I was thinking how if the kid who is on the lam, running away from chemo, didn't have medical coverage the doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies would let him die.

A dear friend of mine died a few years back because she couldn't get medical treatment because she didn't have medical coverage.

I say we let people live and die as they see fit and use the savings to pay for medical care that other people want. That kid's chemo will probably cost a fortune.

Good trailer: [www.foodmatters.tv]

G'day!

Right on.

Lee,

This whole situation makes me so angry I want to spit. If I had children, I would sooner die than allow them to have chemo. Chemo feeds cancer. Period. I hope they make it to the Sanoviv Insitute and put that kid on Laetrile, pronto. I wish him and his mom, and his poor frightened father well, in any case.

It is so fundamentally wrong.

It is hard to believe we are still living in such barbaric times.

Chemo is very scary

I had six months of three chemo drugs when I had breast cancer.

Six years later, I am still alive.

My 12 year old daughter's friend got cancer the same time as me. She had chemo, but she died anyway.


Did the chemo help me?

I don't know

Would I still be ok if I hadn't done it?


I don't know

How much has it damaged me?

I don't know - but the nurse did tell me at one time, that I had received the life-time maximum dose of one of those drugs, and if I needed chemo again, they would have to use another drug because any more of that one would likely kill me.

Like I said, scary.

My heart goes out to the mom and the sick child. Nobody should ever have to face such hard choices.

Nobody should ever be forced to have someone else make those tough choices for them or their child.

Keep your laws off my body!!

We should all have certain basic freedoms and rights.

Hi pakd4fun:

Hope you are well!

I want to agree with you so much, everything in my body would like to hate chemo, but the doctors gave him a 80-90% survival with the chemo and a 5% without it.

That Native American treatment she wanted to replace it with might be perfectly effective, but I doubt that it has been properly tested or proven. In theory, I would like to agree with you, but in reality, when you are dealing with something as big as outright cancer, I think I would go with the traditional treatments in this case. The side effects must be so hard for those poor parents to watch, but sometimes we really have to just forge ahead.

Do you know that chemo is often utilized prior to surgery when they need to shrink a cancerous mass in order to make it easier to remove - I hate that it often works, but it seems that it does. Measureably.

Were the odds different, I might feel differently. If this was my son, I think I would do the chemo. It would tear my heart out, but I would have to do it. Those odds are too scary for me to take any risks.

Even raw foodists get cancer. We hope our choices are reducing the odds, but nobody has found the magic bullet yet.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2009 05:40AM by Sapphire.

Lee_123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I say we let people live and die as they see fit

Lee I agree with what you say when it comes to adults. But in this case we are talking about a young child.

Shrinking a tumor with chemotherapy does not initiate a cure:

"If you can shrink the tumor 50% or more for 28 days you have got the FDA's definition of an active drug. That is called a response rate, so you have a response...(but) when you look to see if there is any life prolongation from taking this treatment what you find is all kinds of hocus pocus and song and dance about the disease free survival, and this and that. In the end there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumor and extending the life of the patient."---Ralph Moss

I posted this in Other Topics under the "Farrah's Story" thread, but I'll repost this here:

[www.youtube.com]

I bought the DVD this is a preview for, and even though I knew a lot of this stuff because of my mother's cancer journey, I was still amazed at some of the information. Truly distressing.

Sapphire,

I see where you are coming from, however I do not agree.

When it is not you or your child, you shouldn't have any say in it and neither should anyone else. Who are you to say how anyone other than you or your minor children should live or even die? Those are personal choices.

I was very sick. My doctor sent me to test for cancer and then wanted to test further, I refused. Some time after that I noticed I had a large abdominal mass. I never did go back to the doctor. I knew I was very ill. I had to think long and hard about how I wanted to live and die. I would rather die the way nature would have it than have any invasive treatment. I thought a lot about my kids. My middle one was ill at her core also. I chose an alternative path for both of us and I am glad I did, Sure it could have come out differently and we would have accepted it. I don't think of dying as something to avoid at any cost. I think the cost on health chemo has is way too high and the stats on its true effectiveness has been way altered. How do you measure a survival rate? Did you noticed that the survival rate in this boys story was between chemo or with no treatment. It sounds like they hired an ad agency. They did not say other treatments, they said no treatment. As if going home and eating dig dongs till you die is in the same category as say a natural course of action. I am part of a statistic of survival, yet my doctor doesn't know if I lived or died, I never saw her again. How many patients that go to a naturopath or natural cure center and heal are counted in the statistics? My guess is very few, if any at all. My sister was "cured" of Leukemia last year by a magic pill her doctor gave her. She looks and feels like crap warmed over all the time. Her health is worse than ever. I healed myself naturally and my body has never been stronger. I mean I have abs you can bounce a coin on and I can outrun my 13 year old. Needless to say I was in terrible shape, dying, three years ago. My sis is a drug pushing nurse and I chose not to tell her how sick I was until I was clearly better. It is obvious our different choices created different outcomes, although we are both "cured" in our own definitions. I think she has lowered her life quality and expectancy while I have raised mine. Even if I had known I would die without certain treatments, I would have made the same choices. It is my fundamental right to make that choice and it should be everyones. These are basic rights.

