| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Medicine - Cancer Forum » Difference between conventional and natural or alternative c
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:50 am |
|
|
|
|
To a conventional physician, the tumor is the enemy.
Cancer is viewed as a local disease, namely the tumor. By cutting out
the tumor, irradiating it, or flooding the body with toxic (and often
carcinogenic) drugs, the conventional physician hopes to destroy the
tumor and restore the patient to health.
But all too often, the cancer is still present and has metastasized, or
re-occurs.
In contrast, the alternative physician regards cancer as one that
involves the whole body.
The tumor is merely a symptom and the cancer treatment aims to correct
the root causes of disease in the whole body.
Dr. Josef Issels, who successfully treated many "incurable" cancer
patients, stated:
... those who believe cancer is a local disease [that is, conventional
physicians] think that the tumor comes first and only afterwards
follows the generalised illness; those who think it is a generalised
disease of the body [alternative physicians] believe that first comes
the illness, and only afterwards the tumor... from this basically
different way of looking at cancer, [the two types of physicians] take
separate paths towards the solution to cancer.
Cancer is a general disease of the whole body from the outset.
The tumor is a symptom of that illness.
It is my contention, based on twenty-five years of clinical experience
with over eight thousand cancer patients, that only by recognising the
disease is, and always has been, one affecting the whole body from the
outset, can it be more effectively arrested. By adopting that
principle, the statistics of survival can be improved from the present
grim position where eight out of every ten patients die having received
all possible surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy."
http://cancertreatmentqi.blogspot.com/# |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| J |
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
hthexjccviwo@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: To a conventional physician, the tumor is the enemy.
Cancer is viewed as a local disease, namely the tumor. By cutting out
the tumor, irradiating it, or flooding the body with toxic (and often
carcinogenic) drugs, the conventional physician hopes to destroy the
tumor and restore the patient to health.
But all too often, the cancer is still present and has metastasized, or
re-occurs.
In contrast, the alternative physician regards cancer as one that
involves the whole body.
The tumor is merely a symptom and the cancer treatment aims to correct
the root causes of disease in the whole body.
Dr. Josef Issels, who successfully treated many "incurable" cancer
patients, stated:
.<snip
Issel's treatment is based upon the claims of Dr. Josef Issel, a german
physician who was basically a quack. He claimed he could cure cancer with a
variety of fanciful and discredited treatment - basically feel-good snake
oil. Nothing original - detoxification, nutrition, accupuncture, etc. Just
a collection of whatever fringe nonsense he could get his hands on.
The bottom line is that after 40 years he and his institute could provide
no evidence that his treatment had any effect. Supporters make all the same
lame and illogical excuses that all the fake cancer cure promoters make:
- He too busy curing patients to do studies (if true, and he actually had a
cure, this is malfeasance - totally inexcusable. But it's not true, it's
just what all quacks say)
- there is a conspiracy to suppress his cure (really, worldwide, noone can
penetrate it, etc. Again, just a convenient excuse for his lack of
evidence).
- science is just now catching up to his amazing breakthroughs (been saying
this for 40 years - truth is science has shown his ideas to be patent
nonsense)
These cancer cure clinics just prey upon the sick and desperate. It's
really sad. But they sell hope (false hope) to those who are most desperate
for it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| PM |
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
hthexjccviwo@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: To a conventional physician, the tumor is the enemy.
Cancer is viewed as a local disease, namely the tumor. By cutting out
the tumor, irradiating it, or flooding the body with toxic (and often
carcinogenic) drugs, the conventional physician hopes to destroy the
tumor and restore the patient to health.
But all too often, the cancer is still present and has metastasized, or
re-occurs.
In contrast, the alternative physician regards cancer as one that
involves the whole body.
The tumor is merely a symptom and the cancer treatment aims to correct
the root causes of disease in the whole body.
How do the processes of metastasis or local recurrence show that a
tumour is merely a symptom of something else; -- and of what? -- that
is never specified in this common alternative argument. By
definition metastasis means something that has spread from a previously
localised cancer.
It also tells us nothing about the basic nature and causes of cancer.
The causes are innumerable, but they all seem to produce thus far
irreversible gene mutations in the cancer cell. Even these processes
may be localised to a specific organ or part thereof (e.g. cancer of
the bronchus in smokers and cervical cancer from HPV)..
It is true that conventional treatments don't always work, but this is
not because cancer is a "disease of the whole body". It is because
the cancer has spread to involve vital or inaccessible organs before it
is diagnosed. Nowadays, bad outcomes are not infrequently due to the
influence of this kind of misleading alternative propaganda, with
cancer sufferers not understanding that early and thorough treatment of
the local cancer is essential to have any chance of cure, as well as
preventing some horrific possibilities when the local cancer is allowed
to progress .
Metastases occcur in about fifty per cent or so of solid cancers.
Most cancers that don't can be readily cured. Even when metastasis
occurs, if it has not spread beyond the regional lymph glands there is
still a reasonable chance of cure with many types of cancer. Even some
distant metastases can be cured by the addition of chemotherapy (e.g.
testis and many childhood cancers) or surgical resection (e.g. colon
cancer secondaries in the liver).
There are many other overt lies and distortions on the page we are
directed to.
Before you buy these books, ask for a sample of their testimonials and
decide whether they really show what they are supposed to. I offer
some advice on how to do that on my web page.
Peter Moran
www.cancerwatcher.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jeff |
| Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The main difference between conventional and alternative cancer treatments
is that conventional cancer treatments cure something like 1/2 the patients.
And alternative treatments cure 0%.
Jeff |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:21 pm
|
|
