemo has ever worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cl,

I remember the cold fusion brreakthrough, thought it would thrust the world from an economy of scarcity. I still think we we'll get there with or without cold fusion but that day was like the moon landing for me. what a let down.

 

I figured the illuminati shut that bunny muffin down, jk sorta

Edited by michaelscott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cl,

I remember the cold fusion brreakthrough, thought it would thrust the world from an economy of scarcity. I still think we we'll get there with or without cold fusion but that day was like the moon landing for me. what a let down.

 

I figured the illuminati shut that bunny muffin down, jk sorta

Yes, I too remember it well.  I have often wondered what it would have been like to have energy created by cold fusion.  Everything would have been electric by now.  And everyone would have energy as cheap as water. 

 

I don't think anyone shut it down.  The two guys published their findings and I'm sure the study is probably a google search away.  Problem was that many peers tried, and failed, to replicate the experiment.  It couldn't be repeated.  Probably because of some flaw in the initial experiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've avoided commenting on this subject to avoid the impression I am bashing anyone.

 

I am very happy she had a remission.  I've also not seen anything to suggest a particular therapy caused that remission definitively.  

 

There is a simple question that needs to be asked.  As anyone with brain cancer taken oil and NOT recovered?  Is the 'cure rate' 100%?  Is there a study that compared chemo, to chemo plus oil, to oil alone?

 

Is anyone going to say, with certainty, that oil caused this specific remission?  Are there any other factors that might have played a role?  

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is anyone going to say, with certainty, that oil caused this specific remission? Are there any other factors that might have played a role?

 

Dr. Bob

Certainty is a tough one, other factors playing a role very possible...

What did the patient attribute the remission too?

 

I wish I caught that meeting, a remarkable story from what I understand of it.

 

 

If oil just enabled her to sleep, and the rest allowed her body to heal itself. Wouldn't the oil be the catalyst that put her in remission?

 

Again, I have very limited knowledge in this arena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here is a simple question that needs to be asked.  As anyone with brain cancer taken oil and NOT recovered?  Is the 'cure rate' 100%?  Is there a study that compared chemo, to chemo plus oil, to oil alone?

 

Are there any other factors that might have played a role?  

 

Dr. Bob

 

I've been around at least four people with brain tumors.

 

Two died. All four initially had their tumors shrink. Recorded at Beaumont, Foot in Jackson and at least two patients at the U of M Ann Arbor.

 

At Beaumont. glio .. Doctors were well aware of the volumes Greg Piasiaki was consuming. His consumption began very soon after he came out of surgery.

In Jackson a woman had a cancer that had spread to her brain, both lungs and her liver. The tumors in the liver went away. The tumors in one lung went away and shrank the tumors in the other lung a lot. Tumor in the brain shrank a lot also. Then something happened where the patient couldn't keep the oil down. The tumor in the brain then tripled in size and cause her death.

 

Both patients with brain tumors that have survived are minor children. And they have both been observed by the U of M during the process.

 

Other factors? I'm not allowed to say here. But please .. those are indeed the kind of questions to ask.

 

Some live .. some don't .. how do those batting averages increase?

Edited by peanutbutter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it isn't a cure.  Goes back to the original premise that you can't say with certainty that it had anything to do with the remission.  It could have been the chemo or radiation.  It could have been spontaneous remission. I am sure the oil helped their quality of life, but I am not willing, based on the evidence, to say it had any effect one way or the other on the cancer.  It may well have been a coincidence or completely unrelated to the oil.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it isn't a cure.  Goes back to the original premise that you can't say with certainty that it had anything to do with the remission.  It could have been the chemo or radiation.  It could have been spontaneous remission. I am sure the oil helped their quality of life, but I am not willing, based on the evidence, to say it had any effect one way or the other on the cancer.  It may well have been a coincidence or completely unrelated to the oil.

 

Dr. Bob

 

I am not allowed to respond. You are 100% accurate. A single failure proves your case.

Edited by peanutbutter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few years ago there was a Creation Science movement.  The premise was evolution couldn't have happened so therefore it had to be creation.  That is not the way things work.  Just because something (ie chemo) did not cause the cure (which you haven't proven) does not mean that oil did.  

 

That is the problem I have with your sales pitch for oil.  You assign responsibility for every good outcome to the oil, ignore the contributions of other factors (chemo, radiation, etc) to good outcomes where oil was used, and don't mention poor outcomes with oil.  Your entire argument can be summed up with 'I don't believe any other therapy caused the remission, so it must be the oil.'.  

 

When this is pointed out to you the result is either changing the subject or attacking the poster by you or your supporters.  That is a major reason I don't engage in discussions about oil anymore.  I don't discuss faith based logic because I can't do it on an even field- it simply doesn't respond to logical discussion based on reason and facts.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chemo cures nothing, correct?

Are you being obtuse again?  Your contributions here are useless when you pretend to have the mind of a 5 year old.  If you think chemo cures nothing then you really, REALLY need to get out more. 

 

Take childhood leukemia as an example.  In 1950 the overall survival rate for those with childhood leukemia was less than 5%.  After targeted chemo treatments have developed since then the survival rate is over 85%.  Get that?  Learn something please instead of spreading ridiculously bad information. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4 

 

 

Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®)

 

Laboratory/Animal/Preclinical Studies

Antitumor Effects
Appetite Stimulation
Analgesia

Cannabinoids are a group of 21-carbon–containing terpenophenolic compounds produced uniquely byCannabis sativa and Cannabis indica species.[1,2] These plant-derived compounds may be referred to as phytocannabinoids. Although delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the primary psychoactive ingredient, other known compounds with biologic activity are cannabinol, cannabidiol (CBD), cannabichromene, cannabigerol, tetrahydrocannabivarin, and delta-8-THC. CBD, in particular, is thought to have significant analgesic and anti-inflammatory activity without the psychoactive effect (high) of delta-9-THC.

Antitumor Effects

One study in mice and rats suggested that cannabinoids may have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors.[3] During this 2-year study, groups of mice and rats were given various doses of THC by gavage. A dose-related decrease in the incidence of hepatic adenoma tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma was observed in the mice. Decreased incidences of benign tumors(polyps and adenomas) in other organs (mammary glanduterus, pituitary, testis, and pancreas) were also noted in the rats. In another study, delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol were found to inhibit the growth of Lewis lung adenocarcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo .[4] In addition, other tumors have been shown to be sensitive to cannabinoid-induced growth inhibition.[5-8]

Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis invasion and metastasis.[9-12] One review summarizes the molecular mechanisms of action of cannabinoids as antitumor agents.[13] Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. These compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in gliomacells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats. Cannabinoids protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor.[14]

The effects of delta-9-THC and a synthetic agonist of the CB2 receptor were investigated in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).[15] Both agents reduced the viability of hepatocellular carcinoma cellsin vitro and demonstrated antitumor effects in hepatocellular carcinoma subcutaneous xenografts in nude mice. The investigations documented that the anti-HCC effects are mediated by way of the CB2 receptor. Similar to findings in glioma cells, the cannabinoids were shown to trigger cell death through stimulation of an endoplasmic reticulum stress pathway that activates autophagy and promotes apoptosis. Other investigations have confirmed that CB1 and CB2 receptors may be potential targets innon-small cell lung carcinoma [

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...