[quote]entheogens wrote:
BigKDawg wrote:
I damn near guarentee if you saw a research study utilizing the Budwig protocol as first line treatment for cancer, the results would be nothing short of amazing. The likelihood of that happening… Zero. Nada. Zilch. The whole purpose of the ACS is to make sure of the continued existence of cancer. Think about it, if cancer wasnt around, then the ACS would have no reason to even exist and utilize its “cutting-edge” therapies of chemo, radiation and surgery (Im sorry I just cant stop laughing or crying as a result of the patheticness of that last statement) Ive seen far too many people go down that path with nothing but negative connotations to realize that chemo and radiation in the treatment of cancer is for the most part, completely and utterly worthless. This is coming from a nurse tech (soon to be nurse) working on an oncology unit.
BigKDawg: Yes, and part of me can understand this. I’ve seen in my own work, projects contiune and be expanded, not due to their usefullness but just because some people feared for their own jobs and/or position of power and happened to have the political clout to do so. So this problem is ubiquitous. That’s bad enough, but it is a tragedy when that happens in a way that is affecting the health and life of people.
And, then, too, when we hear that there has been a study confirming the usefulness and safety of a given drug, we assume it must be true (who has time to hunt down and read all these studies!). However, just last week I read about how Merck sponsored studies in which they had their own people write up the report and conclusions and then just had some big name doctors come and put their name on the studies. This apparently was the case with the now infamous Vioxx. I am not criticizing good triple blind studies by any means. However, it’s apparent that some of these purported objective studies are not that objective, as in the case of Vioxx.
From my undestanding (correct me if I am wrong), nutritional studies are some of the most difficult to conduct, because they must take place over a fairly long period of time outside of a laboratory setting and how can one control for all the things that a subject might eat, take, do etc during that time.
Anyway, glad to get the input from someone with a strong background in oncology such as you have. I will be thinking about some of these things you have posted.
[/quote]
Dont quote me as being traditionally anti-MD. Its just I am results based and if I were to consult with anyone who has cancer on what questions to ask their doctor, one of the first ones would be “What has been your track record with treating this kind of cancer?” Sad to say, at least looking at the statistics with an objective bias, you would find that chemotherapy and radiation are both largely ineffectual for the vast majority of cancers (90+%), not to mention that those that choose the conventional BIG 3 (Chemo,Rad, Surgery) often suffer an immeasureable drop in their quality of life which I have seen far too often which both saddens me and angers me that I’m working in a broken system where the real solutions are scoffed at, humilated, or viciously attacked. Its true of course your gonna have your individuals who tolerate the treatment and end up cancer-free but these are more the exceptions than the rule.
Dont think for a second that the ACS hasnt used its sway and influence to subjegate the monopoly of conventional medicine over the years to destroy or discredit legitimate alternative options. The biggest problem with many people in regards to healing from cancer is that the measures to which you will have to change often are more than people are willing to accept. Change often can be a bitch, but if you are diagnosed with cancer, you better be quick to adapt to it. What would I do if I ever got diagnosed with cancer? Thats for another discussion 
