petemcewan   27 #1 Posted February 25, 2018 (edited) https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/conventional-cancer-treatment-never-cure-cancer/  Why do these people tout these treatments and dismiss standard treatment protocols ?  If I was to put their arguments to the Consultant supervising my partner's cancer treatment (Western Park). How far would I get before I'd be shown the door ?  Am I right in thinking that more people than ever before are surving their cancer because of improvements in standard cancer treatment ? Edited February 25, 2018 by petemcewan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
ANGELFIRE1 Â Â 10 #2 Posted February 25, 2018 https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/conventional-cancer-treatment-never-cure-cancer/Â Why do these people tout these treatments and dismiss standard treatment protocols ? Â If I was to put their arguments to the Consultant supervising my partner's cancer treatment (Western Park). How far would I get before I'd be shown the door ? Am I right in thinking that more people than ever before are surving their cancer because of improvements in standard cancer treatment ? Â I think you have answered your own question. I hope your partner finds a cure whatever treatment is used. Â Angel1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
*_ash_* Â Â 88 #3 Posted February 25, 2018 https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/conventional-cancer-treatment-never-cure-cancer/Â Why do these people tout these treatments and dismiss standard treatment protocols ? Â If I was to put their arguments to the Consultant supervising my partner's cancer treatment (Western Park). How far would I get before I'd be shown the door ? Â Am I right in thinking that more people than ever before are surving their cancer because of improvements in standard cancer treatment ? Â I think it's actually a balance between better equipment/drugs (like rays that can be very precise with aim etc. (though a terrible medical way of putting it)), but also because catching things earlier is more common due to more knowledge/funds/advertising etc. Â Also, all the best to your partner. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Anna B Â Â 1,414 #4 Posted February 25, 2018 We don't have the best results for treating cancer, so it might be a good idea to see what methods those countries with better results than us use. Â As Ash says, early detection is important, and that seems to vary in spite of nationwide targets. I also think a healthy lifestyle is important, but I 've known some people with very healthy lifestyles sadly still get cancer. There seems to be a growing tendency in the media to try and 'blame' the unfortunate sufferer for contracting the disease in the first place which is most unfair. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Longcol   604 #5 Posted February 25, 2018 https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/conventional-cancer-treatment-never-cure-cancer/ Why do these people tout these treatments and dismiss standard treatment protocols ?   Because they're trying to flog you stuff - look at the number of adverts on the page.  It's a slightly more up market than usual conspiracy theory website - the downmarket ones always advocate cannabis as a cure for all cancer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
onewheeldave   22 #6 Posted February 25, 2018 (edited) What twaddle, a healthy diet can help lessen the chance of you getting certain cancers, show me the medical proof that fruit and veg can cure?  Yes, a healthy diet certainly reduces the risk of getting cancer- plenty of evidence for that. Equally, several aspects of the more standard diet are now known to cause cancer, we now know, for example, that processed meat is a group 1 carcinogen. Edited February 26, 2018 by onewheeldave Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
ENG601PM Â Â 10 #7 Posted February 25, 2018 Yes, a healthy diet certainly reduces the risk of getting cancer- plenty of evidence for that. Equally, several aspects of the more standard diet are now known to cause cancer, we now know, for example, that processed meat is a class 1 carcinogen. Â Causation and prevention aren't opposite sides of the same coin. Unless you're taking about actual serious carcinogens like uranium or asbestos or even tobacco the most that you can claim is that certain foodstuffs *may* increase risk by a small degree in *some* people if they ingest large amounts, but your genetics are going to have much more effect than food so you'd best get those tested first. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
onewheeldave   22 #8 Posted February 25, 2018 Causation and prevention aren't opposite sides of the same coin. Unless you're taking about actual serious carcinogens like uranium or asbestos or even tobacco the most that you can claim is that certain foodstuffs *may* increase risk by a small degree in *some* people if they ingest large amounts, but your genetics are going to have much more effect than food so you'd best get those tested first. I should have said 'Group 1', not 'class 1'. Processed meat is a group 1 one carcinogen, that doesn't refer to the severity of the cancer risk, but, to the strength of the scientific evidence for it being carcinogenic. In this case the evidence is as good as it gets.  The World Health Organisation estimate that each 50 grams of processed meat consumed per day leads to an increased risk of colorectal cancer of 18%. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
pattricia   575 #9 Posted February 26, 2018 We are on the cusp of a new treatment for cancer. This will involve injecting antibodies into a person with cancer which will attack the cancer cells . Until then chemo is still the best treatment and we have in Sheffield one of the best hospitals for cancer treatment which is Weston Park. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
ENG601PM   10 #10 Posted February 26, 2018 I should have said 'Group 1', not 'class 1'. Processed meat is a group 1 one carcinogen, that doesn't refer to the severity of the cancer risk, but, to the strength of the scientific evidence for it being carcinogenic. In this case the evidence is as good as it gets. The World Health Organisation estimate that each 50 grams of processed meat consumed per day leads to an increased risk of colorectal cancer of 18%. That's true, but you still haven't understood the context of the risk.  Some other Group 1 carcinogens are alcohol, vehicle exhaust, painting and decorating, being a steel worker, hepatitis B, the contraceptive pill, and the sun!!!  And you're worried about sausages!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
willman   10 #11 Posted February 26, 2018 A friend of mine decided to go down the "faith healing" route - in that he had faith in the nuts he grazed on all day, he had faith in loosing 3 stone in a matter of months due to the diet. After his initial diagnosis he didn't visit a GP or hospital until his last days with us. The man was an idiot imho,who had chosen to die and decided not to fight it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Halibut   12 #12 Posted February 26, 2018 A friend of mine decided to go down the "faith healing" route - in that he had faith in the nuts he grazed on all day, he had faith in loosing 3 stone in a matter of months due to the diet. After his initial diagnosis he didn't visit a GP or hospital until his last days with us. The man was an idiot imho,who had chosen to die and decided not to fight it.  Or perhaps he was very brave... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...