75% OF THE PHYSICIANS REFUSES CHEMOTHERAPY THEMSELVES

The great lack of trust is evident even amongst doctors. Polls and questionnaires show that three doctors out of four (75 per cent) would refuse any chemotherapy because of its ineffectiveness against the disease and its devastating effects on the entire human organism. This is what many doctors and scientists have to say about chemotherapy:
“The majority of the cancer patients in this country die because of chemotherapy, which does not cure breast, colon or lung cancer. This has been documented for over a decade and nevertheless doctors still utilize chemotherapy to fight these tumors.” (Allen Levin, MD, UCSF, “The Healing of Cancer”, Marcus Books, 1990).

“If I were to contract cancer, I would never turn to a certain standard for the therapy of this disease. Cancer patients who stay away from these centers have some chance to make it.” (Prof. Gorge Mathe, “Scientific Medicine Stymied”, Medicines Nouvelles, Paris, 1989)

“Dr. Hardin Jones, lecturer at the University of California, after having analyzed for many decades statistics on cancer survival, has come to this conclusion: ‘… when not treated, the patients do not get worse or they even get better’. The unsettling conclusions of Dr. Jones have never been refuted”. (Walter Last, “The Ecologist”, Vol. 28, no. 2, March-April 1998)

“Many oncologists recommend chemotherapy for almost any type of cancer, with a faith that is unshaken by the almost constant failures”.(Albert Braverman, MD, “Medical Oncology in the 90s”, Lancet, 1991, Vol. 337, p. 901)

“Our most efficacious regimens are loaded with risks, side effects and practical problems; and after all the patients we have treated have paid the toll, only a miniscule percentage of them is paid off with an ephemeral period of tumoral regression and generally a partial one” (Edward G. Griffin “World Without Cancer”, American Media Publications, 1996)

“After all, and for the overwhelming majority of the cases, there is no proof whatsoever that chemotherapy prolongs survival expectations. And this is the great lie about this therapy, that there is a correlation between the reduction of cancer and the extension of the life of the patient”. (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)

“Several full-time scientists at the McGill Cancer Center sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used – while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy.” (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)

“Doctor Ulrich Able, a German epidemiologist of the Heidelberg Mannheim Tumor Clinic, has exhaustively analyzed and reviewed all the main studies and clinical experiments ever performed on chemotherapy .... Able discovered that the comprehensive world rate of positive outcomes because of chemotherapy was frightening, because, simply, nowhere was scientific evidence available demonstrating that chemotherapy is able to ‘prolong in any appreciable way the life of patients affected by the most common type of organ cancer.’ Able highlights that rarely can chemotherapy improve the quality of life, and he describes it as a scientific squalor while maintaining that at least 80 per cent of chemotherapy administered in the world is worthless. Even if there is no scientific proof whatsoever that chemotherapy works, neither doctors nor patients are prepared to give it up (Lancet, Aug. 10, 1991). None of the main media has ever mentioned this exhaustive study: it has been completely buried” (Tim O’Shea, “Chemotherapy – An Unproven Procedure”)
“According to medical associations, the notorious and dangerous side effects of drugs have become the fourth main cause of death after infarction, cancer, and apoplexy” ( Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998)
Also see: Chemo destroys brain cells
What a mockery of demmocracy forced chemo, freedumb not free, you have to buy it!

I don't think I would do chemo. My dad died from chemo (not cancer) ten years ago. If it were my kid -- tough one. One of my kids had cancer, but so far she hasn't needed chemo or radiation, just surgery. That was six years ago and so far, the cancer has not come back.

My dad had cancer and died. Once he started receiving the chemo he just faded away like someone turning down the switch on a dimmer light. The chemo poison just knocked the stuffins out of him and he was always a healthy and robust man all his life. To this day I wonder if it was the cancer or the chemo that killed him ?

For me, it's not about whether chemo is right for this kid or for you or for anyone. I think adults should have the right to decide and childen with the guidance and veto power of parents should decide, in consultation with doctors, how they will proceed.

Maybe chemo IS the right thing for this kid. Maybe not. But it should be up to his parents to have the final say.

Why is the government continually siding with the for-profit medical system?

Follow the money. That is what the current case is about. Right now we have a government by the corporations and for the corporations.

If the family is being forced to be treated by chemo,the court should at least pay for it. Then things would change.

C. Dove,

I agree with you in principle, but since our taxes pay for the courts' operation, it would be we who would pay for that boy's enforced chemo. I would refuse to be a party to that, as, unlike EZ rider above, I know that chemo killed my mother. Most of her body was cancer free when her organs started to fail because her toxified liver was shunting chemoreagents to her brain and frying it. I am dreading what that boy is going to experience, and what else his body will suffer ten years hence as a result. I would not want to pay for that, so help me god.

Tamukha,

We are paying the courts to force chemo on people, what would the difference if we pay for the actual chemo?

I don't want to be a party to many things my Government makes me pay for.

Hey again pakd,

just one thing...

you said: Did you noticed that the survival rate in this boys story was between chemo or with no treatment.

Absolutely right - if someone was able to present me any alternative treatment with a proven success rate higher than 80 % the choice would be so simple.

Also, sorry, I never meant to suggest that chemo alone is the solution to cancer, just that it is effective in shrinking tumors when it is needed for that purpose. (surgery) As the single defense against cancer, it makes no sense, because by the time you administer enough chemo to wipe out the cancer, you will have wiped out the patient!! My sincere condolences to all who have been harmed or lost loved ones to chemo. I can only imagine what that must have been like to go through, and of course, my perspective would be so much different after having a different outcome. Your anger and outrage is completely justified.

Again, my support of the chemo is entirely based on the 80% number, if the number was different, my opinion would probably be different.

For me, I would probably be much more drawn to a Gerson-type therapy than a Native American one, just because I don't know of cancer being rampant in the Native-American population over their history, whereas Gerson has been specifically aimed at that problem for some time.

Hey Sapphire,

We need more testing done on alternative treatments so we can have a greater understanding of our choices.

Marijuana has shown to reduce tumors. This plant has shown to have amazing healing qualities and yet for weird social reasons we are not utilizing it. How many alternative treatments are out there? Hundreds? More?

Whichever alternative or otherwise treatment you choose should always be your choice.

Thanks for your posts, insight and opinions. I hope my passion for this issue came across as just that, passion.

Peace,
Pakd

Hi Pakd:

I think your passion is terrific, it's a great quality to have and it just makes you a more interesting person.

And, I totally agree with you. I guess one of my reasons for being a bit traditional is that when I was sick, there was so much stuff out there which was nothing but a bunch of charlatons, preying on desperate people, It's still out there. It would be so much better if there was a proper way to separate the reality from the hocus pocus. Until then, it would take a lot to convince me about many of the alternative treatments.

I am a very strong believer in preventitive action though. It's not all that mysterious. Eat as healthy as you can. Exercise, Get sunshine. Take supplements if you think you need them. Try to be happy. Nobody needs to pay a guru to help them do any of this, it's simple common sense. I think you and me are on exactly the same page on that one.

Well, gotta go to the gym - have a GREAT day!

I really feel for the parents on this situation, I think the judge was so wrong to take the parents power away from them. In the matter of law, if a girl of the same age were to have an abortion or have any other female issues the parents are not informed. The girl can make these decisions on there own without parental involvement. In fact the health providers are legally bound to not inform parents. The choice is up to the girl and a very young age. It is wrong for a judge to say the boy was not able to make such a decision for his health.

My mother died a horrid death from breast cancer, The cancer grew like a hard turtle shell on her chest. The chemo did nothing for her that I could see. My father tried to change her diet and fed her many vitamons and I could see that the wheatgrass juice and other juices really helped her.

From what I have seen in myself with eating a raw food diet I can tell the body wants to heal itself if given the proper environment.

I feel for those parents and hope they have the best of luck